On 14.10.05 15:39:05, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Because that's the normal xinerama-thing to do when there is a > > non-rectangular layout. Xinerama takes the width of both heads+the > > maximum height and creates a desktop from this. And then it opens the 2 > > viewports, when one is non-virtual and smaller than his "part" of the > > desktop, a piece of the desktop can't be accessed. > > I'm still not quite sure exactly what you'd like to achieve
I just want the minimum scrolling-around possible and that scrolling takes place on the CRT, as it's extremely disturbing on the Laptop display (which I work on). > and why XFree86 was closer to it than X.Org, but my best guess so far > is that it's because X.Org now actually knows a 1680x1050 mode for the > CRT, XFree86 was close, because I could use the full 1600 pixel in width and the full height (which would be 1050)... I think XFree86 might also have set up my monitor for 1680x1050 if I had told it to (via a proper Modes line). > whereas XFree86 didn't. If you change the SubSection "Display" of > "Screen1" to something like > > SubSection "Display" > Depth 24 > Modes "1400x1050" # change to the mode you want on the CRT > Virtual 1680 1050 > EndSubSection > > Does that come closer to what you want? ATM I again can't check, but... > If not, please provide an XFree86 logfile for comparison. That could be a problem :-( It seems that I have 3 log files left, one from a try with Radeon's MergedFB, one from another location where a 17" monitor as 2nd head is used and a last one that seems to use 1400x1050 but I'm pretty sure that I did not have to scroll 200 or 280 pixel to the left... As I currently have the benefit of having dsl here I'll setup a small Sarge system using XFree86 and get a fresh log on Sunday. I'll also test with X.org the 1400x1050 then. Andreas -- Good day to deal with people in high places; particularly lonely stewardesses. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
