On 02/02/2013 11:40 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
You didn't mention what type of video hardware you have or I just couldn't find
that message.
The monitor in question was a Viewsonic VX2035WM spec'd to work
at 1680x1050 @60Hz.
the video is on board, apparently ATI-Radeon and the
On 01/28/2013 04:54 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> xrandr -q
>
>No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much higher.
>
>[root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q
>Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024 x
On 02/02/2013 02:17 PM, Jon Ingason wrote:
> 2013-01-28 01:31, poma skrev:
>
>>
>> Automation in da display manager style:
>> /etc/lightdm/lightdm.conf:
>> display-setup-script=/usr/bin/RandR
>> …
>
> Where can I put such scipt if I am running gdm in F18 (Gnome 3.x)?
>
/etc/gdm/Init/Default:
…
2013-01-28 01:31, poma skrev:
Automation in da display manager style:
/etc/lightdm/lightdm.conf:
display-setup-script=/usr/bin/RandR
…
Where can I put such scipt if I am running gdm in F18 (Gnome 3.x)?
/usr/bin/RandR:
#!/bin/sh
# ViewSonic VX2035wm
xrandr --newmode "1680x1050R" 119.00 1680
On 01/27/2013 08:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> xrandr -q
>
> No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much higher.
>
> [root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q
> Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 102
On 01/28/2013 05:44 AM, David wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 11:21 PM, poma wrote:
>> On 01/28/2013 03:02 AM, David wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2013 7:31 PM, poma wrote:
On 01/27/2013 09:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> xrandr -q
>
>
On 1/27/2013 11:21 PM, poma wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 03:02 AM, David wrote:
>> On 1/27/2013 7:31 PM, poma wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2013 09:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> xrandr -q
No that just shows the same thing, the equipme
On 01/28/2013 03:02 AM, David wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 7:31 PM, poma wrote:
>> On 01/27/2013 09:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
xrandr -q
>>>
>>> No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much
>>> higher.
>>>
>>> [root@
Bob Goodwin:
> I've just changed a monitor and need to set the resolution to 1680 x
> 1050 @60Hz [ViewSonic VX2035WM].
>
> XFCE display settings offers nothing higher than 1024 x 758 @60Hz
> which it seems to default to.
>
> The Gigabyte motherboard shows a max. of 1920 x 1200.
When I installed
On 1/27/2013 10:06 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 06:02 PM, David wrote:
>> Or? Well you could use a distro that actually works without searching
>> Google and volumes of text files.
>
> Bad or missing resolutions are pretty much always invalid EDID
> information provided by the hardwar
On 01/27/2013 06:02 PM, David wrote:
Or? Well you could use a distro that actually works without searching
Google and volumes of text files.
Bad or missing resolutions are pretty much always invalid EDID
information provided by the hardware. Windows tends to use information
provided by the I
On 1/27/2013 9:33 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 09:02:21PM -0500, David wrote:
>>
>> Or? Well you could use a distro that actually works without searching
>> Google and volumes of text files.
>>
>> Seems like if 'Linux is now supposed to appeal to the 'great unwashed
>> masses' th
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 09:02:21PM -0500, David wrote:
>
> Or? Well you could use a distro that actually works without searching
> Google and volumes of text files.
>
> Seems like if 'Linux is now supposed to appeal to the 'great unwashed
> masses' that it should make it easy for them to use Linu
On 1/27/2013 7:31 PM, poma wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 09:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>> xrandr -q
>>
>> No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much
>> higher.
>>
>> [root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q Screen 0: minimum
On 01/27/2013 09:54 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> xrandr -q
>
> No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much
> higher.
>
> [root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200,
> current 1024 x 768, maximum
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:54:32 -0500
"Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA" wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> > xrandr -q
>
> No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much
> higher.
>
> [root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q
> Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024
On 1/27/2013 4:07 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 03:35 PM, David wrote:
>> It does not really make any difference but I have found a different
>> Linux distribution, one of the ones that I mentioned in my first
>> post, that actually finds and configures my monitor. It
On 1/27/2013 4:28 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 03:35 PM, David wrote:
>> On 1/27/2013 1:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. Thanks.
>>
>> I stuck around for several releases hoping that someone would fix this.
>> But no. Nothing.
>>
>> It does not really make any difference
On 01/27/2013 03:35 PM, David wrote:
On 1/27/2013 1:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2013 19:04, schrieb David:
When the application named system-config-display was still available
it would allow the setting to be configured correctly. Since the wizards
at Fedora killed it that is no l
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 03:54:32PM -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> >xrandr -q
>
>No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much higher.
>
>[root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q
>Screen 0: minimum 320 x
On 01/27/2013 03:35 PM, David wrote:
It does not really make any difference but I have found a different
Linux distribution, one of the ones that I mentioned in my first post,
that actually finds and configures my monitor. It has done so for years.
It finds it as a 'Generic' monitor but all of th
On 01/27/2013 01:57 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
xrandr -q
No that just shows the same thing, the equipment is rated much higher.
[root@Box9 xorg.conf.d]# xrandr -q
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024 x 768, maximum 8192 x 8192
DVI-0 disconnected (normal left inverted ri
On 1/27/2013 1:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 27.01.2013 19:04, schrieb David:
>> When the application named system-config-display was still available
>> it would allow the setting to be configured correctly. Since the wizards
>> at Fedora killed it that is no longer an option
>
> welc
On 01/27/2013 01:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ to place whatever you need
for xorg.conf parts like in my case xvnc
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/02-vnc.conf
Section "Module"
Load"vnc"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Option
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:50:49AM -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
>I've just changed a monitor and need to set the resolution to 1680 x
>1050 @60Hz [ViewSonic VX2035WM].
>
>XFCE display settings offers nothing higher than 1024 x 758 @60Hz
>which it seems to defaul
Am 27.01.2013 19:26, schrieb Bob Goodwin - Zuni:
> On 01/27/2013 01:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 27.01.2013 19:04, schrieb David:
>>> When the application named system-config-display was still available
>>> it would allow the setting to be configured correctly. Since the wizards
>>> a
On 01/27/2013 01:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 27.01.2013 19:04, schrieb David:
When the application named system-config-display was still available
it would allow the setting to be configured correctly. Since the wizards
at Fedora killed it that is no longer an option
welcome to the new
Am 27.01.2013 19:04, schrieb David:
> When the application named system-config-display was still available
> it would allow the setting to be configured correctly. Since the wizards
> at Fedora killed it that is no longer an option
welcome to the new "all is working automatically" attitude
On 1/27/2013 11:50 AM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>I've just changed a monitor and need to set the resolution to 1680 x
>1050 @60Hz [ViewSonic VX2035WM].
>
>XFCE display settings offers nothing higher than 1024 x 758 @60Hz
>which it seems to default to.
>
>The Gi
I've just changed a monitor and need to set the resolution to 1680 x
1050 @60Hz [ViewSonic VX2035WM].
XFCE display settings offers nothing higher than 1024 x 758 @60Hz
which it seems to default to.
The Gigabyte motherboard shows a max. of 1920 x 1200. I looked in
the BIOS setti
30 matches
Mail list logo
