Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

XFree resolutions

Expand Messages
  • Søren Madsen
    Hi! Im having trouble running XFree in anything other than 1600x1200. I want to change using + and -, but when the resolutions is at anything other
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 11, 2003
      Hi!

      Im having trouble running XFree in anything other than 1600x1200. I
      want to change using <ctrl><alt>+ and -, but when the resolutions is
      at anything other than 1600x1200, I get a messed up display. It seems
      that some refreshrate or something is wrong, as the display is
      "shifted"...
      Have anyone got some modelines or anything else which I can put it my
      XF86Config-4 file?
      Im using a I8200 with ATI btw...

      Thanks!
    • Peter Hayes
      ... You don t say what the native resolution of your display is. If it is 1600x1200 you don t want to run it at anything else because even at best it ll look
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 12, 2003
        On Wednesday 12 February 2003 07:12, Søren Madsen wrote:
        > Hi!
        >
        > Im having trouble running XFree in anything other than 1600x1200. I
        > want to change using <ctrl><alt>+ and -, but when the resolutions is
        > at anything other than 1600x1200, I get a messed up display. It seems
        > that some refreshrate or something is wrong, as the display is
        > "shifted"...
        > Have anyone got some modelines or anything else which I can put it my
        > XF86Config-4 file?
        > Im using a I8200 with ATI btw...

        You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it is
        1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even at best
        it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one resolution only.

        Sorry, that's perhaps not the answer you wanted...

        Peter
      • Søren Madsen
        ... best ... resolution only. Yes, it is 1600x1200. But this is way too high to be using in a shaky train. It would be nice to be able to switch to something
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 12, 2003
          > You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it is
          > 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even at
          best
          > it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one
          resolution only.

          Yes, it is 1600x1200. But this is way too high to be using in a shaky
          train. It would be nice to be able to switch to something lower,
          eventhough it looks like crap...
          And it looks to be a matter of a modeline or something, but I cant get
          xvidtune to work, so if anyone have any ideas, Ill greatly appreciate
          them...

          Regards,
          Søren Madsen
        • bowbagson <bowbag@optonline.net>
          Have you tried just changing the font sizes? In most newer window managers its pretty easy to do. I originally thought 1600x1200 was going to be too small
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 12, 2003
            Have you tried just changing the font sizes? In most newer window
            managers its pretty easy to do. I originally thought 1600x1200 was
            going to be too small for a meer 15 inch screen but by altering the
            fonts it really makes no difference how high a resolution you run.
            You can also change the DPI in web browsers, Mozilla for example
            supports this.


            --- In linux-dell-laptops@yahoogroups.com, Søren Madsen <Soeren@M...>
            <Soeren@M...> wrote:
            >
            > > You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If
            it is
            > > 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even
            at
            > best
            > > it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one
            > resolution only.
            >
            > Yes, it is 1600x1200. But this is way too high to be using in a
            shaky
            > train. It would be nice to be able to switch to something lower,
            > eventhough it looks like crap...
            > And it looks to be a matter of a modeline or something, but I cant
            get
            > xvidtune to work, so if anyone have any ideas, Ill greatly
            appreciate
            > them...
            >
            > Regards,
            > Søren Madsen
          • Søren Madsen
            ... But it is very tedious to do, compared to pressing 4 buttons at the same time... Regards, Søren Madsen
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 12, 2003
              --- In linux-dell-laptops@yahoogroups.com, "bowbagson <bowbag@o...>"
              <bowbag@o...> wrote:
              > Have you tried just changing the font sizes? In most newer window
              > managers its pretty easy to do. I originally thought 1600x1200 was
              > going to be too small for a meer 15 inch screen but by altering the
              > fonts it really makes no difference how high a resolution you run.
              > You can also change the DPI in web browsers, Mozilla for example
              > supports this.

              But it is very tedious to do, compared to pressing 4 buttons at the
              same time...

              Regards,
              Søren Madsen
            • Brian Sammon
              ... 800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to each virtual-pixel. I haven t tried it though.
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 15, 2003
                > You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it is=20
                > 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even at best=20
                > it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one resolution only.

                800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to each
                virtual-pixel.
                I haven't tried it though.
              • brian3246753 <brian_sammon@bigfoot.com>
                ... 800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to each virtual-pixel. I haven t tried it though.
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 15, 2003
                  > You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it i
                  > 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even at
                  > it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one resolutio

                  800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to
                  each virtual-pixel.
                  I haven't tried it though.
                • Peter Hayes
                  ... I wondered about that also, but what a waste of a superb display :) Maybe, as the OP wants to use it on the train, it might not be such a bad idea. Peter
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 18, 2003
                    On Saturday 15 February 2003 23:58, "brian3246753 wrote:
                    > > You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it i
                    > > 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even at
                    > > it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one resolutio
                    >
                    > 800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to
                    > each virtual-pixel.
                    > I haven't tried it though.

                    I wondered about that also, but what a waste of a superb display :)

                    Maybe, as the OP wants to use it on the train, it might not be such a bad
                    idea.

                    Peter
                  • lorentey+linux-dell-laptop@elte.hu
                    ... Actually, the hardware scaling of my I8200 s nVidia GeForce4 440 Go manages to blur everything below 1600x1200, including 800x600. It s not bad though,
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 25, 2003
                      Brian Sammon <brians+@...> writes:
                      >> You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it
                      >> is 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even
                      >> at best it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one
                      >> resolution only.
                      >
                      > 800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to
                      > each virtual-pixel. I haven't tried it though.

                      Actually, the hardware scaling of my I8200's nVidia GeForce4 440 Go
                      manages to blur everything below 1600x1200, including 800x600. It's
                      not bad though, the fuzzy look reminds me of CRTs. :-)

                      --
                      Károly Lőrentey
                    • Hamish Morgan
                      That s why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so it doesn t blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren t a division of
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 26, 2003
                        That's why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so it
                        doesn't blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren't a
                        division of 1600x1200.

                        hamish

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: lorentey+linux-dell-laptop@...
                        [mailto:lorentey+linux-dell-laptop@...]
                        Sent: 26 February 2003 00:35
                        To: linux-dell-laptops@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [linux-dell-laptops] Re: XFree resolutions


                        Brian Sammon <brians+@...> writes:
                        >> You don't say what the native resolution of your display is. If it
                        >> is 1600x1200 you don't want to run it at anything else because even
                        >> at best it'll look poor. LCDs are like that, they're built for one
                        >> resolution only.
                        >
                        > 800x600 should look quite decent, with exactly four real-pixels to
                        > each virtual-pixel. I haven't tried it though.

                        Actually, the hardware scaling of my I8200's nVidia GeForce4 440 Go
                        manages to blur everything below 1600x1200, including 800x600. It's
                        not bad though, the fuzzy look reminds me of CRTs. :-)

                        --
                        Károly Lőrentey


                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        Please post your X config files in the group links or database
                        To unsubscribe, email: linux-dell-laptops-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        FAQ: http://www.whacked.net/ldl/faq

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Everything you'll ever need on one web page
                        from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
                        http://uk.my.yahoo.com
                      • Oliver Kuegow
                        Hi Hamish! ... The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR, not by the graphics adaptor. So even your newest bad-ass ATI Radeon 1000000
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 26, 2003
                          Hi Hamish!

                          On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Hamish Morgan wrote:

                          > That's why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so it
                          > doesn't blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren't a
                          > division of 1600x1200.
                          The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR, not by
                          the graphics adaptor. So even your newest bad-ass ATI Radeon 1000000
                          wouldn't make any difference if you had a crappy screen.

                          Olli
                        • David Carlton
                          ... I don t see why the graphics card can t make a difference: the graphics card would just have to spend the monitor a 1600x1200 picture. There are clever
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003
                            On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:52:49 +0100, Oliver Kuegow <ok@...> said:
                            > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Hamish Morgan wrote:

                            >> That's why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so it
                            >> doesn't blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren't a
                            >> division of 1600x1200.

                            > The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR, not by
                            > the graphics adaptor. So even your newest bad-ass ATI Radeon
                            > 1000000 wouldn't make any difference if you had a crappy screen.

                            I don't see why the graphics card can't make a difference: the
                            graphics card would just have to spend the monitor a 1600x1200
                            picture. There are clever ways and not-so-clever ways to turn a
                            1280x1024 (or whatever) picture into a 1600x1200 picture; the monitor
                            might choose a not-so-clever way, but if the graphics card is willing
                            to do the work itself, it can take matters into its own hands and
                            choose a clever way.

                            David Carlton
                            carlton@...
                          • W.K. Vladmir Ward
                            They have a Radeon 1000000 now? Sweeeeeet.... :P Oliver Kuegow wrote:Hi Hamish! ... The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR,
                            Message 13 of 14 , Feb 27, 2003

                              They have a Radeon 1000000 now? Sweeeeeet.... :P

                               Oliver Kuegow <ok@...> wrote:

                              Hi Hamish!

                              On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Hamish Morgan wrote:

                              > That's why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so it
                              > doesn't blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren't a
                              > division of 1600x1200.
                              The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR, not by
                              the graphics adaptor.  So even your newest bad-ass ATI Radeon 1000000
                              wouldn't make any difference if you had a crappy screen.

                              Olli


                              --------------------------------------------------------------
                              Please post your X config files in the group links or database
                              To unsubscribe, email: linux-dell-laptops-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              FAQ: http://www.whacked.net/ldl/faq


                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                              "Walking side by side with death, the devil mocks their every step
                              The snow drives back the foot that's slow, the dogs of doom are howling more
                              They carry news that must get through, to build a dream for me and you
                              They choose the path where no-one goes."

                              -Led Zeppelin, "No Quarter"



                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

                            • Hamish Morgan
                              Hi OlliI definitely heard somewhere that the ATI RADEON MOBILITY 9000 has functionality that allows it to render funny resolutions on an LCD screen than you
                              Message 14 of 14 , Feb 28, 2003
                                Hi Olli

                                I definitely heard somewhere that the ATI RADEON MOBILITY 9000
                                has functionality that allows it to render funny resolutions on
                                an LCD screen than you would normally get. If you have ever
                                used Photoshop or any other decent image manipulation program
                                you would know that there are different function to resize an
                                image: e.g. Nearest neighbour (bad but fast) and Bicubic (good
                                but slow). It seems quite possible to me that ATI have
                                implemented a better interpolation function into their card. It
                                also seems quite possible that I'm just making it up (trying to
                                justify spending 50% more for the ATI) :P

                                Hamish

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Oliver Kuegow [mailto:ok@...]
                                Sent: 27 February 2003 06:53
                                To: linux-dell-laptops@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [linux-dell-laptops] Re: XFree resolutions


                                Hi Hamish!

                                On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Hamish Morgan wrote:

                                > That's why I went for the ATI RADEO 9000, which has clever processing so
                                it
                                > doesn't blur when you switch to a lower res - even ones that aren't a
                                > division of 1600x1200.
                                The blurring is a result of interpolarization by the MONTIOR, not by
                                the graphics adaptor. So even your newest bad-ass ATI Radeon 1000000
                                wouldn't make any difference if you had a crappy screen.

                                Olli

                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT




                                --------------------------------------------------------------
                                Please post your X config files in the group links or database
                                To unsubscribe, email: linux-dell-laptops-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                FAQ: http://www.whacked.net/ldl/faq

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Everything you'll ever need on one web page
                                from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
                                http://uk.my.yahoo.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.