Second call for X testers.

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:00:50PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > I think it is redundant for the user.  Why would they want to specify a
> > > different set of modes than what their hardware can do?
> >
> > virtual desktop? we don't know and we can't assume what they want to do.
> > Perhaps they don't even know. Also we can't guess the vertical frequency
> > and that's a problem. The horizontal one has a ratio to 20:1 with the
> > resolution (more or less... see changelog) and can be calculated.
>
> We can assume that the if the user wants to do something so exceedingly
> rare, they will edit the config file.  This kind of setup is much less
> common than, for example, multi-head.

no really Matt, we need to ask the question for the monitor resolution.
Talking with Branden about different monitors (when i commited a fix to a
sanity check), it come out that there are monitors with all kind of crap.
Single frequency monitors, decimal frequency monitors (like 50,5 Hz) and
so on. I really don't want to assume anything and that's why there are
tons of fallbacks into the scripts we implemented.

> > yeps.. it selected 800x600 as resolution and 1024x768 as virtual size.
>
> But why?  Can it be fixed?  "1024x768" was lised in the config, but it
> sounds like it did not find a default mode for it?

I will need to check all the logs and see.

Fabio

-- 
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.