Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
>
> Virtual resolution is a feature of XFree86. It allows you to work
> on a larger space than the actual resolution of your display. It
> works almost exactly as if you had a display with better resolution.
> I don't think you can really disable it, but you can avoid noticing
> it by setting the virtual resolution to be the same as your actual
> resolution. Just put "Virtual xdim ydim" in you Display entry in
> XF86Config. (If you don't know the actual dimension of your display
> you can use xdpyinfo to find out).
>
> Virtual desktops if a feature offered my many window managers to
> allow you several different workspaces with the set resolution.
> twm doesn't offer this, so I guess you must be talking about the
> virtual resoultion.
>
> | Now back to my problem. What I see after I started X is the desktop
> | which is *larger* than the size of the screen and I have to move the
> | mouse a long distance to get to other parts of the desktop. I experience
> | this phenomenon in every (if I remembered correctly) window manager I
> | tried: twm, fvwm95, kwm(kde) and I have a small real desktop :)
> | What I'd like to have is a desktop that has the same size as my screen.
>
> Yup. Just set the virtual resolution to the same as the real. If you
> delete the "virtual" entry (as you did), it will be set to accomodate
> all the modelines, which may not be what you want.
>
> --
> .elOle.
Thanks. I got it. This is what I observed.
I change the "Display" subsection of my XF86Config to this:
Subsection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
Virtual 1024 768
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
I got desktop = screen (that's what I want) as I start up X but when I
change to a lower resolution mode by <Crtl>+<Alt>+<Keypad+> I have a
desktop larger than my screen. I found out that while Modes can accept
several arguments, Virtual can only accept one pair. I've tried several
"Display" subsections but then I can no longer use
<Crtl>+<Alt>+<Keypad+> to change resolution.
So we can't have the best of both worlds. Is this observation correct?
Regards,
ST
--
