<quote who="Craig Dickson"> > I have never tried to use X on anything less than 1024x768, but why > should it be any worse than running MS Windows at the same > resolution? (Purely considered as a graphical display -- ignore the > issue of MS Windows crashing left and right.)
everything in X is big. run for an hour or 2 in 800x600 doing whatever it is you normally do and you'll probably run into several hard spots trying to access a part of an application thats off the screen. if all you do is xterm stuff its not really an issue. but for browsers, and other apps its painful. i had to work on a thinkpad 600 for about a month almost a year ago(max 800x600). had to turn off my afterstep wharf and my afterstep pager(virtual desktop manager) in order to use it. even then it was painful. ive seen redhat on the laptop since with gnome and its even worse with gnome. i can barely function in 1024x768 with X(what my current laptop can do). even with that theres not much real estate to work with. a good screenshot on how i overlap a bunch of my X apps : http://portal.aphroland.org/~aphro/graphics/x-desktop-screenshot-05-09-2001.jpg that is a 1280x1024 shot. damn. realized i haven't rebooted since i took that screenshot :) i do have one system that runs 640x480. but all it does is Xawtv fullscreen, no keyboard no mouse. Xawtv runs 24/7 nate
