Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen. - Portable

This is a discussion on Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen. - Portable ; I have a Compaq R4000, and when I set the video higher then 1280x800 it gets bigger, only bigger then my screen and I have to pan around to get to the corners. I'm running Windows XP SP2 and would ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

  1. Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

    I have a Compaq R4000, and when I set the video higher then 1280x800 it
    gets bigger, only bigger then my screen and I have to pan around to get
    to the corners.

    I'm running Windows XP SP2 and would like everything to be smaller,
    more space to do my homework. Any ideas how to get around this?


  2. Re: Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

    I didnt look at the group before hand, and yes that was my fault. but
    my question is, why would the offer higher rezolutions for display 1?


  3. Re: Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:09:42 -0800, zylawys wrote:

    > I didnt look at the group before hand, and yes that was my fault. but
    > my question is, why would the offer higher rezolutions for display 1?


    It's a "feature" although it's a pretty lame one. Since you posted to a
    Linux newsgroup let me take this opportunity to point out that this is an
    area where Linux is much better than Windows. The major Linux desktops,
    Gnome and KDE, offer multiple workspaces. Each workspace is like a
    separate desktop so you can keep related windows together and switch
    between them by clicking on a little icon on the toolbar that shows the
    available spaces and a has a representation of the number of open windows
    in each space. I typically use four workspaces, in one I have internet
    type applications like Firefox, Evolution and PAN. In the others I
    generally have my development applications like Xemacs, Simvision and
    Acrobat (for the spec that I'm working on). Since I'm generally working on
    two compute servers at a time I dedicate a workspace to each server which
    leaves on space for Windows applications (I use Win4Lin to run Windows
    applications on Linux).

  4. Re: Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

    General Schvantzkoph wrote:

    > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:09:42 -0800, zylawys wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I didnt look at the group before hand, and yes that was my fault. but
    >>my question is, why would the offer higher rezolutions for display 1?

    >
    >
    > It's a "feature" although it's a pretty lame one. Since you posted to a
    > Linux newsgroup let me take this opportunity to point out that this is an
    > area where Linux is much better than Windows. The major Linux desktops,
    > Gnome and KDE, offer multiple workspaces. Each workspace is like a
    > separate desktop so you can keep related windows together and switch
    > between them by clicking on a little icon on the toolbar that shows the
    > available spaces and a has a representation of the number of open windows
    > in each space. I typically use four workspaces, in one I have internet
    > type applications like Firefox, Evolution and PAN. In the others I
    > generally have my development applications like Xemacs, Simvision and
    > Acrobat (for the spec that I'm working on). Since I'm generally working on
    > two compute servers at a time I dedicate a workspace to each server which
    > leaves on space for Windows applications (I use Win4Lin to run Windows
    > applications on Linux).

    I have enjoyed those multiple workspaces in various X windows managers
    in Linux and Solaris, but M$ has finally caught on to that with their XP
    powertoy, Virtual Desktop Manager - not bad, and I make some use of it
    such as you do for my work PC (corporate XP install).

    So we cannot get too smug about that former advantage over Windoze
    (although it does seem to need some refinement - the task bar still
    shows all windows in each desktop, so if you click one it immediately is
    "switched" to the one you are in - hard to maintain "segregated"
    desktops without careful mouse-click self-discipline ;-).

    FWIW,
    ROC

  5. Re: Resolutions higher then 1280x800 dont fit screen.

    zylawys@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I have a Compaq R4000, and when I set the video higher then 1280x800 it
    > gets bigger, only bigger then my screen and I have to pan around to get
    > to the corners.
    >
    > I'm running Windows XP SP2 and would like everything to be smaller,
    > more space to do my homework. Any ideas how to get around this?
    >


    1280x800 isn't high enough??

    I know what you mean, I have my Dell C840 (GF4 440MX 64MB & 15" SXGA) at
    1600x1200. It's purely a limitation of the screen. You're lucky you're
    not trying it on a /desktop/ with a TFT panel, those things don't know
    how to pan. Your only option if you want more screen real estate is to
    plug in an auxilliary screen then use the graphics management utility
    (depending on the card, could be ATI Hydravision or Nvidia's NView,
    dunno if there's a Linux version of these utilities) to extend the
    desktop onto the second screen.


    HTH, HAND

+ Reply to Thread