On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 20:34 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On 9/2/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Isn't the fact that windows works with them a pretty good demonstration? > > > > Sadly we don't have access to that source code now do we. Please keep > > the rhetorical comments to a minimum. > > Seems pretty objective to me... Windows does almost exactly what we do. It uses the EDID information if it can be found, otherwise it constructs a list of candidate modes based on sync ranges. Some of them will be out of range for the monitor; it happens to have better UI for reverting to the older settings. > >> Is he suggesting that windows uses magic? I thought he meant instead > >> that X doesn't use the information sensibly. > > > > Are you asking me to-reinterpret Mr. Jackson's statements for > > additional implied meaning? Please, call me ajax. The only people who call me Adam or Mr. Jackson are telemarketers and judges. > Yes, in particular: > > "So you end up in some pretty hilarious situations, because > X prefers width over height, so even though your monitor's > 1600x1200, the sync range is big enough to fit 1680x1050, > so you'll try to fit that, and lose." > > I interpret that as an X issue, not a lack of information in the inf file. It's debatable whether that logic in X is a bug or not. It's certainly correct when sorting modes smaller than the native screen size: your field of vision is much wider than it is tall, so X should prefer wider modes. You only ever hit it as a bug in configuration when X can't query the monitor for its native aspect ratio, and you only manually specify sync ranges. The inf file does not give you aspect ratio. It only gives you sync ranges. - ajax -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
