RE: x2x or XWin -screen 0 2048 768 ?

[Jean-Claude Gervais <jc dot gervais at videotron dot ca>]

Hello,

	Yes, I have run

	XWin -screen 0 2048 768

	And it maximizes on the current screen. Actually, if I use any resolution
that exceeds the width of the primary display, the X display always seems to
be 1024 pixels wide.

	I've tried using -scrollbars , but that option doesn't seem to exist! If I
use it on XWin's command line, XWin exits immediately.

	An additional command-line parameter?

	Well, how about

-spanmultiplemonitors x or -dualdisplay x

	Where x would be the number of contiguous display you'd allow XWin to take
up? Of course, it could get a little tricky: each monitor can be set to a
different resolution, can be spatially arranged vertically or horizontally
in relation to the other monitor(s), which can result in some pretty funky
geometries...

	I seem to remember that dual-head video cards (one adapter with two or more
SVGA outputs on it) didn't have these problems, because other than allowing
you to place the screens vertically or horizontally, each screen had to run
at the same resolution as the others and the system really only saw the
configuration as a single, rectangular display anyhow.

All that aside, it would be an interesting feature to implement user
window-sizing to arbitrary resolutions via the -scrollbars parameter so that
a user might stretch the X display to the size s/he wants. But I'm not clear
on whether or not X allows resizing once an X 'console' has started. Does
it?

Thanks a lot for your consideration.

Jean-Claude




-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com]On
Behalf Of Harold L Hunt II
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:14 PM
To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: x2x or XWin -screen 0 2048 768 ?

Jean-Claude,

Have you run Cygwin/XFree86 as follows?

XWin -screen 0 2048 768


Does that work at all?  Are you able to size the window using the mouse
so that it displays at up to 2048x768?  If not, perhaps we can change
that behavior later.


As far as maximization size, you will notice that all other Windows
applications only size to the size of the current monitor when you click
the maximize button.  Thus, we are following the standard behavior.
Also, think about the limited options that we have here.  Pretty much
our only other option would be to create a screen large enough to fill
both monitors on startup, say 2048x768, and display that size by
default.  Well, what if the user doesn't want to have their screen
stretched across two displays, then that is just too bad for them, they
have to have it stretched across two displays.  I don't think that would
be acceptable as the default behavior.


If you propose an extremely detailed new default behavior scheme, that
can actually be implemented, and that doesn't do anything detrimental to
the 99% of users that use the default behavior, then I will most likely
implement your proposed new logic.  Or, you can propose a detailed new
command-line parameter if you wish that provides a different behavior
for multiple-monitor systems.  More than likely you will realize that we
are doing pretty much what other Windows applications do and that there
isn't a default behavior that is much better.  Of course, I may just be
overlooking some simple improvement.


Hope that helps.


Harold





Jean-Claude Gervais wrote:
> Hi,
>
>       Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
> I've added a second video card to my computer and am running Windows with
a
> large (2048x768) desktop.
>
> I'd like to run XWin like that too, but it and all the other apps only
> maximize on ONE of the screens.
>
> Although if a window is not maximized and can be sized, I can stretch it
> across both screens, I figure there must be a better way.
>
>       Does anyone here know anything about this?
>
> Jean-Claude
>
>