Re: xrandx responds with too many modes.

[Peter Dons Tychsen]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 22:46 -0600, Clarence Risher wrote:
> I regularly use 640x512 in wine, when that resolution wouldnt be
> reported by the driver in windows.  Dunno if you consider that a
> "normal" resolution.

Just out of curiosity, what do you use this for?
Whats wrong with the 640 x 480? Why do you need the extra 640x32 pixels?

Another way of fixing the problem could be to limit the amount
of frequency variants. Not sure if wine can use them for anything 
useful anyway. Could we report all modes at just 60Hz, or
would that be too naughty?

This is actually what is done for the desktop implementation, so it
might work. This would also be easy to change in xrandx.c as the 
frequencies are handled separately.

/p

xrandx responds with too many modes.

[Clarence Risher]

On Jan 4, 2008 2:22 AM, H. Verbeet  wrote:
> Is this with a specific X driver? The binary nvidia driver only lists
> modes explicitly declared in xorg.conf.

I would disagree.  I have only 3 modes in my xorg.conf, and am usinb
the binary nvidia driver, but xrandr from the command line (which I
assume mirrors the API function's output) offers the following:

Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1280 x 1024, maximum 1280 x 1024
default connected 1280x1024+0+0 0mm x 0mm
   1280x1024      50.0*    54.0
   1024x768       51.0     60.0     61.0     62.0
   800x600        52.0     66.0     67.0     68.0     69.0
   640x512        53.0     72.0
   1280x960       55.0
   1280x800       56.0
   1280x768       57.0
   1152x864       58.0
   1152x768       59.0
   960x600        63.0
   840x525        64.0
   832x624        65.0
   800x512        70.0
   720x450        71.0
   640x480        73.0     74.0     75.0     76.0
   640x400        77.0
   640x384        78.0
   576x432        79.0
   576x384        80.0
   512x384        81.0     82.0     83.0
   416x312        84.0
   400x300        85.0     86.0     87.0     88.0
   320x240        89.0     90.0     91.0

On Jan 4, 2008 9:29 AM, Peter Dons Tychsen  wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 22:46 -0600, Clarence Risher wrote:
> > I regularly use 640x512 in wine, when that resolution wouldnt be
> > reported by the driver in windows.  Dunno if you consider that a
> > "normal" resolution.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do you use this for?
> Whats wrong with the 640 x 480? Why do you need the extra 640x32 pixels?

640x480 does not integer-scale to my 1280x1024 display.  With 640x512
I have perfect pixel alignment (2x zoom), no blurriness from the
scaling.  I'll take 640x512 over 800x600 even because of the graphical
nicety of it, and there are plenty of games (with options turned all
the way up) that I cannot run at a good framerate at 1024 or 1280.