Marc Wilson wrote: >On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:10:18PM +1100, Bing-Chang Lai wrote: > >>I have a modified version of blackbox 0.61.1 which *always* assumes that >>the user is running Xinerama with two screens having the same size, side by >>side, with the main on the left. >> > >Why does it matter where the primary is? Personally, I have mine on the >right: > >Section "ServerLayout" > Identifier "Dual-Head Display" > Screen "Primary" RightOf "Secondary" > Screen "Secondary" > InputDevice "MS Natural Keyboard Pro" > InputDevice "MS WheelMouse Optical" >EndSection > > >I like it that way because that's the monitor that's also shared via KVM to >the Win2k box and the masq box. > >>It makes the toolbar span only 1 screen, and maximizes to either one of the >>screens, depending on the position of the top left corner of the window. >> > >I had it pointed out to me in exhaustive detail that THIS is the broken >behavior... since everything is one big screen, maximization that doesn't >fill both is flawed. > >Whether it's asthetically pleasing or not is another issue. > That doesn't make much sense. If everything should be treated as one big screen, then why bother provide the api for determinig the physical dividing points?
Additionaly if you have a strange setup with, lets say 3 monitors(2 below, 1 above,all same resolution), then maximizing would make you loose 1/4 of the window in dead space. Not being able to see 1/4 of your app does not seem like correct behavior. > > >>It doesn't fix windows starting up across screens. >> > >See previous. > >Xinerama is evil. I've found things to be ever so much more useful with >the two monitors being two separate screens. > How so? I tried using it with and without xinerama. Not being able to move apps from one screen to another is a pain. What advanatages do you have not using xinerama(besides blackbox working correctly)? Marco
