> Do you actually use different resolutions on the same machine and same > display ? With modern monitors I was under the impression that native > resolution was usually best, at least in X ...
Indeed I do. (I believe I said.) ATM I'm using 800x600, albeit on a 15" monitor--native is 1024x768. I've worn glasses since 4th grade, and I've had a partial retinal detachment in my right eye that has left "floaters". From time to time I shift to higher resolution, but for the most part a larger screen just means 800x600 is that much easier to read. > And unless you have some high DPI monitor, more is generally better > (even if you have to change font sizes in preferences). Respectfully, no, not for everyone. "WFM" means no more than that. > The modern way to change to a different supported resolution is to > use xrandr. I'll take a look. I've dismissed it in the past because I never run dual-head, nor portrait rotated. I find it offensive when these 20-30something developers claim they've got the best usage coded in and nobody really needs anything else. "Trust us; you can use what we give you." Were it not for the fact that my ashes will be swimming in the Pacific when they come around to their Biblical three score and ten, I'd be laughing in my grave when they discover how wrong they have been about so many things. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - Does exactly what it says on the tin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
