On 8/2/06, Joshua Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am actually not looking for a Windows look alike. I am simply
replacing my XP system with a BSD solution. I am looking for a fast
easy to configure and fun WM. I am absolutely looking for something
new to use. not Windows like. That is why I was looking at
enlightenment and fluxbox. but there are just so many I was hoping to
get ideas as to why one would choose one over the other. Other then
personal preference. I have been using enlightenment for about a week
and perhaps it is something I did but my resolution is stuck at
1600x1280 at 65Hz. My monitor keeps getting mad at me and telling me
that is not the recommended solution. I have been trying to figure out
how to change it and I have updated the xorg.conf as the handbook says
but it still defaults. Unless anyone has an idea why I am going to
switch to fluxbox and see how that feels.
I did want to mention that I do agree with your point. I am looking
for something new and I am looking to experiment with other ways of
doing things. But at the same time I would like a little eye candy.
After all with today's power full systems there is nothing wrong with
waisting a few CPU cycles to make the experience a little more
enjoyable.
I will certainly give XFCE a try I have seen allot of recommendations
for that as well.
Sincerely,
Joshua Lewis
/etc/X11/xorg.conf should look sorta like this, yours should have more
Display SubSections in it:
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Card0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024"
EndSubSection
EndSection
--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
