800x600 resolution being annoying

I'm using a Geforce 6200 with the Nvidia official drivers. xrandr -s 800x600 gives me an error:
Cannot Display This Video Mode
Optimum resolution 1280x1024 60Hz
Using nvidia-settings, if I set my resolution to 800x600 and my refresh rate to 60Hz(2) (only possible in advanced mode) instead of 60Hz(1)(Doublescan), it works. "xrandr -s 800x600 -r 60" works too. But this is really inconvenient because when I launch a game it automatically changes the resolution, to the not-working 800x600 mode...
My xorg.conf:
# nvidia-settings: X configuration file generated by nvidia-settings
# nvidia-settings: version 260.19.29 ([email protected]) Wed Dec 8 12:28:43 PST 2010
# nvidia-xconfig: X configuration file generated by nvidia-xconfig
# nvidia-xconfig: version 260.19.29 ([email protected]) Wed Dec 8 12:28:55 PST 2010
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "Layout0"
Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
Option "Xinerama" "0"
EndSection
Section "Files"
EndSection
Section "InputDevice"
# generated from default
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
Option "Emulate3Buttons" "no"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection
Section "InputDevice"
# generated from default
Identifier "Keyboard0"
Driver "kbd"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
#43.0 - 72.0
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Unknown"
ModelName "DELL E176FP"
HorizSync 31.0 - 80.0
VertRefresh 43.0 - 60.0
Option "DPMS"
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "Device0"
Driver "nvidia"
VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation"
BoardName "GeForce 6200"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Device0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
Option "TwinView" "0"
Option "metamodes" "nvidia-auto-select +0+0"
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection
Edit: And I should note, the vesa, nv and nouveau drivers supported this resolution. But I need 3D acceleration that works!
Last edited by Dren (2010-12-19 16:46:27)

Mr Green wrote:
Shift your xorg.conf to xorg.conf.backup and startx
Archers will help you more with some output and information
Errors, xorg logs, nvidia driver you are using
MrG
[and no bumping!]
I'm using the official nvidia driver. I don't remember the version but I've updated several times and the problem has persisted. (Even from back when I used Ubuntu.)
Shifting my xorg.conf makes it load a different driver, probably vesa. I made a minimal xorg.conf:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Device0"
Driver "nvidia"
EndSection
And my Xorg.0.log after startx:
[ 10421.307]
X.Org X Server 1.9.2
Release Date: 2010-10-30
[ 10421.307] X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
[ 10421.307] Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.35-ARCH i686
[ 10421.307] Current Operating System: Linux MattsPC 2.6.36-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 10 20:01:53 UTC 2010 i686
[ 10421.307] Kernel command line: root=/dev/sda3 ro resume=/dev/sda2
[ 10421.307] Build Date: 01 November 2010 10:35:30PM
[ 10421.307]
[ 10421.307] Current version of pixman: 0.20.0
[ 10421.307] Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
to make sure that you have the latest version.
[ 10421.307] Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
(++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
(WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
[ 10421.307] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Thu Dec 23 13:54:21 2010
[ 10421.307] (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf"
[ 10421.308] (==) Using config directory: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d"
[ 10421.308] (==) No Layout section. Using the first Screen section.
[ 10421.308] (==) No screen section available. Using defaults.
[ 10421.308] (**) |-->Screen "Default Screen Section" (0)
[ 10421.308] (**) | |-->Monitor "<default monitor>"
[ 10421.308] (==) No device specified for screen "Default Screen Section".
Using the first device section listed.
[ 10421.308] (**) | |-->Device "Device0"
[ 10421.308] (==) No monitor specified for screen "Default Screen Section".
Using a default monitor configuration.
[ 10421.308] (==) Automatically adding devices
[ 10421.308] (==) Automatically enabling devices
[ 10421.308] (WW) The directory "/usr/share/fonts/OTF/" does not exist.
[ 10421.308] Entry deleted from font path.
[ 10421.308] (==) FontPath set to:
/usr/share/fonts/misc/,
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/,
/usr/share/fonts/Type1/,
/usr/share/fonts/100dpi/,
/usr/share/fonts/75dpi/
[ 10421.308] (==) ModulePath set to "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
[ 10421.308] (II) The server relies on udev to provide the list of input devices.
If no devices become available, reconfigure udev or disable AutoAddDevices.
[ 10421.308] (II) Loader magic: 0x81f1f80
[ 10421.308] (II) Module ABI versions:
[ 10421.308] X.Org ANSI C Emulation: 0.4
[ 10421.308] X.Org Video Driver: 8.0
[ 10421.308] X.Org XInput driver : 11.0
[ 10421.308] X.Org Server Extension : 4.0
[ 10421.310] (--) PCI: (0:0:2:0) 8086:2582:1028:01c4 rev 4, Mem @ 0xdff80000/524288, 0xb0000000/268435456, 0xdff40000/262144, I/O @ 0x0000ecd8/8
[ 10421.310] (--) PCI:*(0:3:1:0) 10de:0221:3842:b399 rev 161, Mem @ 0xdd000000/16777216, 0xc0000000/268435456, 0xde000000/16777216, BIOS @ 0x????????/131072
[ 10421.310] (II) Open ACPI successful (/var/run/acpid.socket)
[ 10421.310] (II) LoadModule: "extmod"
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libextmod.so
[ 10421.311] (II) Module extmod: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.311] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.311] Module class: X.Org Server Extension
[ 10421.311] ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 4.0
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension MIT-SCREEN-SAVER
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension XFree86-VidModeExtension
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension XFree86-DGA
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension DPMS
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension XVideo
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension XVideo-MotionCompensation
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension X-Resource
[ 10421.311] (II) LoadModule: "dbe"
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libdbe.so
[ 10421.311] (II) Module dbe: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.311] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.311] Module class: X.Org Server Extension
[ 10421.311] ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 4.0
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading extension DOUBLE-BUFFER
[ 10421.311] (II) LoadModule: "glx"
[ 10421.311] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so
[ 10421.338] (II) Module glx: vendor="NVIDIA Corporation"
[ 10421.338] compiled for 4.0.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.338] Module class: X.Org Server Extension
[ 10421.338] (II) NVIDIA GLX Module 260.19.29 Wed Dec 8 12:25:40 PST 2010
[ 10421.338] (II) Loading extension GLX
[ 10421.339] (II) LoadModule: "record"
[ 10421.339] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/librecord.so
[ 10421.339] (II) Module record: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.339] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.13.0
[ 10421.339] Module class: X.Org Server Extension
[ 10421.339] ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 4.0
[ 10421.339] (II) Loading extension RECORD
[ 10421.339] (II) LoadModule: "dri"
[ 10421.339] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libdri.so
[ 10421.339] (II) Module dri: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.339] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.339] ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 4.0
[ 10421.339] (II) Loading extension XFree86-DRI
[ 10421.339] (II) LoadModule: "dri2"
[ 10421.339] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libdri2.so
[ 10421.340] (II) Module dri2: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.340] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.2.0
[ 10421.340] ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 4.0
[ 10421.340] (II) Loading extension DRI2
[ 10421.340] (II) LoadModule: "nvidia"
[ 10421.340] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia_drv.so
[ 10421.425] (II) Module nvidia: vendor="NVIDIA Corporation"
[ 10421.431] compiled for 4.0.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.431] Module class: X.Org Video Driver
[ 10421.459] (II) NVIDIA dlloader X Driver 260.19.29 Wed Dec 8 12:10:28 PST 2010
[ 10421.465] (II) NVIDIA Unified Driver for all Supported NVIDIA GPUs
[ 10421.465] (--) using VT number 8
[ 10421.482] (II) Loading sub module "fb"
[ 10421.482] (II) LoadModule: "fb"
[ 10421.482] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libfb.so
[ 10421.483] (II) Module fb: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.483] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.483] ABI class: X.Org ANSI C Emulation, version 0.4
[ 10421.483] (II) Loading sub module "wfb"
[ 10421.483] (II) LoadModule: "wfb"
[ 10421.483] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libwfb.so
[ 10421.493] (II) Module wfb: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10421.493] compiled for 1.9.2, module version = 1.0.0
[ 10421.493] ABI class: X.Org ANSI C Emulation, version 0.4
[ 10421.494] (II) Loading sub module "ramdac"
[ 10421.494] (II) LoadModule: "ramdac"
[ 10421.494] (II) Module "ramdac" already built-in
[ 10421.509] (II) NVIDIA(0): Creating default Display subsection in Screen section
"Default Screen Section" for depth/fbbpp 24/32
[ 10421.509] (==) NVIDIA(0): Depth 24, (==) framebuffer bpp 32
[ 10421.509] (==) NVIDIA(0): RGB weight 888
[ 10421.509] (==) NVIDIA(0): Default visual is TrueColor
[ 10421.509] (==) NVIDIA(0): Using gamma correction (1.0, 1.0, 1.0)
[ 10421.510] (**) NVIDIA(0): Enabling RENDER acceleration
[ 10421.510] (II) NVIDIA(0): Support for GLX with the Damage and Composite X extensions is
[ 10421.511] (II) NVIDIA(0): enabled.
[ 10422.129] (II) NVIDIA(0): NVIDIA GPU GeForce 6200 (NV44) at PCI:3:1:0 (GPU-0)
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): Memory: 262144 kBytes
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): VideoBIOS: 05.44.a2.10.49
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): Interlaced video modes are supported on this GPU
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): Connected display device(s) on GeForce 6200 at PCI:3:1:0
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): DELL E176FP (CRT-1)
[ 10422.129] (--) NVIDIA(0): DELL E176FP (CRT-1): 400.0 MHz maximum pixel clock
[ 10422.130] (II) NVIDIA(0): Assigned Display Device: CRT-1
[ 10422.130] (==) NVIDIA(0):
[ 10422.130] (==) NVIDIA(0): No modes were requested; the default mode "nvidia-auto-select"
[ 10422.130] (==) NVIDIA(0): will be used as the requested mode.
[ 10422.130] (==) NVIDIA(0):
[ 10422.130] (II) NVIDIA(0): Validated modes:
[ 10422.130] (II) NVIDIA(0): "nvidia-auto-select"
[ 10422.130] (II) NVIDIA(0): Virtual screen size determined to be 1280 x 1024
[ 10422.132] (--) NVIDIA(0): DPI set to (95, 96); computed from "UseEdidDpi" X config
[ 10422.132] (--) NVIDIA(0): option
[ 10422.132] (==) NVIDIA(0): Enabling 32-bit ARGB GLX visuals.
[ 10422.132] (--) Depth 24 pixmap format is 32 bpp
[ 10422.143] (II) NVIDIA(0): Initialized GPU GART.
[ 10422.154] (II) NVIDIA(0): Setting mode "nvidia-auto-select"
[ 10422.276] (II) Loading extension NV-GLX
[ 10422.314] (II) NVIDIA(0): Initialized OpenGL Acceleration
[ 10422.322] (==) NVIDIA(0): Disabling shared memory pixmaps
[ 10422.322] (II) NVIDIA(0): Initialized X Rendering Acceleration
[ 10422.322] (==) NVIDIA(0): Backing store disabled
[ 10422.322] (==) NVIDIA(0): Silken mouse enabled
[ 10422.322] (==) NVIDIA(0): DPMS enabled
[ 10422.322] (II) Loading extension NV-CONTROL
[ 10422.323] (II) Loading extension XINERAMA
[ 10422.323] (II) Loading sub module "dri2"
[ 10422.323] (II) LoadModule: "dri2"
[ 10422.323] (II) Reloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libdri2.so
[ 10422.323] (II) NVIDIA(0): [DRI2] Setup complete
[ 10422.323] (==) RandR enabled
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension Generic Event Extension
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension SHAPE
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension MIT-SHM
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XInputExtension
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XTEST
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension BIG-REQUESTS
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension SYNC
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XKEYBOARD
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XC-MISC
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension SECURITY
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XINERAMA
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension XFIXES
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension RENDER
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension RANDR
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension COMPOSITE
[ 10422.323] (II) Initializing built-in extension DAMAGE
[ 10422.328] (II) Initializing extension GLX
[ 10422.536] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Power Button (/dev/input/event2)
[ 10422.536] (**) Power Button: Applying InputClass "evdev keyboard catchall"
[ 10422.536] (II) LoadModule: "evdev"
[ 10422.537] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/input/evdev_drv.so
[ 10422.537] (II) Module evdev: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 10422.537] compiled for 1.9.0, module version = 2.5.0
[ 10422.537] Module class: X.Org XInput Driver
[ 10422.537] ABI class: X.Org XInput driver, version 11.0
[ 10422.537] (**) Power Button: always reports core events
[ 10422.537] (**) Power Button: Device: "/dev/input/event2"
[ 10422.537] (--) Power Button: Found keys
[ 10422.537] (II) Power Button: Configuring as keyboard
[ 10422.537] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Power Button" (type: KEYBOARD)
[ 10422.537] (**) Option "xkb_rules" "evdev"
[ 10422.537] (**) Option "xkb_model" "evdev"
[ 10422.537] (**) Option "xkb_layout" "us"
[ 10422.586] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Power Button (/dev/input/event1)
[ 10422.586] (**) Power Button: Applying InputClass "evdev keyboard catchall"
[ 10422.586] (**) Power Button: always reports core events
[ 10422.586] (**) Power Button: Device: "/dev/input/event1"
[ 10422.586] (--) Power Button: Found keys
[ 10422.586] (II) Power Button: Configuring as keyboard
[ 10422.586] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Power Button" (type: KEYBOARD)
[ 10422.586] (**) Option "xkb_rules" "evdev"
[ 10422.586] (**) Option "xkb_model" "evdev"
[ 10422.586] (**) Option "xkb_layout" "us"
[ 10422.588] (II) config/udev: Adding input device HDA Intel Line In at Ext Rear Jack (/dev/input/event3)
[ 10422.588] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.588] (II) config/udev: Adding input device HDA Intel Mic at Ext Rear Jack (/dev/input/event4)
[ 10422.589] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.589] (II) config/udev: Adding input device HDA Intel Line Out at Ext Rear Jack (/dev/input/event5)
[ 10422.589] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.589] (II) config/udev: Adding input device HDA Intel HP Out at Ext Front Jack (/dev/input/event6)
[ 10422.589] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.592] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Dell Dell USB Keyboard (/dev/input/event9)
[ 10422.592] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Applying InputClass "evdev keyboard catchall"
[ 10422.592] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: always reports core events
[ 10422.592] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Device: "/dev/input/event9"
[ 10422.592] (--) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Found keys
[ 10422.592] (II) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Configuring as keyboard
[ 10422.592] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Dell Dell USB Keyboard" (type: KEYBOARD)
[ 10422.592] (**) Option "xkb_rules" "evdev"
[ 10422.592] (**) Option "xkb_model" "evdev"
[ 10422.592] (**) Option "xkb_layout" "us"
[ 10422.593] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Dell Dell USB Keyboard (/dev/input/event10)
[ 10422.593] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Applying InputClass "evdev keyboard catchall"
[ 10422.593] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: always reports core events
[ 10422.593] (**) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Device: "/dev/input/event10"
[ 10422.593] (--) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Found absolute axes
[ 10422.593] (--) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Found keys
[ 10422.594] (II) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Configuring as mouse
[ 10422.594] (II) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: Configuring as keyboard
[ 10422.594] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Dell Dell USB Keyboard" (type: KEYBOARD)
[ 10422.594] (**) Option "xkb_rules" "evdev"
[ 10422.594] (**) Option "xkb_model" "evdev"
[ 10422.594] (**) Option "xkb_layout" "us"
[ 10422.594] (II) Dell Dell USB Keyboard: initialized for absolute axes.
[ 10422.595] (II) config/udev: Adding input device USB Optical Mouse (/dev/input/event7)
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: Applying InputClass "evdev pointer catchall"
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: always reports core events
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: Device: "/dev/input/event7"
[ 10422.595] (--) USB Optical Mouse: Found 3 mouse buttons
[ 10422.595] (--) USB Optical Mouse: Found scroll wheel(s)
[ 10422.595] (--) USB Optical Mouse: Found relative axes
[ 10422.595] (--) USB Optical Mouse: Found x and y relative axes
[ 10422.595] (II) USB Optical Mouse: Configuring as mouse
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: YAxisMapping: buttons 4 and 5
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: EmulateWheelButton: 4, EmulateWheelInertia: 10, EmulateWheelTimeout: 200
[ 10422.595] (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "USB Optical Mouse" (type: MOUSE)
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: (accel) keeping acceleration scheme 1
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: (accel) acceleration profile 0
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: (accel) acceleration factor: 2.000
[ 10422.595] (**) USB Optical Mouse: (accel) acceleration threshold: 4
[ 10422.595] (II) USB Optical Mouse: initialized for relative axes.
[ 10422.596] (II) config/udev: Adding input device USB Optical Mouse (/dev/input/mouse0)
[ 10422.596] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.597] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Logitech Logitech RumblePad 2 USB (/dev/input/event8)
[ 10422.597] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.598] (II) config/udev: Adding input device Logitech Logitech RumblePad 2 USB (/dev/input/js0)
[ 10422.598] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10422.604] (II) config/udev: Adding input device PC Speaker (/dev/input/event0)
[ 10422.604] (II) No input driver/identifier specified (ignoring)
[ 10434.892] (II) NVIDIA(0): Setting mode "800x600"
[ 10439.276] (II) NVIDIA(0): Setting mode "nvidia-auto-select"
Everything acts pretty much the same.
Last edited by Dren (2010-12-23 19:09:45)

Similar Messages

Reader XI has the print button off the screen when on 800x600 resolution

Reader XI has the print button off the screen when on 800x600 resolution as well, how to fix without changing resolution? A user needs the resolution set to that for her eyes.
I see that this was an issue in Reader X and update 10.1.3 resolved it. What was the fix?

The scrollbar appears and works but unfortunately the dialog size is still too big therefore the print button ends up being hidden by the windows taskbar. Could you please make sure that the print dialog size is calculated against the work area (desktop size minus the taskbar, there's a win32 API to get that) rather than the whole desktop to fix the issue?
That would also fix another issue: when the taskbar is sized higher than usual whatever the resolution you have it could still end up covering the print buttons but if you calculate against the work area rather than the desktop area that issue would be fixed as well.
Please don't leave it unfixed because even if the requirements say 1024x768 if you have higher DPI settings or have a taskbar with a non-default size the print button could easily become unreacheable.

Why is it that i am unable to buy an ipod nano 16gb in germany? In the stores it is advertised however not available, the store only has the 8gb and I can't ship it here? Is it a case of not yet launched, patent infringement or apple just being annoying?

I am trying, thus far with no success, to buy an ipod nano 16gb here in Germany. However whilst the stores advertise it they don't have it in stock and can't tell when it will be. The german apple store only has the 8gb version. Should i try to order from a reseller then they will only post within the uk. iSo my question is - whats going on? Why are there no 16gb ipods to be (apparantly) had in Germany? Not launched yet? Patent infringement? Apple being very annoying?

Call Apple or an Apple Store in your city and ask them. Or do a Google search.

WRTU54G-TM not keeping its IP address, generally being annoying

I bought a Linksys WRTU54G-TM for the TMobile @Home service. Setting it up is proving to be absurdly frustrating because the webbased interface refuses to acknowledge that I have given it an IP address. I set the IP to 192.168.1.20, static IP, configured as a bridge, etc etc. Every time I was able to bring up the web interface the IP address was listed as 0.0.0.0 on the main page, but the Status page showed the correct IP.
I shut off the wireless router part because we already have a wireless setup -- ironically a WRT54G Linux-based Linksys router that's been working without a hitch for 3 years. Since the TMobile router and the main router are in wholly separate areas of the house, we're using a Zoom wireless access point so it can still remain part of the network. The Zoom access point has been working flawlessly for around 2 years.
After a few minutes of trying to figure out **bleep** is going on, now the router is not responding to 192.168.1.20 at all.
At this point I'm getting overly frustrated and about to chuck the thing through the nearest wall. Why doesn't the webform keep the IP address? Why does the router seem so keen on reverting to 192.168.24.1 when I've never set that as an IP address? I won't even get into the fact that the router isn't letting me use the phone ports because that's a whole different can of worms.
Has anyone else had this amount of trouble with the WRTU54G-TM? Did I just get a lemon?

There's one the WRT54G Linux-based router that's serving as a DHCP server. I've disabled the DHCP server on the TMobile router and told it to use a static IP address (192.168.1.20, WRT54G is at 192.168.1.1). So far everything is working fine even though the web interface continues to deny that it has a proper IP address -- but only on the initial form; going to the Status page still lists the proper IP. It doesn't appear to be causing any issues other than annoying me so I'm letting it fly (otherwise the router itself would be flying).
There was an issue earlier with the router forgetting about the connected phone when I was transferring a large file across the network but that hasn't reappeared. We're getting some static a few seconds into phone conversations but I'm attributing that to a cordless phone that the soon-to-be-Mrs insisted on using. Hopefully I'll be able to talk her into a VTech DS6121 setup, or something similar, so that won't be an issue going forward. Wish me luck

Help getting 640x480 and 800x600 resolution on Proprietary Nvidia Driv

Ok. So I want to somehow obtain the modes 640x480 and 800x600 for my laptop. The monitor CAN do these modes - it works under Windows XP and the opensource xf86-video-nv drivers.
But the closed source nvidia drivers doesn't show these modes... All I can choose from is
"1440x900" "1280x800" "1280x768" "1024x768" "640x400" (... so close and yet so far) "640x384" "512x384"
I also added to my xorg.conf these configurations
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
Modes "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
and here is /var/log/Xorg.0.log
(II) Setting vga for screen 0.
(==) NVIDIA(0): Depth 24, (==) framebuffer bpp 32
(==) NVIDIA(0): RGB weight 888
(==) NVIDIA(0): Default visual is TrueColor
(==) NVIDIA(0): Using gamma correction (1.0, 1.0, 1.0)
(**) NVIDIA(0): Option "NoLogo" "true"
(**) NVIDIA(0): Option "DPI" "96 x 96"
(**) NVIDIA(0): Option "OnDemandVBlankInterrupts" "True"
(**) NVIDIA(0): Enabling RENDER acceleration
(II) NVIDIA(0): Support for GLX with the Damage and Composite X extensions is
(II) NVIDIA(0): enabled.
(II) NVIDIA(0): NVIDIA GPU Quadro NVS 140M (G86GL) at PCI:1:0:0 (GPU-0)
(--) NVIDIA(0): Memory: 524288 kBytes
(--) NVIDIA(0): VideoBIOS: 60.86.3e.00.00
(II) NVIDIA(0): Detected PCI Express Link width: 16X
(--) NVIDIA(0): Interlaced video modes are supported on this GPU
(--) NVIDIA(0): Connected display device(s) on Quadro NVS 140M at PCI:1:0:0:
(--) NVIDIA(0): LEN (DFP-0)
(--) NVIDIA(0): LEN (DFP-0): 330.0 MHz maximum pixel clock
(--) NVIDIA(0): LEN (DFP-0): Internal Dual Link LVDS
(WW) NVIDIA(0): The EDID for LEN (DFP-0) contradicts itself: mode "1440x900"
(WW) NVIDIA(0): is specified in the EDID; however, the EDID's valid
(WW) NVIDIA(0): HorizSync range (46.301-55.556 kHz) would exclude this
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode's HorizSync (37.0 kHz); ignoring HorizSync check for
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode "1440x900".
(WW) NVIDIA(0): The EDID for LEN (DFP-0) contradicts itself: mode "1440x900"
(WW) NVIDIA(0): is specified in the EDID; however, the EDID's valid
(WW) NVIDIA(0): VertRefresh range (50.000-60.000 Hz) would exclude this
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode's VertRefresh (40.0 Hz); ignoring VertRefresh check
(WW) NVIDIA(0): for mode "1440x900".
(WW) NVIDIA(0): The EDID for LEN (DFP-0) contradicts itself: mode "1440x900"
(WW) NVIDIA(0): is specified in the EDID; however, the EDID's valid
(WW) NVIDIA(0): HorizSync range (46.301-55.556 kHz) would exclude this
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode's HorizSync (37.0 kHz); ignoring HorizSync check for
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode "1440x900".
(WW) NVIDIA(0): The EDID for LEN (DFP-0) contradicts itself: mode "1440x900"
(WW) NVIDIA(0): is specified in the EDID; however, the EDID's valid
(WW) NVIDIA(0): VertRefresh range (50.000-60.000 Hz) would exclude this
(WW) NVIDIA(0): mode's VertRefresh (40.0 Hz); ignoring VertRefresh check
(WW) NVIDIA(0): for mode "1440x900".
(II) NVIDIA(0): Assigned Display Device: DFP-0
(WW) NVIDIA(0): No valid modes for "800x600"; removing.
(WW) NVIDIA(0): No valid modes for "640x480"; removing.
(WW) NVIDIA(0):
(WW) NVIDIA(0): Unable to validate any modes; falling back to the default mode
(WW) NVIDIA(0): "nvidia-auto-select".
(WW) NVIDIA(0):
(II) NVIDIA(0): Validated modes:
(II) NVIDIA(0): "nvidia-auto-select"
(II) NVIDIA(0): Virtual screen size determined to be 1440 x 900
(**) NVIDIA(0): DPI set to (96, 96); computed from "DPI" X config option
(==) NVIDIA(0): Enabling 32-bit ARGB GLX visuals.
Any help is appreciated.

how did you connect the display? over hdmi?
if yes, when you press the Source button from the remote control, select hdmi port and press Tools button, then select Edit and select PC from the list.
I know because i have a T23A550 display

Help! My computer is being annoying!

So today, Easter, I got Sims 3 games and stuff. Well when I tried to put in the disk it didn't catch. I had this problem before but now what I used last time, pressuried air, isn't working. I tried to reset my PRAM and stuff but it still doesn't work. Can anyone help me?

You have a problematic optical drive that needs either cleaning or replacement. Bring it to an Apple store.

Control Panel on an 800x600 screen

I have to do some InDesign CS6 demos using a projector. The projector can only handle 800x600 resolution. The biggest challenge here is to demo the control panel in its eternity and I don't want to customise the panel every 5 seconds to display another aspect as this is disruptive to the workflow.
Is there any way to display the Control panel in two rows or perhaps a way to scroll through the available items?
I know that there are shortcuts for most of the items in the control panel and there are panels that do the same work, but when you need to demo these aspects from a control panel point of view, then this is very challenging.
So this is what I see on my 800x600 resolution:
Compared to what the delegates see on their screens:
As you can see, I only have half the control panel items available.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thanks in advanced.

Peter Spier wrote:
There's nothing you can do in ID to change this.
I wouldn't say "nothing", since you can make the top bar floating. With it being a Window, you could shift it from left to right - though this will be annoying - in order to access the rest of the elements.

[SOLVED - sort of] display resolution woes after pacman update

When doing a recent pacman -Syu, I was asked if I wanted to change from mga-dri to libgl video. I (foolishly) chose the default (Y) and was informed mga-dri had been removed. After the rest of the update, I was unable to start X. Did some reading, configuring, and cussing - all to no avail.
Well, actually the cussing felt good, but the neighbors were less than pleased...
"heftig" and "falconindy" in #archlinux were kind enough to enlighten me that support for mga-dri had been dropped, and that I was probably stuck with vesa for my older video card and monitor: Matrox G400/500 and Dell M781p, respectively.
After a fashion, I was able to configure up an xorg.conf to restore X, however all I seem to be able to muster up is 800x600 resolution, which sucks, as both the card and monitor support 1024x768 and ran that with the old mga-dri.
Is it possible to return to the old mga-dri set up? If so, how?
If not, is it possible to get 1024x768 video with the present vesa driver?
FYI, I do no gaming or fancy-schmancy video stuff, though would like to be able to watch videos with either mplayer or smplayer.
Last edited by alienjeff (2012-03-18 15:28:20)

I found the previous version of xf86-video-mga on http://schlunix.org/archlinux/, though I'm more than a bit apprehensive to just blindly retrograde to the previous version. Reason being, a number of X related items were updated, too, with the March 13th debacle. To wit:
[2012-03-13 06:26] Running 'pacman -Syu'
[2012-03-13 06:26] synchronizing package lists
[2012-03-13 06:26] starting full system upgrade
[2012-03-13 06:28] removed mga-dri (7.11.2-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded freetype2 (2.4.8-1 -> 2.4.9-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded glproto (1.4.14-1 -> 1.4.15-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded gstreamer0.10 (0.10.35-1 -> 0.10.36-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded gstreamer0.10-base (0.10.35-1 -> 0.10.36-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded inputproto (2.0.2-1 -> 2.2-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded libglapi (7.11.2-1 -> 8.0.1-2)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded libgl (7.11.2-1 -> 8.0.1-2)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded libpciaccess (0.12.1-1 -> 0.13-1)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded xcb-proto (1.6-2 -> 1.7-2)
[2012-03-13 06:28] upgraded libxcb (1.7-2 -> 1.8.1-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded libx11 (1.4.4-1 -> 1.4.99.1-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded libxft (2.3.0-1 -> 2.3.0-2)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded libxi (1.4.5-1 -> 1.6.0-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded libxt (1.1.2-1 -> 1.1.2-2)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded man-pages (3.36-1 -> 3.37-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded mesa (7.11.2-1 -> 8.0.1-2)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xf86-input-evdev (2.6.0-4 -> 2.7.0-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xf86-video-fbdev (0.4.2-5 -> 0.4.2-6)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xf86-video-mga (1.4.13-4 -> 1.4.13-5)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xf86-video-vesa (2.3.0-7 -> 2.3.0-8)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xorg-server-common (1.11.4-1 -> 1.12.0-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xorg-server (1.11.4-1 -> 1.12.0-1)
[2012-03-13 06:29] upgraded xorg-xinput (1.5.3-2 -> 1.5.99.1-1)
Should I just "shotgun" this retrograde by rolling back all of those or just the mga driver?
P.S. I'm cursing my promiscuous "pacman -Sc" ritual...

Framebuffer and display resolution

hi,
I have an onboard graphiccard with an Intel 945GME chipset. My display allows a resolution of 1024x600 pixel. But how do I find out which is the correct value for 1024x600 to setup the correct vga value in my /boot/grub/menu.lst to activate the framebuffer and show those nice archlinux-logos while booting? It seems it always just gets a 800x600 resolution and a bad color-depth.

Hmmm, well you could look into the hwinfo docs and see whether there's some compile-time option you need to supply to make --framebuffer work. (It could be that the functionality is now gone, but maybe it isn't.)
If that doesn't lead anywhere, you could try this (annoying amount of work but you'd only need to do it once): install a minimal Arch on a fresh partition or USB key, don't update the kernel to 2.6.27, and compile/run the hwinfo that's on AUR.

Please help! Screen Capture resolution for Flash

Hi,
When I screen capture [using RoBo ScreenCapture] either web
pages off the Net, or dialog boxes of programs [I'm using Flash for
a presentation instead of PP] the images are pixelated or fuzzy or
well, not good enough.
Let me explain In using RoBo, I make the capture at the
highest Jpeg resolution possible. When I bring the jpeg into Flash
[import directly into Library] and bring on the stage, I have to
resize the image because it is too big for the stage [being
800X600]. The projector I will be using for the presentation is
800X600.so I set the stage for that.
When I publish the file and review it [setting my monitor to
800X600] the images look terrible.
Maybe I should explain that when I do the screen captures at
first, my monitor is set at 1600X1200.
Should I set it at 800X600 when doing the captures first? I
mean, does this affect the final output of the resolution of the
jpg's when they are placed in Flash after the capture and import
into the Library?
I have had to make captures of web pages, so I have my
monitor set at 1600X1200 normally so I can get the most real estate
on the screen as possible. I make the screen captures using that
monitor setting. But I have my Flash movie stage set at 800X600.
My questions are:
1. Should I do the captures with the monitor set at 800X600
if the Flash stage is 800X600? If so, why?
2. If the projector resolution is 800X600, can I set my Flash
stage at a higher size [resolution], say 1024X768? Will that
actually affect the resolution when the Flash movie is projected on
a projector with an 800X600 resolution if the Flash movie stage is
larger?
3. What affects the final resolution output of the BMP images
[jpeg's] in Flash for a presentation like I am doing?
4. What size should I capture the images at so I don't have
to resize them in Flash?
WHAH! I just want this presentation to be successful. It's a
training session on educating folks on computer virus
prevention/protection from and ID theft, something this world is in
dire need of!
Thanks in advance form anyone who can help me,
Ellen

> Maybe I should explain that when I do the screen
captures at first, my
> monitor
> is set at 1600X1200.
> Should I set it at 800X600 when doing the captures
first?
A screen capture captures whatever number of pixels you are
grabbing. If
your monitor is 1600x1200 and you capture the entire screen,
then the
resolution you have captures is 1600x1200.
Then two things are happening:
1) you are making it a JPG, which is lossy compresion
2) you are shrinking it to 800 x 600.
To shrink it, Flash has to 'throw away' 75% of the pixels of
the original.
So, no matter what, you are ending up with a lower resolution
image than
what you started with.
> 1. Should I do the captures with the monitor set at
800X600 if the Flash
> stage
> is 800X600? If so, why?
That would make sense. Why? You can only show 800x600 pixels
in your final
presentation. What's the point of capturing more than that?
> 2. If the projector resolution is 800X600, can I set my
Flash stage at a
> higher size [resolution], say 1024X768? Will that
actually affect the
> resolution when the Flash movie is projected on a
projector with an
> 800X600
> resolution if the Flash movie stage is larger?
If the images are that resolution, then yes, if you increase
the size of the
flash file, you should be able to see all of the pixels at
that particular
resolution.
> 3. What affects the final resolution output of the BMP
images [jpeg's] in
> Flash for a presentation like I am doing?
As long as you bring the images in at 100%, the available
resolution of the
images shouldn't change at all.
> 4. What size should I capture the images at so I don't
have to resize them
> in
> Flash?
'Actual' size.
> WHAH! I just want this presentation to be successful.
It's a training
> session
> on educating folks on computer virus
prevention/protection from and ID
> theft,
> something this world is in dire need of!
I'm not sure what RoBo is, but have you considered using a
product like
RoboDemo for this type of thing? That should handle
everything for you.
-Darrel

Changing screen resolution with xrandr [SOLVED]

My current setup consists of two different monitors (different resolutions) being connected to a single Nvidia card (neouveau driver).
The problem is that the monitor resolution does not change when I use xrandr to change the resolution. What does happen is the resolution of the output changes so that all items on the screen are smaller, but as a consequence of the monitor resolution staying constant (at 1440x900) this also leads to everything getting blury.
Output for xrandr after booting:
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1440 x 900, maximum 8192 x 8192
DVI-I-1 connected 1440x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 360mm x 290mm
1440x900 60.2*+
1920x1080 60.0
1280x1024 75.0 60.0
1360x768 60.4
1024x768 75.1 70.1 60.0
832x624 74.6
800x600 72.2 75.0 60.3 56.2
640x480 72.8 75.0 66.7 60.0
720x400 70.1
DVI-I-2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
Output after changing the resolution to 1920x1080:
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1920 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192
DVI-I-1 connected 1920x1080+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 360mm x 290mm
1440x900 60.2 +
1920x1080 60.0*
1280x1024 75.0 60.0
1360x768 60.4
1024x768 75.1 70.1 60.0
832x624 74.6
800x600 72.2 75.0 60.3 56.2
640x480 72.8 75.0 66.7 60.0
720x400 70.1
DVI-I-2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
I have set up both of these monitors to work fine today, except for the resolution problem. The DVI-I-2 seen has a maximum resolution of 1440x900, which is what both monitiors are running at although DVI-I-1 has a max of 1920x1080.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to succeed in setting DVI-I-1 to the desired resolution?
Last edited by jpking10 (2012-05-26 18:27:47)

Yes, GPU support for dual head is there. I think I will try out the Nvidia drivers.
Edit: I have installed the Nvidia driver and everything is working perfectly. Thanks for your suggestion.
Last edited by jpking10 (2012-05-26 18:25:47)

1024x768 vs. 800x600?

Hi all,
I'm doing some research for my company about the trend in
decreasing 800x600 screen resolution users. At my last job we had
already made the decision to move to a 1024x768 layout (not
actually using the full 1024 width.. rather, 950px, for the same
reason that we never fully used an 800px layout).
At my new job I'm trying to convince them to do the same
thing. Having an extra couple of hundred horizontal pixels to play
with makes site navigation challenges easier (if you have a very
large site) and of course, it allows you to put more stuff "above
the fold." A CSS liquid layout of course can solve the "above the
fold" thing but not necessarily the navigational thing.
2 years ago, for the month of May 2005, 36% of our users had
a 800x600 layout. Over the last month, only 17% of our users had a
800x600 layout. And I've looked at the trend to make sure these
numbers weren't a fluke and the data supports the decreasing trend
in 800x600 resolution.
So I'm wondering if any of you have been faced with answering
these questions and how you solved them?
I'm an advocate for moving to more screen space but I'd like
to back that up with some solid research.
thanks!
Ron

HI Ron,
I posted something similar to this a while back and got some
defensive responses as well.
I work for an engineering firm. Last month we had 10,000
visitors. Less than 2% of these visitors were using a resolution of
800x600. Over 70% of our visitors were using 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
I know we both understand that this doesn't mean their browsers are
fully maximized when searching the Internet. Probably very, very
few of them are. I watched our engineers search the web and I found
even though they weren't maximized, they were open larger than 800
pixels. Our website, which is 950, looks absolutely ridiculous on
one of our engineers monitors that has a giant 30" apple monitor
even though it is fluid, BUT, everything essential fits on an old
crt monitor too.
I personally would not design a site 1200 pixels wide, nor
would I design one 640x480.
I think it is most relevant to be familiar with your
demographic and your products and best determine a layout based on
what a potential customer might be and what the sites purpose is.
For example, I'm an artist and I love design sites that push
the envelope. If I'm at a creative site, I enjoy "figuring" out
certain things an artist might have thrown in there. I will
increase my browser window if necessary. However, if I go looking
for a pair of shoes during my lunch break and your nav bar doesn't
work or your page is hard to read, I'm out of there.
I think hard and fast rules are not alway applicable. I think
if the navigation is readable and functions with ease at 800
pixels, the rest is up for interpretation.
That being said, I'm not a professional web developer, I went
to art school.
HI Ron,
I posted something similar to this a while back and got some
defensive responses as well.
I work for an engineering firm. Last month we had 10,000
visitors. Less than 2% of these visitors were using a resolution of
800x600. Over 70% of our visitors were using 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
I know we both understand that this doesn't mean their browsers are
fully maximized when searching the Internet. Probably very, very
few of them are. I watched our engineers search the web and I found
even though they weren't maximized, they were open larger than 800
pixels. Our website, which is 950, looks absolutely ridiculous on
one of our engineers monitors that has a giant 30" apple monitor
even though it is fluid, BUT, everything essential fits on an old
crt monitor too.
I personally would not design a site 1200 pixels wide, nor
would I design one 640x480.
I think it is most relevant to be familiar with your
demographic and your products and best determine a layout based on
what a potential customer might be and what the sites purpose is.
For example, I'm an artist and I love design sites that push
the envelope. If I'm at a creative site, I enjoy "figuring" out
certain things an artist might have thrown in there. I will
increase my browser window if necessary. However, if I go looking
for a pair of shoes during my lunch break and your nav bar doesn't
work or your page is hard to read, I'm out of there.
I think hard and fast rules are not alway applicable. I think
if the navigation is readable and functions with ease at 800
pixels, the rest is up for interpretation.
That being said, I'm not a professional web developer, I went
to art school.
To the other "professionals", please don't call me names, I'm
not claiming to be an expert--just a consumer.

Incorrect resolutions for 16:10 external displays, unable to detect 16:9

Hey there all, this is my first post here. It looks like some people have had similar issues—particularly with an incomplete/incorrect list of resolutions being provided for external displays.
I am shopping around for an external display for my MacBook (my specs are included) and I tested a few different ones today, but encountered problems.
- On a 22" ASUS monitor (sorry I don't have the model) using Mini-DVI to VGA, the native resolution (I assume 1680x1050) is not available, and most resolutions offered are 4:3 ratio (1600x1200 worked). The highest widescreen resolution listed was 1280x768.
- Next I tried a 19" ASUS, this time 16:9, but the monitor would not display at all. The MacBook display would go blue as normal but then flicker, as if it could not detect the display. This also happened with a 24" BENQ monitor (also 16:9).
Wondering whether or not this was a problem with using VGA, I then bought a Mini-DVI to DVI adapter and tried again on the 19" and 24" (the 22" ASUS did not have a DVI-in) but the same flickering blue screen appeared, with nothing displayed on the monitor.
These were my thoughts:
1. My firmware is not up-to-date. I check in System Profiler and am running Boot ROM Version MB41.00C1.B00 and SMC Version (system): 1.31f0. These are definitely up-to-date for my model MacBook.
2. Drivers are out of date. This does not seem likely as I am running OS X 10.5.7.
Other than that, I am at a loss! I haven't yet forked out the $49 to do phone support with Apple, that will be my next bet.
Has anyone had this problem, or have any ideas what I can try? Short of buying a new Unibody MacBook of course .
Thanks guys, hope you can help. Just let me know if you need more info about my computer.

It's unusual to strike out like that with three different monitors using two different adapters. On the other hand, with all the video issues that have been reported by others on these forums since the 10.5.7 update, it's not too surprising.
Is a 10.5.6 downgrade a possibility for you? For example, do you use Time Machine and can you in that case revert to a previous time when the MB was running 10.5.6? Perhaps that's not a great suggestion, but it would be something to try.
There is some remote chance, though somewhat unlikely given that three different monitors are involved, that the embedded display driver data (EDID) in each monitor is bad or incomplete. If you care to investigate that possibility, there is a program called SwitchRes X that allows you to snoop a monitor's EDID and turns it into a human readable text file.
One final suggestion would be to try yet one more monitor to see if any monitor can return a good result. One obvious choice would be an Apple monitor. If there is trouble when trying to connect to an Apple monitor, then that would certainly point to some problem in the MB's configuration or hardware. And not to cast aspersions on the brands you have already tried, but try another brand (if not Apple) that is perhaps more mainstream and known to be more Mac compatible and less firmly in the PC camp where plug-and-display drivers have never mattered very much and are very often botched by the monitor makers. Dell, Samsung and LG are three big brands that come to mind. Good luck.

[SOLVED] Arch Linux on Macbook - Can't fix Screen Resolution

I just installed Arch Linux as a dual-boot on my Macbook. I really like it so far. However, I came across a problem that is really bothering me. It may seem simple, but no matter what I try, I only get "1024x768" and "800x600" resolution options. What I need is "1280x800." Here is my xorg.conf file right now:
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "X.org Configured"
Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection
Section "Files"
ModulePath "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
EndSection
Section "Module"
Load "glx"
Load "dri2"
Load "extmod"
Load "dbe"
Load "dri"
Load "record"
EndSection
Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Keyboard0"
Driver "kbd"
EndSection
Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Monitor Vendor"
ModelName "Monitor Model"
EndSection
Section "Device"
### Available Driver options are:-
### Values: <i>: integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
### [arg]: arg optional
#Option "ShadowFB" # [<bool>]
#Option "DefaultRefresh" # [<bool>]
#Option "ModeSetClearScreen" # [<bool>]
Identifier "Card0"
Driver "vesa"
VendorName "Intel Corporation"
BoardName "Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller"
BusID "PCI:0:2:0"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Card0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 1
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 4
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 8
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 15
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 16
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Modes "1280x800"
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection
I just followed the instruction on the Arch Linux - Macbook Wiki page, and everything worked perfectly, except the resolution question. The only thing I added to the file is the 'Modes "1280x800"' lines. This is exactly what I've always done with linux, and it has always worked. So I'm perplexed, and I can't find any solutions that actually work by googling it. Has anyone else come across this problem, and even more important, does anyone know what is wrong?
Thanks.
Last edited by meolson (2009-09-23 04:44:23)

Ok. I figured it out. I found this forum:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=56899
I found it before, but I had done everything, or so I thought. At the end, he mentions two things that are important to fix the resolution. I've repeated them here, and adapted them to what I had before:
pacman -S xf86-video-intel
edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and change video card driver from 'vesa' to 'intel'
I thought I had installed xf86-video-intel already, but apparently I hadn't. So, I followed those two steps, and now, it looks so much better! Thanks to anyone who tried to looked for a solution.

Yoga 2 Pro REAL Screen Resolution

SECOND THREAD on this HERE.
I've just discovered that the Yoga 2 Pro seems to be fudging its screen resolution claim. I wouldn't care, except ... it actually has become a small problem ... and one that I presume will get bigger over time
The Y2P has a "3200x1800" screen. It's beautiful. And in most regards its also overkill, since there's no such thing as 3200x1800 content, AND because it cause some issues with size of things on the screen. For this reason, and because pushing fewer pixels will tend to improve battery life, I run my Y2P at 1920x1080, or "normal full HD" resolution.
I recently tried to log into an on-line app I use, as was greeted with a strange error message:
Well, since I'm running 1920x1080 and using a current version of the Chrome browswer, none of that made sense. I tried Internet Explorer as well ... no luck.
I installed Speccy, a tool to check things out inside a computer, and when I got to the display settings, here's what I found:
That's right; I'm "set to 1920x1080", but something is seeing that the REAL resolution is 1280x720. Oh, and elsewhere in Speccy I found that the Y2P is reporting itself as a tablet rather than as a computer ... which probably isn't the issue here, but still unsettling.
So I changed the resolution to 3200x1800. Good news: I was able to get to the web app I need. BAD NEWS: The real resolution appears to be 1600x900:
I called Lnove tech support and got a representative who tells me that this is a Windows 8.1 problem; Windows 8.1 cannot support resolutions higher than 1920x1080, so even though the actual hardware resolution of the Y2P is 3200x1800, it needs to scale itself so Windows doesn't cry. This appears to be false (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/03/21/scaling-to-different-screens.aspx), but I don't really know.
As such, my conclusion is that the representative told me something that was actually the opposite of correct, with correct SEEMING to be that the maximum REAL resolution of the Y2P hardware is in fact 1600x900, with Lenovo's claim of a 3200x1800 resolution being a software/upscaling/interpolation trick.
If that's so, it's really distressing, because it would appear to be a lie about hardware capabilities.
I didn't start out caring about that, although obviously as this point I feel like I've uncovered a smoking gun and would like an answer from Lenovo. But at the end of the day, since I don't need or want that 3200x1800 for the reasons I explained at the top of this post, I just want to know the truth—whatever it is— and to know how to get Windows to report the same resolution to "the world" that it's reporting to me, the user.
And I guess I wouldn't mind knowing why the scaling between real and interpolation is different depending on the settings one selects, too (do the math).
Anyone know anything conclusive? And even better, anyone from Lenovo have an ideas what the truth is here?

I don't know if any of these settings (resolution and/or item sizing) affects battery duration. But you could do a battery test: set it to one mode with full battery charge and then leave it on unused until the battery is 50%. Check how long that took. Repeat for the other mode and compare the time difference if any.
As to why there are these two layers of settings I think this is the answer: Windows metro apps and some Windows desktop application and the new elements in Windows 8 (the new start screen, the charms bar and all metro apps) have smart scaling of user interface elements (text, buttons and so on) designed to support very high resolution screens like ours. So buttons and text in such programs will adapt in size to fit the resolution. But older desktop applications, including the Windows 8.1 desktop taskbar and its icons it seems, does not do such smart scaling. So running them full resolution mean that everything is really tiny. To work around that everything can be scaled up to 200% (or 150% or 125%). I suspect that future versions of Windows or some Windows update may improve these things since the settings and the button descriptions in the settings aren't very user friendly.
But I'm not sure about this. I hope someone in the know jumps in this thread and gives more details.
It is a pity that Lenovo doesn't provide new Yoga 2 Pro users with a user friendly guide with information and tips on good ways to deal with resolutions and these scaling settings.

800x600 resolution being annoying

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for