Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X.Org Server Finally Adapted To Better Deal With 16:9 & 16:10 Displays

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Still prefer 16:10 monitor. Makes me puke to see those cheap ass Fullhd 16:9 They multiply like plague. Thanks industry ruined computing and made 16:9 the so called "standard"

    Comment


    • #12
      What!? 16:9 and 16:10 always worked fine..

      Comment


      • #13
        never had a problem, usually use the monitor's native resolution though, avoiding scaling / interpolation for crystal sharp text, ... guess other resolutions mostly only make sense for gaming?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by rene View Post
          never had a problem, usually use the monitor's native resolution though, avoiding scaling / interpolation for crystal sharp text, ... guess other resolutions mostly only make sense for gaming?
          Yep, it's gaming for me at least.

          Comment


          • #15
            duby229 dungeon
            Those vendors who ship wrong EDID (in CRT times most of them did on at least few models) should be publically shamed, for real..., the only reason they do it is to save money in the worst possible way, most EDID chips (at least in past) were ROM chips with specific modes, so... if they have more of them, they put the very same chip in "higher end" displays and solve wrong EDID information via driver....

            I had same problem on my old (and now dead ) Samsung CRT, it used EDID chip from lowest end displays (1280x1024@60Hz 5:4) but it could go up to 1600x1200@65Hz, while normal usage would assume 1280x960@85Hz (for standard 4:3 aspect ratio). On wayland I always ended up with corrupt edid.bin, and had to pass "video=1280x960@85" as kernel parameters to GRUB, and GDM would often ignore it (unless is forced to use X and modelines from xorg.conf) even when proper mode is copied from monitors.xml to GDM.

            And yeah..., 16:10 is much better aspect ratio than 16:9 imo, when my good old CRT died i got 1440x900 display and it was easy to move from 4:3, now with 1080 it took some time to get used to..., and man TN panels are crap, not one of them could reproduce 24-bit colors..., and ghosting..., it's like riding off a horse to ride on a donkey.

            Comment


            • #16
              I use nVidia's `MetaModes` option to lock the resolution at the native one (1280x1024 + 1920x1080 + 1280x1024) because I've yet to find a WM that doesn't scramble up my windows when the resolution changes and, even if that weren't the case, games on Linux like to turn off monitors they're not using when they change resolutions, unlike Windows.

              I usually run my games windowed instead and then fullscreen them at the compositor level if I so desire.

              Speaking of which, given that I plan to switch to an AMD GPU when my GeForce GTX750 dies, can anyone tell me how I'd go about locking my monitors to native resolution without `MetaModes`? (Or do I just have to do some LD_PRELOAD hackery to forcibly deny access to the X11 APIs for changing the resolution once the server is started?)
              Last edited by ssokolow; 18 January 2018, 05:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
                I use nVidia's `MetaModes` option to lock the resolution at the native one (1280x1024 + 1920x1080 + 1280x1024) because I've yet to find a WM that doesn't scramble up my windows when the resolution changes and, even if that weren't the case, games on Linux like to turn off monitors they're not using when they change resolutions, unlike Windows.

                I usually run my games windowed instead and then fullscreen them at the compositor level if I so desire.
                Oh you've got to tell us how you do that! Most games on linux don't support fullscreen window mode, and it really is the best possible mode when you're playing on a multimonitor setup.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Dehir View Post
                  Still prefer 16:10 monitor.
                  It's hard to find 16:10 with better resolution than 1920x1200 that also have good color and low response time.

                  Dell has some, but their response time is worse than for 16:9 models.
                  Last edited by shmerl; 18 January 2018, 06:02 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    ssokolow You can check https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/multihead and https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Extreme_Multihead

                    I don't think you will need to bother with it tho if using X.Org and mesa drivers, but I've never run multi display configuration so..., I had tons of problems setting up even custom resolution and specific refresh rate with nvidia blob few years ago, while using nouveau it worked like char and everything is well documented, that's why I assume you would not need to bother with it at all.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Nowadays the cool kids use 9:18. That is, a phone.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X