search for: 2560x1024

Hiya Compiz list! I am a Linux UI dude for VMware as my day job and am working on improving things in Workstation and Player with regards to multiple monitors on Linux. Some of my colleagues worked with the xdg/wm-spec folks just earlier this year to get the _NET_WM_FULLSCREEN_MONITORS hint into the EWMH spec to address the needs applications have in needing to be both fullscreen and spanning

The command I run (important bits):- Code: wine explorer /desktop=civ4,1280x800 Civ4BeyondSword.exe My system has twinview running, an external monitor (1280x1024) and my laptop LCD (1280x800). Gnome sees it as one large monitor of 2560x1024, my monitor is on the left, my LCD on the right. Even though I start wine from the laptop monitor, it starts up (with indicated resolution) on the external monitor. If I use 1280x799 resolution instead, it starts up on the monitor from which I run the command, which is expected behaviour (but mess...

I have 2 monitors plugged into the same nvidia card (running nouveau) one can be either DVI-I or VGA(vga right now) and the other is hdmi, right now, I am just trying to get the monitors to not be clones of each other and to be side by side. When i do xrandr --output HDMI-1 --pos 0x0 --output VGA-1 --auto --right-of HDMI-1, the whole screen freezes with the mouse in between the 2 monitors and I

...Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: plugin AssignedTo: swfdec at lists.freedesktop.org ReportedBy: patrys at pld-linux.org QAContact: swfdec at lists.freedesktop.org I'm using two 19" monitors to display a 2560x1024 desktop across two screens. While GTK clips the full screen player to one full monitor, the player itself assumes it has all the 2560x1024 space. Therefore only the left half of each movie is visible. It would be nice if the code checked for the actual size of the window instead of assuming it'...

...section the performance is horrible. If I set the width to anything greater than 2048 I have the same problem. I can set the screen size to 2048x2048 and awkwardly have the monitors on top of each other and performance is fine. It is unclear to me why 2048x2048 would have better performance than 2560x1024 or even 2304x864.