On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 20:34 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 9/2/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't the fact that windows works with them a pretty good demonstration?
>
> Sadly we don't have access to that source code now do we. Please keep
> the rhetorical comments to a minimum.
Seems pretty objective to me...
Windows does almost exactly what we do. It uses the EDID information if
it can be found, otherwise it constructs a list of candidate modes based
on sync ranges. Some of them will be out of range for the monitor; it
happens to have better UI for reverting to the older settings.
>> Is he suggesting that windows uses magic? I thought he
meant instead
>> that X doesn't use the information sensibly.
>
> Are you asking me to-reinterpret Mr. Jackson's statements for
> additional implied meaning?
Please, call me ajax. The only people who call me Adam or Mr. Jackson
are telemarketers and judges.
Yes, in particular:
"So you end up in some pretty hilarious situations, because
X prefers width over height, so even though your monitor's
1600x1200, the sync range is big enough to fit 1680x1050,
so you'll try to fit that, and lose."
I interpret that as an X issue, not a lack of information in the inf file.
It's debatable whether that logic in X is a bug or not. It's certainly
correct when sorting modes smaller than the native screen size: your
field of vision is much wider than it is tall, so X should prefer wider
modes.
You only ever hit it as a bug in configuration when X can't query the
monitor for its native aspect ratio, and you only manually specify sync
ranges.
The inf file does not give you aspect ratio. It only gives you sync
ranges.
- ajax