Since upgrading to 10 a few weeks ago, I've occasionally logged in to find the display stretched out of shape. Everything appears too tall & thin. Logging out and back in has always fixed the problem.
I've gone through the logs but I really don't know what I should be looking for, nor even what information I might post to this list to help in diagnosing the issue other than my video card info. Can anyone give me some pointers on what to look for, or what I can provide to help solve this?
The driver is: SiS 661/741/760 PCI/AGP or 662/761Gx PCIE VGA Display Adapter
brian wrote:
Since upgrading to 10 a few weeks ago, I've occasionally logged in to find the display stretched out of shape. Everything appears too tall & thin. Logging out and back in has always fixed the problem.
I've gone through the logs but I really don't know what I should be looking for, nor even what information I might post to this list to help in diagnosing the issue other than my video card info. Can anyone give me some pointers on what to look for, or what I can provide to help solve this?
I can't say ofhand whatis causing it, but if you have access to a "stretched" terminal window, what does xrandr say about the display, and can you use it to return it to the proper size?
The driver is: SiS 661/741/760 PCI/AGP or 662/761Gx PCIE VGA Display Adapter
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
brian wrote:
Since upgrading to 10 a few weeks ago, I've occasionally logged in to find the display stretched out of shape. Everything appears too tall & thin. Logging out and back in has always fixed the problem.
I've gone through the logs but I really don't know what I should be looking for, nor even what information I might post to this list to help in diagnosing the issue other than my video card info. Can anyone give me some pointers on what to look for, or what I can provide to help solve this?
I can't say ofhand whatis causing it, but if you have access to a "stretched" terminal window, what does xrandr say about the display, and can you use it to return it to the proper size?
Thanks. Yeah, when this happens, I can easily open a terminal. Thanks for the tip. I've just saved the output (I'll print it here, fwiw) so i can compare the next time this happens. And I'll go through the man page to figure out how to (try to) reset the dims.
I'd really like to know, though, if there's something in a log that might provide a clue as to why it's happening.
This is the current output (the screen is fine). I doubt there's anything here to suggest what the problem might be.
$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1152 x 864, maximum 1152 x 864 default connected 1152x864+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1152x864 60.0* 1024x768 70.0 60.0 1024x576 60.0 960x600 60.0 960x540 60.0 800x600 60.0 56.0 768x576 60.0 720x576 60.0 856x480 60.0 800x480 60.0 720x480 61.0 640x480 67.0 60.0 720x400 70.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 60.0 320x240 61.0
brian wrote:
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
I can't say off hand what is causing it, but if you have access to a "stretched" terminal window, what does xrandr say about the display, and can you use it to return it to the proper size?
Thanks. Yeah, when this happens, I can easily open a terminal. Thanks for the tip. I've just saved the output (I'll print it here, fwiw) so i can compare the next time this happens. And I'll go through the man page to figure out how to (try to) reset the dims.
I find that I generally have to issue 2 commands:
1 to change to a different screen size than xrandr *thinks* is being displayed
and the 2nd to reset the screen back to the size it *should* have been displaying....
I'd really like to know, though, if there's something in a log that might provide a clue as to why it's happening.
Not that I can tell. Some programs play with the display size in different ways. Not all of them are fool-proof (or should I say error-proof?)
Here is my usual example:
I'm running dosbox in full screen mode (80x24 text mode, I think that's 720x480), and dosbox often changes the display mode as well. If everything runs OK, when I exit dosbox, it returns the display to what it was when I started it. Sometimes dosbox hangs. When it does, I have to kill it. Usually it has hosed up X11 in such a way that the only way to kill it is to ctrl-alt-F1 to a console window, and where I do a "killall -9 dosbox" WHen I return to the X11 sessionthe screen size is wrong, but xrandr tells me its 1280x800. Baloney. Its more like 720x480. Typing "xrandr -s 800x600" changes the screen size to 800x600, then I can type "xrandr -s 1280x800" to return it to its proper display size.
I've never found any log files that tell me what went wrong. Not the Xorg.log, not /var/log/messages, nothing I can find....
This is the current output (the screen is fine). I doubt there's anything here to suggest what the problem might be.
$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1152 x 864, maximum 1152 x 864 default connected 1152x864+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1152x864 60.0* 1024x768 70.0 60.0 1024x576 60.0 960x600 60.0 960x540 60.0 800x600 60.0 56.0 768x576 60.0 720x576 60.0 856x480 60.0 800x480 60.0 720x480 61.0 640x480 67.0 60.0 720x400 70.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 60.0 320x240 61.0
yeah, but I'll bet that something else has changed it behind Xorg's back....
Issuing 2 "xrandr -s" commands (like I do) should restore it for you.
brian wrote:
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
brian wrote:
Since upgrading to 10 a few weeks ago, I've occasionally logged in to find the display stretched out of shape. Everything appears too tall & thin. Logging out and back in has always fixed the problem.
I've gone through the logs but I really don't know what I should be looking for, nor even what information I might post to this list to help in diagnosing the issue other than my video card info. Can anyone give me some pointers on what to look for, or what I can provide to help solve this?
I can't say ofhand whatis causing it, but if you have access to a "stretched" terminal window, what does xrandr say about the display, and can you use it to return it to the proper size?
Thanks. Yeah, when this happens, I can easily open a terminal. Thanks for the tip. I've just saved the output (I'll print it here, fwiw) so i can compare the next time this happens. And I'll go through the man page to figure out how to (try to) reset the dims.
I'd really like to know, though, if there's something in a log that might provide a clue as to why it's happening.
This is the current output (the screen is fine). I doubt there's anything here to suggest what the problem might be.
$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1152 x 864, maximum 1152 x 864 default connected 1152x864+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1152x864 60.0* 1024x768 70.0 60.0 1024x576 60.0 960x600 60.0 960x540 60.0 800x600 60.0 56.0 768x576 60.0 720x576 60.0 856x480 60.0 800x480 60.0 720x480 61.0 640x480 67.0 60.0 720x400 70.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 60.0 320x240 61.0
OK, so this has just happened again so I took the opportunity to see what xrandr had to say about it.
$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1360 x 864, maximum 1360 x 864 default connected 1360x864+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1360x768 60.0 1152x864 60.0 1024x768 70.0 60.0 1024x576 60.0 960x600 60.0 960x540 60.0 800x600 60.0 56.0 768x576 60.0 720x576 60.0 856x480 60.0 800x480 60.0 720x480 61.0 640x480 60.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 60.0 320x240 61.0 1360x864 60.0*
Two odd (to me) things: it's suggesting that it's the horizontal measure that's changed, though what I'm seeing is a display that's very much stretched vertically, and it's listed this new pair last, below the smallest one.
I tried resetting using xrandr:
$ xrandr --fb 1152x864 xrandr: specified screen 1152x864 not large enough for output default (1360x864+0+0)
In the end, logging out and back in has fixed things, as usual.
brian wrote:
OK, so this has just happened again so I took the opportunity to see what xrandr had to say about it.
$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1360 x 864, maximum 1360 x 864 default connected 1360x864+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1360x768 60.0 1152x864 60.0 1024x768 70.0 60.0 1024x576 60.0 960x600 60.0 960x540 60.0 800x600 60.0 56.0 768x576 60.0 720x576 60.0 856x480 60.0 800x480 60.0 720x480 61.0 640x480 60.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 60.0 320x240 61.0 1360x864 60.0*
Two odd (to me) things: it's suggesting that it's the horizontal measure that's changed, though what I'm seeing is a display that's very much stretched vertically, and it's listed this new pair last, below the smallest one.
I tried resetting using xrandr:
$ xrandr --fb 1152x864 xrandr: specified screen 1152x864 not large enough for output default (1360x864+0+0)
Does:
xrandr -s 1360x864
work any better for you? I find that I have to issue 2 commands since it "thinks" its already in the size I wish to choose, so I'd do:
xrandr -s 800x600 xrandr -s 1360x864
-s sets the screen size. -fb sets the frame buffer size. The frame buffer size needs to be large enough to hold the largest screen size, since a smaller screen size can be "scrolled" to view the entire frame buffer if necessary. In Xorg.conf parlance, -fb is the "virtual screen size", and -s is the actual screen size. When -s is smaller than -fb, the screen can be scrolled (via mouse movements) to view the entire frame buffer.
In the end, logging out and back in has fixed things, as usual.
Of course, it resets everything from scratch.
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
brian wrote:
I tried resetting using xrandr:
$ xrandr --fb 1152x864 xrandr: specified screen 1152x864 not large enough for output default (1360x864+0+0)
Does:
xrandr -s 1360x864
work any better for you? I find that I have to issue 2 commands since it "thinks" its already in the size I wish to choose, so I'd do:
xrandr -s 800x600 xrandr -s 1360x864
Of course, I forgot your suggestion to issue 2 commands.
-s sets the screen size. -fb sets the frame buffer size. The frame buffer size needs to be large enough to hold the largest screen size, since a smaller screen size can be "scrolled" to view the entire frame buffer if necessary. In Xorg.conf parlance, -fb is the "virtual screen size", and -s is the actual screen size. When -s is smaller than -fb, the screen can be scrolled (via mouse movements) to view the entire frame buffer.
Eminently sensible. I obviously didn't read the man page carefully enough. I'll try that the next time this occurs. Thanks.
b
brian wrote:
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
brian wrote:
I tried resetting using xrandr:
$ xrandr --fb 1152x864 xrandr: specified screen 1152x864 not large enough for output default (1360x864+0+0)
Does:
xrandr -s 1360x864
work any better for you? I find that I have to issue 2 commands since it "thinks" its already in the size I wish to choose, so I'd do:
xrandr -s 800x600 xrandr -s 1360x864
Of course, I forgot your suggestion to issue 2 commands.
-s sets the screen size. -fb sets the frame buffer size. The frame buffer size needs to be large enough to hold the largest screen size, since a smaller screen size can be "scrolled" to view the entire frame buffer if necessary. In Xorg.conf parlance, -fb is the "virtual screen size", and -s is the actual screen size. When -s is smaller than -fb, the screen can be scrolled (via mouse movements) to view the entire frame buffer.
Eminently sensible. I obviously didn't read the man page carefully enough. I'll try that the next time this occurs. Thanks.
Just to be clear, I'll issue:
xrandr -s 800x600 xrandr -s 1152x864
You had the second one as the "wrong" dimensions.
I'm still confused about the horizontal labelled as being larger while it's the vertical dimension that's been changed.
-
brian -
Kevin Cummings