Re: Xinerama support

Tuomo Valkonen <[email protected]> writes:

[...]

> Actually, it's not so much about the size of the screen. I don't find
> 19" 4:3 offers anything over 17" 4:3 at the same resolution, or even
> a slightly bigger resolution (e.g. 1600x1200 vs. 1280x1024... which would
> be more of an enhancement on a 17" screen than between 19" and 17", but not
> much of enhancement in either case, as both resolutions are still so poor). 

Sure, by "size" I really mean in pixels.  I'm constrained by company
policy to use TFTs (we decided that for reasons which probably aren't
so valid any more, so possibly I could argue against that), so that
limits my choices.  I'm disappointed I can't get the same kind of
resolution on a desktop screen that is available on laptops, but I
imagine the costs (environmental and other) even out (physically
bigger screens probably don't cost much more than smaller ones; it
probably depends more on the number of pixels).

> It's more about the shape. There's horizontally a bit of space left in 
> the field of vision after a 4:3 screen, that a widescreen display should
> fill. You can comfortably fit two A4 papers on a widescreen display, 
> wasting less resources than multihead, that normally will have a lot 
> of screen space outside your field of vision.

Quite true, although I'm not so confident about the relative costs.

Certainly I don't feel that much advantage in having two screens---a
single one with a similar number of pixels would do just as well
(especially with ion).  I guess if ion regards my existing two screens
as one big one that won't be too bad; it would be slightly annoying on
the occasions where I want to make some application full-screen,
though.