Search Results

Search found 6912 results on 277 pages for 'assembly resolution'.

Page 4/277 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Ubuntu 12.04 resolution issue ATI radeon x1600

    - by JP Hellemons
    I have a brand new Ubuntu 12.04 installation, but my resolution is set to 800*600 4:3 and my resolution using windows xp is 1440*900 but that option is unavailable for me. When I search for restricted drivers, there are none. So I searched the ati website and downloaded a .run file of about 80 mb. but that gave me an error when I tried to open it. I downloaded some fglrx thing from the repositories and now there are some widescreen options available but still no 1440*900 there is some ATI controlpanel installed, but when I try to open it, it fails telling me that there is now suitable driver. ps. my video card is a 512MB ATI Radeon Sapphire X1600 AGP

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu can't identify correct resolution

    - by Kushal
    I had a Dell monitor and now I have an AOC monitor. The last time these worked without any Xrandr tweaking were with Ubuntu 10.10. Since 11.04, the max resolution that I can use on these is 1024x768. I know for a fact that the correct resolution on this monitor should be 1360x768. Even with Precise beta 2, this problem persists. I know I can fix it using Xrandr, but I want to understand how to get Ubuntu to identify the correct possible resolutions the way it did two years ago. Can someone help me? Thanks in advance for all your help.

    Read the article

  • How can I get a 1920x1080 resolution?

    - by Sam T.
    I a newbie Linux and have just installed Ubuntu in a dual boot with Windows 7. I love the interface of Ubuntu but unfortunately I can only get a 800x600 or 1024x728 resolution with black bars all around the screen. I have an nVidia GTX 570 graphics card and an Asus 1080p 23" monitor. What may be of note is that I had to use the nomodeset command on installation of the boot would get stuck at a line with "nouveau", which I understand is to do with the drivers. Additionally, when I type in xrandr to the terminal, it comes up with the error message "failed to get size of gamma for output default". I guess what I am looking for here is someone who could explain to me really simply the steps I have to take to get a full 1080p resolution, at which point I am sure i will become a great fan of the OS! Thanks in advance, Sam T.

    Read the article

  • ubuntu 11, maximum resolution is a low 1024 x 768

    - by djturbojp7
    I just installed ubuntu 11 and the maximum resolution that it will let me set it at is 1024 x 768. My graphics are onboard, its the intel 82845g. Trying to increase the resolution and support the video more smoothly. UPDATE: user1@pc1:~$ xrandr | grep maximum Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024 x 768, maximum 2048 x 2048 user1@pc1:~$ gtf 1280 1024 59.9 # 1280x1024 @ 59.90 Hz (GTF) hsync: 63.49 kHz; pclk: 108.70 MHz Modeline "1280x1024_59.90" 108.70 1280 1360 1496 1712 1024 1025 1028 1060 -HSync +Vsync user1@pc1:~$ xrandr --newmode "1280x1024_59.90" 108.70 1280 1360 1496 1712 1024 1025 1028 1060 -HSync +Vsync X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist) Major opcode of failed request: 149 (RANDR) Minor opcode of failed request: 16 (RRCreateMode) Serial number of failed request: 20 Current serial number in output stream: 20 user1@pc1:~$

    Read the article

  • Only one resolution available in Xorg.conf

    - by Kévin Guilbeault
    I recently upgraded to Ubuntu 12.10 and when I try to change my resolution in NVIDIA X server settings, I only get the native one (1600x900). When I had 12.04 installed, all resolutions were available in the drop down list. My goal is to have twinview working again. I used to set my two screens to twinview and clones, using my HDTV resolution (1360x768) which was previously available in 12.04 for my laptop screen too. In 12.10, I tried to install all of the NVIDIA drivers available except the nouveau driver. I tried to add a new mode using Xrandr --newmode / --addmode, but it didn't work; it coudn't detect my output. I'd like to know if this is a known bug and if there's something to do with that. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Problem with the screen resolution on 12.04

    - by sveinn
    I just installed Ubuntu on my laptop. The screen resolution is stuck in 1024x768. The screen is made for 1280x800. When I run xrandr I get: xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 800 x 600, current 1024 x 768, maximum 1024 x 768 default connected 1024x768+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1024x768 61.0* 800x600 61.0 1280x800 isn't offered and I get gamma size error. I was going to look into the Xorg.conf file but I couldn't locate it. 1280x800 was displayed in Windows 7 and I think it is being displayed in Grub before Ubuntu starts also. Here are some details about my computer: CPU: Intel atom D2500 1.86GHz Chipset: Intel 945GSE+ICH7M LCD: 14" TFT 16:9 Resolution ratio: 1280*800 Video Card: Intel integrated GMA950 Does anyone know how to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Changing the rendering resolution while maintaining the design layout

    - by Coyote
    I would like to increase the FPS of my project. Currently I would like to try reducing the resolution at which the scenes are rendered. Let's say I never want to draw more than 1280*720. What ever the real resolution is. How should I proceed? I tried pEGLView->setFrameSize(1280, 720); but only reduces the displayed size of the frame on screen (boxing). In my activity I tried setting the size of the "surface" but this seems to completely break the layout (as defined by setDesignResolutionSize). @Override public Cocos2dxGLSurfaceView onCreateView() { Cocos2dxGLSurfaceView surfaceView = new Cocos2dxGLSurfaceView(this); surfaceView.getHolder().setFixedSize(1280, 720); return surfaceView; } Is there a way to simply change the rendered

    Read the article

  • Inserting x200s into (ultrabase) docking station mirror screen is always activated leading to non optimal resolution

    - by kiu
    Builtin LCD should be 1440x900 External LCD should be 1920x1080 If X200s is inserted into docking station the option mirror screen is always activated leading to a resolution of 1152x864 which looks terrible on the builtin and external lcd. My manual configuration for docking mode (seperate screens with maximum resolution) should be respected, but "Make Default" button has no consequences. Found a quick fix, but this cant be the offical ubuntu way... /etc/udev/rules.d/99-vga.rules: SUBSYSTEM=="drm", ACTION=="change", RUN+="/usr/local/sbin/vga_changed.sh" /usr/local/sbin/vga_changed.sh: #!/bin/bash dmode="$(cat /sys/class/drm/card0-VGA-1/status)" export DISPLAY=:0.0 if [ "${dmode}" = disconnected ]; then /usr/bin/sudo -u kiu /usr/bin/xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1440x900 --pos 0x0 --output VGA1 --off elif [ "${dmode}" = connected ]; then /usr/bin/sudo -u kiu /usr/bin/xrandr --output LVDS1 --mode 1440x900 --pos 0x0 --output VGA1 --auto --mode 1920x1080 --right-of LVDS1 fi

    Read the article

  • Problem with the screen resolution on Ubuntu 12.04

    - by sveinn
    I just installed ubuntu on my laptop. The screen resolution is stuck in 1024x768. The screen is made for 1280x800. When I run xrandr I get: xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 800 x 600, current 1024 x 768, maximum 1024 x 768 default connected 1024x768+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1024x768 61.0* 800x600 61.0 1280x800 isn't offered and I get gamma size error. I was going to look into the Xorg.conf file but I couldn't locate it. 1280x800 was displayed in Windows 7 and I think it is being displayed in Grub before ubuntu starts also. Here are some details about my computer: CPU Intel atom D2500 1.86GHz Chipset Intel 945GSE+ICH7M LCD 14" TFT 16:9 Resolution ratio 1280*800 Video Card Intel integrated GMA950 Does anyone know how to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Resolution problems

    - by tampe125
    i'm having some troubles with screen resolution. First of all, i'm using a Lenovo Thinkpad E520, with BackTrack 5 R2 installed. As far as I know, BT is based on Ubuntu 3.2, so I hope this is the right place to ask for help. My natural resolution is 1366x768, but I'm stuck with 1024x768. This is my hardware: lspci | grep VGA 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Interl Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 09) How can I fix that? Is there a ready-to-use driver or I have to compile that from source? At least, is there a solution, at all? :(

    Read the article

  • Asus 101mt Resolution change

    - by jayb151
    I've been looking for a fix, but no luck. my Asus 101mt has a maximum resolution of 1024x768, but I cannot select this in "Displays" since it is not an option. I have added this resolution before, but now I can't seem to find the same information. I just did a clean install with 12.04. I am also dual booting with Win 7. I am really a newb when it comes to Linux. I'm only now starting to see the light! Any help would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Anatomy of a .NET Assembly - PE Headers

    - by Simon Cooper
    Today, I'll be starting a look at what exactly is inside a .NET assembly - how the metadata and IL is stored, how Windows knows how to load it, and what all those bytes are actually doing. First of all, we need to understand the PE file format. PE files .NET assemblies are built on top of the PE (Portable Executable) file format that is used for all Windows executables and dlls, which itself is built on top of the MSDOS executable file format. The reason for this is that when .NET 1 was released, it wasn't a built-in part of the operating system like it is nowadays. Prior to Windows XP, .NET executables had to load like any other executable, had to execute native code to start the CLR to read & execute the rest of the file. However, starting with Windows XP, the operating system loader knows natively how to deal with .NET assemblies, rendering most of this legacy code & structure unnecessary. It still is part of the spec, and so is part of every .NET assembly. The result of this is that there are a lot of structure values in the assembly that simply aren't meaningful in a .NET assembly, as they refer to features that aren't needed. These are either set to zero or to certain pre-defined values, specified in the CLR spec. There are also several fields that specify the size of other datastructures in the file, which I will generally be glossing over in this initial post. Structure of a PE file Most of a PE file is split up into separate sections; each section stores different types of data. For instance, the .text section stores all the executable code; .rsrc stores unmanaged resources, .debug contains debugging information, and so on. Each section has a section header associated with it; this specifies whether the section is executable, read-only or read/write, whether it can be cached... When an exe or dll is loaded, each section can be mapped into a different location in memory as the OS loader sees fit. In order to reliably address a particular location within a file, most file offsets are specified using a Relative Virtual Address (RVA). This specifies the offset from the start of each section, rather than the offset within the executable file on disk, so the various sections can be moved around in memory without breaking anything. The mapping from RVA to file offset is done using the section headers, which specify the range of RVAs which are valid within that section. For example, if the .rsrc section header specifies that the base RVA is 0x4000, and the section starts at file offset 0xa00, then an RVA of 0x401d (offset 0x1d within the .rsrc section) corresponds to a file offset of 0xa1d. Because each section has its own base RVA, each valid RVA has a one-to-one mapping with a particular file offset. PE headers As I said above, most of the header information isn't relevant to .NET assemblies. To help show what's going on, I've created a diagram identifying all the various parts of the first 512 bytes of a .NET executable assembly. I've highlighted the relevant bytes that I will refer to in this post: Bear in mind that all numbers are stored in the assembly in little-endian format; the hex number 0x0123 will appear as 23 01 in the diagram. The first 64 bytes of every file is the DOS header. This starts with the magic number 'MZ' (0x4D, 0x5A in hex), identifying this file as an executable file of some sort (an .exe or .dll). Most of the rest of this header is zeroed out. The important part of this header is at offset 0x3C - this contains the file offset of the PE signature (0x80). Between the DOS header & PE signature is the DOS stub - this is a stub program that simply prints out 'This program cannot be run in DOS mode.\r\n' to the console. I will be having a closer look at this stub later on. The PE signature starts at offset 0x80, with the magic number 'PE\0\0' (0x50, 0x45, 0x00, 0x00), identifying this file as a PE executable, followed by the PE file header (also known as the COFF header). The relevant field in this header is in the last two bytes, and it specifies whether the file is an executable or a dll; bit 0x2000 is set for a dll. Next up is the PE standard fields, which start with a magic number of 0x010b for x86 and AnyCPU assemblies, and 0x20b for x64 assemblies. Most of the rest of the fields are to do with the CLR loader stub, which I will be covering in a later post. After the PE standard fields comes the NT-specific fields; again, most of these are not relevant for .NET assemblies. The one that is is the highlighted Subsystem field, and specifies if this is a GUI or console app - 0x20 for a GUI app, 0x30 for a console app. Data directories & section headers After the PE and COFF headers come the data directories; each directory specifies the RVA (first 4 bytes) and size (next 4 bytes) of various important parts of the executable. The only relevant ones are the 2nd (Import table), 13th (Import Address table), and 15th (CLI header). The Import and Import Address table are only used by the startup stub, so we will look at those later on. The 15th points to the CLI header, where the CLR-specific metadata begins. After the data directories comes the section headers; one for each section in the file. Each header starts with the section's ASCII name, null-padded to 8 bytes. Again, most of each header is irrelevant, but I've highlighted the base RVA and file offset in each header. In the diagram, you can see the following sections: .text: base RVA 0x2000, file offset 0x200 .rsrc: base RVA 0x4000, file offset 0xa00 .reloc: base RVA 0x6000, file offset 0x1000 The .text section contains all the CLR metadata and code, and so is by far the largest in .NET assemblies. The .rsrc section contains the data you see in the Details page in the right-click file properties page, but is otherwise unused. The .reloc section contains address relocations, which we will look at when we study the CLR startup stub. What about the CLR? As you can see, most of the first 512 bytes of an assembly are largely irrelevant to the CLR, and only a few bytes specify needed things like the bitness (AnyCPU/x86 or x64), whether this is an exe or dll, and the type of app this is. There are some bytes that I haven't covered that affect the layout of the file (eg. the file alignment, which determines where in a file each section can start). These values are pretty much constant in most .NET assemblies, and don't affect the CLR data directly. Conclusion To summarize, the important data in the first 512 bytes of a file is: DOS header. This contains a pointer to the PE signature. DOS stub, which we'll be looking at in a later post. PE signature PE file header (aka COFF header). This specifies whether the file is an exe or a dll. PE standard fields. This specifies whether the file is AnyCPU/32bit or 64bit. PE NT-specific fields. This specifies what type of app this is, if it is an app. Data directories. The 15th entry (at offset 0x168) contains the RVA and size of the CLI header inside the .text section. Section headers. These are used to map between RVA and file offset. The important one is .text, which is where all the CLR data is stored. In my next post, we'll start looking at the metadata used by the CLR directly, which is all inside the .text section.

    Read the article

  • How do I set my main monitor to a higher resolution?

    - by Sean
    My laptop monitor's native resolution is 1280x800 and it just isnt big enough for me. I tried to set the resolution higher, but my graphics card only showed options upto 1280x800, and I figured that was the max res my card would allow. I found a monitor out on the street a few days ago and its native resolution is 1024x768. I have been playing around with it a bit. I was looking under the resolutions for it, and I can set it upto 1400x1050, so apparently my card allows for more than 1280x800, so why can't I set my laptop monitor to higher?

    Read the article

  • Cannot establish maximum resolution on ASUS PB278Q

    - by dentuzhik
    I've recently bought brand new ASUS PB278Q monitor. When trying to connect to my laptop, everything works great, except that I can't get the native resolution of my monitor (2560x1440) working. The automatic is 1920x1080. My graphic card is Nvidia GeForce 320m. Here's output from lspci for it: ~$ lspci | grep VGA 02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT216M [GeForce GT 320M] (rev a2) and also xrandr: ~$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 3286 x 1437, maximum 8192 x 8192 VGA-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) LVDS-0 connected primary 1366x768+0+669 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 344mm x 193mm 1366x768 60.0*+ HDMI-0 connected 1920x1080+1366+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 600mm x 340mm 1920x1080 60.0*+ 59.9 50.0 30.0 25.0 24.0 60.0 50.0 1680x1050 60.0 1440x900 59.9 1280x1024 75.0 60.0 1280x960 60.0 1280x800 59.8 1280x720 60.0 59.9 50.0 1152x864 75.0 1024x768 75.0 70.1 60.0 800x600 75.0 72.2 60.3 56.2 720x576 50.0 720x480 59.9 640x480 75.0 59.9 59.9 480x576 50.0 480x480 59.9 I have proprietary drivers installed on my machine, here's the info about the monitor from nvidia-settings (Actually I don't have enough reputation to post images, so here's the text): Chip Location: Internal Signal: TDMS Connection link: Single Native resolution: 2560x1440 Refresh rate: 60.00 Hz The monitor is connected to laptop via HDMI cable, and honestly I have no idea what version it is, and what version is my HDMI output of my graphics card. I tried to find how I can figure it out on the web, but had no luck. Also my video card has only VGA and HDMI outs so I can't test neither DVI-D cable nor DisplayPort. So apparently, there's some problem over there. At least I want to know exactly what's going on. I've tried to see if it a linux-specific problem, but windows also gave me the same resolution by default. What I've already tried: Connect through VGA (stupid one, of course it gave me 1920x1080). Checked two HDMI cables (not sure if they're the same or not, as mentioned above). Played around with xrandr and adding custom modes. Didn't help. Surfed for the info a lot on the web, but couldn't get appropriate results. Actually xrandr gives me the following: ~$ cvt 2560 1440 60 # 2560x1440 59.96 Hz (CVT 3.69M9) hsync: 89.52 kHz; pclk: 312.25 MHz Modeline "2560x1440_60.00" 312.25 2560 2752 3024 3488 1440 1443 1448 1493 -hsync +vsync ~$ xrandr --newmode "2560x1440_60.00" 312.25 2560 2752 3024 3488 1440 1443 1448 1493 -hsync +vsync ~$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 3286 x 1437, maximum 8192 x 8192 VGA-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) LVDS-0 connected 1366x768+0+669 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 344mm x 193mm 1366x768 60.0*+ HDMI-0 connected primary 1920x1080+1366+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 600mm x 340mm 1920x1080 60.0*+ 59.9 50.0 30.0 25.0 24.0 60.0 50.0 1680x1050 60.0 1440x900 59.9 1280x1024 75.0 60.0 1280x960 60.0 1280x800 59.8 1280x720 60.0 59.9 50.0 1152x864 75.0 1024x768 75.0 70.1 60.0 800x600 75.0 72.2 60.3 56.2 720x576 50.0 720x480 59.9 640x480 75.0 59.9 59.9 480x576 50.0 480x480 59.9 2560x1440_60.00 (0x34f) 312.2MHz h: width 2560 start 2752 end 3024 total 3488 skew 0 clock 89.5KHz v: height 1440 start 1443 end 1448 total 1493 clock 60.0Hz ~$ xrandr --addmode HDMI-0 2560x1440_60.00 X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes) Major opcode of failed request: 140 (RANDR) Minor opcode of failed request: 18 (RRAddOutputMode) Serial number of failed request: 29 Current serial number in output stream: 30 What I intend to do next: Try another HDMI cable? Try HDMI to DVI-D cable? Try HDMI to DisplayPort cable? Another type of adapters? VGA to DVI-D? Buy another laptop with another graphic card. Damn. My ideas pretty much end here. Any ideas? Any explanations why it isn't working are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Regarding sprite design and resolution for tablets and phones

    - by Dimitris P.
    I am about to start working on a game for android devices, in my spare time, to get familiar with android development. I'm more interested in using the best practices possible than getting a quick result, and that is why I need some guidance regarding graphics. I think the game is going to be fully sprite based. Everything is going to be in .bmp form, or something similar, and my question is: Should I design the sprites in a small resolution (ie for phone screens) and scale them up to fit into larger screens (tablet screens), should I do it vice-versa or should I consider a completely different approach? Would designing a different set of sprites for each of the most used resolution settings be worth it or are there simpler solutions to the problem with fewer drawbacks than the ones I mentioned above? (If I follow the first approach, for example, the larger the screen the worse the graphics will get, since every pixel of the original drawing will cover several pixels on the screen). Is there a standard approach for dealing with this kind of problems? If you need me to be more detailed or more clear about something I mentioned (or forgot to) please don't hesitate to ask. Also, excuse me for any inaccurate use of the English language. Thank you in advance for your input.

    Read the article

  • Lenovo S110 netbook screen resolution Ubuntu

    - by Neigyl R. Noval
    I am still stuck with 800x600 resolution. Here is the output of lspci: 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Device 0bf2 (rev 03) 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Device 0be2 (rev 09) 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family High Definition Audio Controller (rev 02) 00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02) 00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02) 00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family PCI Express Port 3 (rev 02) 00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH7 Family USB UHCI Controller #1 (rev 02) 00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #2 (rev 02) 00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #3 (rev 02) 00:1d.3 USB Controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB UHCI Controller #4 (rev 02) 00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 02) 00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 Mobile PCI Bridge (rev e2) 00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation NM10 Family LPC Controller (rev 02) 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation N10/ICH7 Family SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02) 00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation N10/ICH 7 Family SMBus Controller (rev 02) 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101E/RTL8102E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller (rev 05) 02:00.0 Network controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8176 (rev 01) Also, I tried modifying /usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-monitor.conf to fix this problem, but still does not work: Section "Monitor" Identifier "Monitor0" VendorName "Monitor Vendor" ModelName "Monitor Model" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Monitor "Monitor0" Device "Card0" SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 1 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 4 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 8 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 15 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 16 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 Modes "1024x768" EndSubSection EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Card0" Driver "vesa" VendorName "Intel Corporation Device" EndSection I'm using Gnome. System Preference Monitor screen resolution sticks to 800x600. What am I going to do?

    Read the article

  • Cannot set monitor to native resolution

    - by S B
    problem is similar to so many other users, but solutions found do not work. Background: Fresh install of 12.04 (completely updated) on a Fit-PC2 (specs). Read in several places that the new 3.X kernel that 12.04 runs on has a new psb_gfx driver which supports the gma500 graphics card (poulsbo chipset). All's pretty much working (there are some glitches which are documented, so I won't raise them here), except for the screen resolution. My native monitor resolution is 1920X1080, but all I get is 1024x768. Output running xrandr: xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 1024 x 768, current 1024 x 768, maximum 1024 x 768 default connected 1024x768+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1024x768 0.0* Although I read that Ubuntu does not come with an xorg.conf file anymore, I also tried running sudo X :1 -configure, and here's the end of the output: Number of created screens does not match number of detected devices. Configuration failed. When I look in the xorg.conf.new file created in my home directory, it seems that for some reason X thinks I have two screens. Don't know what to do with that. Ideas anyone? Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • nvidia graphics resolution problem

    - by Deepak Adhikari
    I am currently using ubuntu 12.04 I have acer aspire timelinex 3830tg with 2GB nvidia GeForce GT540M graphics card To enable my graphics card I followed following steps. 1.) I activated nvidia_current and nvidia_current_updates from additional drivers 2.) sudo nvidia-xconfig 3.) then reboot Following these steps I got following errors 1.) my resolution is 640x480...(there is no option of 1366x768 in display...previously there was 1366x768 when nvidia-xconfig command was not entered) 2.) when I open nvidia-settings it shows me following error "You do not appear to be using the NVIDIA X driver. Please edit your X configuration file (just run 'nvidia-xconfig' as root) and restart the X server." Problem need to be solved 1.) Change resolution to 1366x768 2.) Also how to check my nvidia graphics working or not Please some one please help me to solve these issues...I am seriously in need of my graphics card... I wan't my nvidia graphics card work as my intel graphics smoothly I am not willing to use bumblebee with regards, ubuntu user

    Read the article

  • Multi-Resolution Mobile Development

    - by user2186302
    I'm about to start development on my first game for mobile phone (I already have a flash prototype completed so it's jsut a matter of "porting" it to mobile and fixing up the code) and plan on hopefully being able to get the game working on iphones and most android devices. I am using Haxe along with OpenFL and HaxeFlixel for development. My question is: What resolution should I design the game in initially and/or what is the best way to develop a game for multiple resolutions. I have found multiple different methods, the best, in my opinion, being strategy 3 on this page: http://wiki.starling-framework.org/manual/multi-resolution_development. However I have some questions about this. First, what would the best base resolution to use be, the guide suggests 240*320 which seems alright to me, although if I chose to use pixel graphics as I most probably will given I'm using HaxeFlixel, I'm not sure if they'll look too blocky on larger screens which I'm not even sure is a problem as it might still look alright. (Honestly, not sure about that and if anyone has any examples of games that use this method and look nice). Finally, please feel free to share whatever methods you use and think is best. For example, HaxeFlixel has a scaling feature that scales the game to fit the exact screen size, but I'm afraid that would lead to blurry and improperly scaled graphics since it would scale by non-integers. But, I'm not sure how noticeable a problem that may or may not be. Although from experience I'm pretty sure it won't look nice and currently I do not think I'm going to go for this option. So, I would really appreciate any help on this subject. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 stopped recognizing my BenQ monitor and reduced resolution to 1024x768

    - by Omri
    A few days ago I installed Ubuntu 12.04 32bit Desktop. It recognized my hardware without a problem (at least that I know of) and all worked fine. I left my system running (it is at work) through the night because it is also working as a database server and when I came today to work the resolution was 1024x768 (the monitor recommends 1920x1080) even though in the Display section of the System Settings it was recognized as BenQ, and no higher resolution was offered. After a restart, the monitor name changed from BenQ to Unknown. This is a desktop computer. I also installed gtk-redshift and f.lux. I checked Additional Drivers to see if there is something I can install but it didn't find anything. I tried to Google it but I didn't find anything about a monitor stopping being recognized after it was already working. I did enable some PPAs yesterday, namely webupd8, mozillateam/thunderbird-stable and some other, and I also followed the instructions to patch the NotifyOSD to be more friendly: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:caffeine-developers/ppa sudo add-apt-repository ppa:leolik/leolik sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get upgrade sudo apt-get install libnotify-bin pkill notify-osd sudo add-apt-repository ppa:nilarimogard/webupd8 sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install notifyosdconfig I now purged both caffeine-developers and leolik PPAs in the hope it will help, but no change. Has there been a change in the packages that could introduce this problem? Any help will be very appreciated :-) Omri

    Read the article

  • Dual monitors, screen resolution, xorg.conf.d

    - by Flase
    I do a lot of RTFM but this one has got me stuck. I have Ubuntu Studio 12.04 Precise Pangolin with XFCE as its default desktop. My old HIS ATI Radeon 9250 graphics card was adding red crud across the screen with the generic driver, but downloading the proprietary "fglrx" driver makes it work cleanly. The trouble is the Catalyst control centre refuses to recognise my old card so I must do some manual configuring to make sure both the DVI and VGA monitors are capable of the correct screen resolution (both 1280x1024) and a dual display. It used to be easier to just edit the existing xorg.conf file and add another resolution and so forth, but now there are automatic xorg.conf.d directories (more than one) with scant documentation. Creating a generic xorg.conf with a terminal command creates every setting imaginable. What I want to do is create the simplest conf file which just tells the system the following: My VGA monitor can do 1280x1024 60Hz The two monitors together may be 2560x1024 width The VGA monitor on the right I might need to specify Xinerama if it's needed Thank you. I don't think I need to bore you with log files, but please ask for further info. Mike

    Read the article

  • 1080p Screen resolution problem after 10.04 to 12.04 update

    - by Ale
    I have a Samsung LCD 40" with a NVidia GeForce 6150SE nForce 430 Card. I recently upgraded from 10.04 to 12.04 and the best resolution I can get is 1360x768. I've tried the propietary drivers available on the repository kmod:nvidia_current kmod:nvidia_173_updates kmod:nvidia_current_updates kmod:nvidia_96 kmod:nvidia_96_updates kmod:nvidia_173 I've also downloaded latest from NVidia's Web, version: 295.40. But still no luck. With Nouveau driver, I can only get 1024x768. I know there is no problem with my hardware (video card, cable and monitor), I was using it perfectly on 10.04. Can anybody suggest something else I could try, to get my 1920x1080 resolution back? Thanks in advance. Here are some more information, that I got reading other similar posts on askubuntu. $ lspci | grep VGA 00:0d.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation C61 [GeForce 6150SE nForce 430] (rev a2) $ xrandr xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 320 x 240, current 1360 x 768, maximum 1360 x 768 default connected 1360x768 0 0 0mm x 0mm 1360x768 50.0 52.0* 1024x768 51.0 800x600 53.0 54.0 55.0 680x384 56.0 57.0 640x480 58.0 576x432 59.0 512x384 60.0 400x300 61.0 62.0 63.0 320x240 64.0

    Read the article

  • Assembly Language being used in Aircraft System

    - by caramel23
    Today my lecturer mentioned the reason why the aircraft system is programmed in assembly language is due to the program being written have less error . Is this statement true ? Because when he asked about our opinion I said assembly can create faster program thus it is a good language for real-time oriented aircraft system program . I search around google but can't seem to find an article clarifying my lecturer's statement .

    Read the article

  • Creating a Hello World library function in assembly and calling it from C#

    - by Filip Ekberg
    Let's say we use NASM as they do in this answer: how to write hellow world in assembly under windows. I got a couple of thoughts and questions regarding assembly combined with c# or any other .net languages for that matter. First of all I want to be able to create a library that has the following function HelloWorld that takes this parameter: Name In C# the method signature would looke like this: void HelloWorld(string name) and it would print out something like Hello World from name I've searched around a bit but can't find that much good and clean material for this to get me started. I know some basic assembly from before mostly gasthough. So any pointers in the right direction is very much apprechiated. To sum it up Create a function in ASM ( NASM ) that takes one or more parameters Compile and create a library of the above functionality Include the library in any .net language Call the included library function Bonus features How does one handle returned values? Is it possible to write the ASM-method inline? When creating libraries in assembly or c, you do follow a certain "pre defined" way, the c calling convetion, correct?

    Read the article

  • Fastest inline-assembly spinlock

    - by sigvardsen
    I'm writing a multithreaded application in c++, where performance is critical. I need to use a lot of locking while copying small structures between threads, for this I have chosen to use spinlocks. I have done some research and speed testing on this and I found that most implementations are roughly equally fast: Microsofts CRITICAL_SECTION, with SpinCount set to 1000, scores about 140 time units Implementing this algorithm with Microsofts InterlockedCompareExchange scores about 95 time units Ive also tried to use some inline assembly with __asm {} using something like this code and it scores about 70 time units, but I am not sure that a proper memory barrier has been created. Edit: The times given here are the time it takes for 2 threads to lock and unlock the spinlock 1,000,000 times. I know this isn't a lot of difference but as a spinlock is a heavily used object, one would think that programmers would have agreed on the fastest possible way to make a spinlock. Googling it leads to many different approaches however. I would think this aforementioned method would be the fastest if implemented using inline assembly and using the instruction CMPXCHG8B instead of comparing 32bit registers. Furthermore memory barriers must be taken into account, this could be done by LOCK CMPXHG8B (I think?), which guarantees "exclusive rights" to the shared memory between cores. At last [some suggests] that for busy waits should be accompanied by NOP:REP that would enable Hyper-threading processors to switch to another thread, but I am not sure whether this is true or not? From my performance-test of different spinlocks, it is seen that there is not much difference, but for purely academic purpose I would like to know which one is fastest. However as I have extremely limited experience in the assembly-language and with memory barriers, I would be happy if someone could write the assembly code for the last example I provided with LOCK CMPXCHG8B and proper memory barriers in the following template: __asm { spin_lock: ;locking code. spin_unlock: ;unlocking code. }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >