Search Results

Search found 50550 results on 2022 pages for 'method resolution order'.

Page 8/2022 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Drawing order in XNA

  - by marc wellman

  When manually setting the drawing order of game components by setting int DrawableGameComponent.DrawOrder can one use any integer numbers as long an order is defined like component1 = drawing order: 2 component2 = drawing order: 5 component3 = drawing order: 10 component4 = drawing order: 323 or do these integers have to be consecutive and starting with zero like component1 = drawing order: 0 component2 = drawing order: 1 component3 = drawing order: 2 component4 = drawing order: 3 ?

  Read the article

• DHCP-server doesn't start at boot because of wrong startup order

  - by stolsvik

  Apparently the isc-dhcp-server is started too early in the boot sequence, it states that it has nothing to do. If I just log directly in as root and start it using the init.d-script, it starts normally. My setup is basically an utterly standard router, with an eth0 on the inet side, and an eth1 on the lan side. However, I've defined a bridge instead of the eth1 for the lan-side. Thus, the lan-part of the network isn't up until the bridge is up. I currently believe that the dhcp server is brought up before the bridge is brought up, probably because the bridge is brought up with the 'networking' task, while the eth's are taken up with the 'network-interface' tasks - which are run earlier. (also, the bridge takes a small age to get up compared to the eth's). If I do take away the bridge config, instead using eth1 directly for the lan side, things work. (However, judging by syslog, things are still tight.) Ideas of how the get DHCP to start later? (The reason for the bridge, is to be able to use KVM with bridged networking..)

  Read the article

• Resolution independence - resize on the fly or ship all sizes?

  - by RecursiveCall

  My game relies heavily on textures of various sizes with some being full-screen. The game is targeted for multiple resolutions. I found that resizing textures (downsizing) works quite well for this game’s art type (it’s not Pixel Art or anything like that). I asked my artist to ensure that all textures at the edges of the screen to be created in such a way that they can safely “overflow” off screen; this means that aspect ratio is not an issue. So with no aspect ratio issues, I figured that I would simply ask my artist to create assets in very high resolution, and then resize them down to the appropriate screen resolution. The question is, when and how do I do that? Do I pre-resize everything to common resolutions in Photoshop and package all assets in the final product (increasing the size download that the user has to deal with) and then select the appropriate asset based on the detected resolution? Or do I ship with the largest set of Textures, detect the resolution on load, set a render target and draw all downsized assets to it and use that? Or for the latter, do I use some sort of a CPU-sided algorithm to resize on game load?

  Read the article

• Eee PC Seashell series netbook screen is cut off at bottom no matter the resolution

  - by Yzmir Ramirez

  I have an Eee PC 1015PE Seashell netbook running Windows 7 Home Premium with an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3150 (8.14.10.2230) with a "Generic Non-PnP Monitor" detected. I tried: Changing the resolution (Control Panel = Appearance and Personalization = Display = Screen Resolution) to 1024x768 Updating the video driver (to 8.14.10.2230) Uninstalling the driver and rebooting Pressing the Windows Key + "-" (magnifier) Pressing Ctrl + Mouse Scroll only resizes the desktop items Pressing Fn + F4 shows 1024x600 (which I think is what I should be using, but nothing happens) EDIT: Changed from Landscape to Portrait and it works Attached an External Monitor and when I extend or set as desktop it works only on the External Monitor (shows up as "Generic PnP Monitor in Device Manager) Basically the bottom inch of my desktop is off-screen hiding my start bar, but my wigets are in their proper position (the start bar is not hidden). Pressing Ctrl + Esc shows the start menu but its cut-off. I'm pretty sure I should be using 1024x600 resolution, any advice? What's odd is that this only started happening recently. EDIT2: Here are some screenshots showing the problem: Resized Window to fit: Opened Start Menu - notice it cut off: Maximized window and then scrolled down - notice no Start Menu: I downgraded my graphic driver I downloaded from the Intel Download Center for the Graphic Media Accelerator 3150 (now: 8.14.10.1972) and now my "Generic non-PnP Montior" detects as "Digital Flat Panel (1024x768 60Hz)".

  Read the article

• Vista Screen resolution Changes when Switching Users

  - by Benjol

  I regularly have a problem when switching between users in Vista - the screen resolution drops down to 800x600. If I try to set the resolution back to the maximum, it says nothing, but just keeps it at 800x600. I can set it back to an intermediate value. Otherwise I have to either restart the PC, or sometimes if I log off one of the users, I can then set the resolution back to max. Might it also have something to do with using sleep mode instead of performing regular shutdowns? I thought it might be related to the desktop background image taking up too much space, but even with plain colours, the problem still occurs. There is an enormous thread on this here, but not really any answers. From what I can gather from that thread, it isn't related to any particular applications, nor limited to a particular make of graphics card or monitor, so I don't think that including hardware details is useful. This is a very annoying problem, as it screws up my desktop and screen layout every single time. Has anyone here experienced this problem or found a solution? I've noticed that Windows Update has tried to install nVidia updates and apparently they've failed on several occasions. Not sure if that is of any relevance or not. UPDATE The last post on the thread: FWIW - I had this problem for about 2 years and wrote a number of posts in this thread in the past. It survived OS reinstallation, change of practically all of my hardware piece by piece (mobo, cpu, monitor, graphics card, memory, power supply...) I used to be affected by this annoying problem at least once every 24-48 hours. About 1.5 months ago I wiped out my 32 bit vista ultimate installation and installed Windows7 ultimate 64 bit from scratch and never saw this problem again. GOOD RIDDANCE. Vista was a pathetic piece of __ that felt like a flashback to the old [horrible] NT4/Windows95 days. I was seriously considering switching over to Apple/Mac OSX if this problem persisted.

  Read the article

• Connecting PC to TV via HDMI/DVI: Windows XP doesn't allow the appropriate screen resolution

  - by Jørgen

  I have a computer that is connected to the living room TV (a Panasonic) via HDMI. There is no other monitor connected. My problem is that the computer, which is running Windows XP, does not allow me to set the proper resolution for the TV. Both the graphics adapter and the TV should support the 1280x720 resolution, but it cannot be selected - the only available options are 1280x600 and 800x600, both in the "native" Windows dialog box and the custom Intel graphics options dialog box. Do anyone have a suggestion for a solution for this? Things I've thought of: Setting the resolution directly in the registry (where?) Installing some "custom" monitor driver (the TV manufacturer does not appear to provide any, currently the "generic" one is used) Details on the setup: Connection: DVI output on the computer via a passive DVI-HDMI adapter to the HDMI input on the TV, audio is run on a separate link, the TV is able to combine video and audio without any problem, the problem is there regardless of whether or not the audio is connected. The connection is several meters long through some walls, for this reason using a VGA cable instead is not an option. Note that the report explicitly says that the TV supports 1280x720. Still, I am not allowed to select it in Graphics Options, only 1280x600 and 800x600 is available. For 800x600, there's a lot of black around the edges; for 1280x600, the screen is "zoomed" so the edges of the monitor image (like the taskbar) is not visible. Other: The computer is running Windows XP. More recent versions of Windows are not an option (I have no licence). Linux is probably not an option (some of the video streaming sites I plan to use do not support it, I think) I wrote the rest of the details below. Thanks for any help!! TV: Panasonic TX-L32X10Y, European version; a 720p 32" quite "regular" LCD TV. Allowed resolutions according to manual: Signal name: 640x480 @60HZ Horizontal frequency: 31.47 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz Signal name: 750/720) /60p Horizontal frequency: 45.00 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz Signal name: 1,125 (1,080) / 60p Horizontal frequency: 67.50 kHz Vertical frequency: 60Hz (this is exactly how the manual presents it. PC via D-SUB (VGA cable) and "regular" HDMI have more alternatives.) Messing with the "zoom" settings on the TV does not affect the available resolution options on the computer. Computer: The following is a printout from one of the graphics adapter option pages. I think it covers most of it. The computer is a Dell. INTEL(R) EXTREME GRAPHICS 2 REPORT Report Date: 04/17/2011 Report Time[hr:mm:ss]: 20:18:02 Driver Version: 6.14.10.4396 Operating System: Windows XP* Professional, Service Pack 3 (5.1.2600) Default Language: English DirectX* Version: 9.0 Physical Memory: 1021 MB Minimum Graphics Memory: 1 MB Maximum Graphics Memory: 96 MB Graphics Memory in Use: 6 MB Processor: x86 Processor Speed: 2593 MHZ Vendor ID: 8086 Device ID: 2572 Device Revision: 02 * Accelerator Information * Accelerator in Use: Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller Video BIOS: 2972 Current Graphics Mode: 1280 by 600 True Color (60 Hz) * Devices Connected to the Graphics Accelerator * Active Digital Displays: 1 * Digital Display * Monitor Name: Plug and Play Monitor Display Type: Digital Gamma Value: 2.20 DDC2 Protocol: Supported Maximum Image Size: Horizontal: Not Available Vertical: Not Available Monitor Supported Modes: 1280 by 720 (50 Hz) 1280 by 720 (60 Hz) Display Power Management Support: Standby Mode: Not Supported Suspend Mode: Not Supported Active Off Mode: Not Supported (disclaimer: this question was also asked at the Wikipedia Reference Desk some time ago and might show up in a Google search. I got no useful answers there.)

  Read the article

• How do I set a custom resolution in 12.04 with a nVidia video card (9600 GSO)?

  - by Aaron Agarunov

  I have 32 bit 12.04 and my video card drivers are up to date at "304.64" yet my resolution appears capped at 1920x1080. I am trying to get the resolution to 2560x1440 or even higher, as I am running this machine on a 42" LCD through HDMI and the 1920x1080 resolution will not stretch to fit the screen and is therefore fairly zoomed in. The 9600 GSO supports up to 2560x1600, so this should be no problem for the card itself. I have tried using xrandr, which successfully creates the 2560x1440 60 hertz mode but does not allow me to --addmode or --output it in. I have tried working with the xorg.conf, but I actually can not find a way to create the file since when I try to, I am given an error message stating that the # of monitors I have does not match the # of screens I have. Can anyone provide some help or insight?

  Read the article

• How can I set the display resolution to 800x480?

  - by Oswaldo Barceló

  I have just installed Ubuntu 12.04 and I have a problem with it. My mini-laptop has a display resolution of 800x480, however Ubuntu seems to support only a resolution of 800x600. I have looked for a solution, but I have found nothing which works. So, how can I set the display resolution to 800x480? hey, hola a todos! Acabo de instalar Ubuntu 12.04 y en verdad me gusta mucho. pero aunque me guste bastante, tengo un pequeño gran problema, LA RESOLUCION DE MI PANTALLA!!! mi mini-laptop tiene una resolución de 800x480, pero Ubuntu viene con una por defecto de 800x600. en verdad me gustaria que me pudieran ayudar. llevo rato buscando una solucion, pero NADA!!! espero que me puedan ayudar!!! gracias de antemano!!! SALUDOS

  Read the article

• How do I fix my resolution after Directx install through Steam?

  - by Justin

  I'm a bit long-winded so see bottom for quick version and specs. Friendly Hello: Hello all on these askUbuntu pages, I just recently built my own computer and decided to switch to Ubuntu for the extra coolness. I've been learning a lot through all this, and mostly been trying to figure out issues on my own (read: Google searches). However, I couldn't seem to find others with this problem so I've come here for help. Detailed Recount: So I just used WINE and WINETRICKS to install Steam. All went well and it worked. Then I went to trying a game out. I remembered that Orcs Must Die! worked from http://www.steamgamesonlinux.com/ so I tried that out. After selecting to download it, that's when the problem occurred. The screen suddenly zoomed in!!! I think it's the resolution right? Half the screen is cut off and I can't see parts of the right side of windows. My theory is that this is due to Direct X being installed through Steam, as Steam automatically installed it as I chose to download the game. It didn't even ask me to install Direct X or not ): It all happened so fast. This all being said, the game works fine! It looks a little strange, as if the resolution was off, but it plays just fine. What I did so far: Restarted my computer. Didn't work -_- Researched Steam installing DirectX on Ubuntu then messing up resolution and couldn't really find anything. Researched uninstalling DirectX from Ubuntu but only found uninstalling DirectX after having been installed with Wine, not through Steam. Got mad and ate my feelings. Tried "xrandr -s 0" but it didn't do anything. Ran xrandr alone and terminal showed this: Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 640 x 480, maximum 16384 x 16384 DVI-I-0 connected 640x480+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 0mm x 0mm 640x480 59.9*+ 320x240 120.1 DVI-I-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) HDMI-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) DP-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) DVI-D-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) About now I was mad so I played Odin's Sphere then took a nap. Back to it! I entered the following: xrandr --output DVI-I-0 --mode 1024x768 But I was met with this message: xrandr: cannot find mode 1024x768 I get the same messages for 800x600, 1400x1050, and seemingly any other combination of numbers. I then tried Going into System Settings then Displays, then playing around in there. My Resolution is set to 640x480 and there are no other options for me to choose from. Rotation has Normal, Clockwise, Counter Clockwise, and 180 Degrees. It's set to Normal and I haven't messed with that. Launcher Placement has Unknown and All Displays as its two options. It's set to Unknown, but moving it to All Displays doesn't seem to do anything. Finally, when I click Detect Displays, nothing seems to happen. Quick Version: Linux noob. Steam installed with Wine and Winetricks. Steam downloaded and installed game + DirectX. Resolution messed up now (I think; pretty sure), can't fix it, very annoying, no idea what's going on, halp! Specs: Ubuntu Version 12.04 Wine Version 1.4.1 Have not changed any settings in Wine Using Winetricks Graphics Card: http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=4361#sp Drivers: Proprietary (Installing those were a LOT of fun) Also let it be known that I have a DVI to VGA cord running from my Graphics card to my monitor. If any more information is needed I am ready to report. Thank You: Thanks a lot for your help and all the work you do to support noob ubuntuers like me (:

  Read the article

• How to add higher video resolution in Ubuntu 10.04 (UNR on EEE1101HA)

  - by lexu

  I picked up an ASUS EEE 1101HA with Windows 7 and installed UBUNTU 10.04 Netbook Remix (dual boot). Ubuntu runs fine, but it doesn't recognize that the notebook LCD is 1388x768 and thus only offers 1024x768 and 800x600 as monitor resolution. So .. how can I tell it about that higher resolution? (Have root pwd & vi, una-bash-ed to use both.. ) UPDATE there is currently (early May 2010) no video-driver for the Intel GMA500 "Poulsbo" => no solution exists for now.

  Read the article

• Using using a DVI instead of a VGA increase computer screen monitor resolution

  - by Jessica M.

  This is for a computer screen. Both my video card and computer screen have DVI ports on them but I'm using a VGA. I'm wondering if there would be a difference if i switch from VGA to DVI. My current resolution is 1920x1080 with the VGA cord. will my resolution increase if i switch to a DVI? Are there any advantage of switching from VGA to DVI? If there will be a difference if i switch, I've read there are 5 different type of DVI cables. how do I know which one to buy?

  Read the article

• VirtualBox : 1366x768 resolution

  - by llazzaro

  My notebook native resolution is 1366x768, however i cant set up virtualbox vms to use that definition.

  Read the article

• Finding Image resolution in PDF file?

  - by Dave

  I have a problem of having some users creating very large PDFs. On the other hands I have PDF sent from our fax machines that are really small in size and totally printable. My question is Is there any way I can find the resolution (DPI) of the PDF. I search the internet, could not find any answer. Checked the properties of the file, this information was not stored there, at least in my case. What is the optimum resolution of converting text file into image PDF. 96dpi, 300dpi or more ? Fun question. Can I resize a PDF which was scanned with high dpi into smaller dpi? I know some answers might not be available as I have already searched the internet and could not find answers. Note: My PDF are entirely images, text to images. I am also familiar with primoPDF (free) something you can experiment with

  Read the article

• Can't save screen resolution setting.

  - by Searock

  Hi, My screen resolution in windows and previous version of Ubuntu (9.04) was 1152 x 864. But in Ubuntu 10.04 it gives me an option of 1024 x 786 and 1360 x 786. I have some how managed to add 1152x684 resolution by using xrandr command. searock@searock-desktop:~$ cvt 1152 864 1152x864 59.96 Hz (CVT 1.00M3) hsync: 53.78 kHz; pclk: 81.75 MHz Modeline "1152x864_60.00" 81.75 1152 1216 1336 1520 864 867 871 897 -hsync +vsync searock@searock-desktop:~$ xrandr --newmode "1152x864_60.00" 81.75 1152 1216 1336 1520 864 867 871 897 -hsync +vsync searock@searock-desktop:~$ xrandr --addmode S-video 1152x864 xrandr: cannot find output "S-video" searock@searock-desktop:~$ xrandr Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024 x 768, maximum 4096 x 4096 VGA1 connected 1024x768+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 0mm x 0mm 1360x768 59.8 1024x768 60.0* 800x600 60.3 56.2 848x480 60.0 640x480 59.9 59.9 1152x864_60.00 (0x124) 81.0MHz h: width 1152 start 1216 end 1336 total 1520 skew 0 clock 53.3KHz v: height 864 start 867 end 871 total 897 clock 59.4Hz searock@searock-desktop:~$ xrandr --addmode VGA1 1152x864_60.00 But the problem is when ever I restart my computer I get this message. Could not apply the stored configuration for the monitors. Could not find a suitable configuration of screens. And then it comes back to 1024 x 786 My graphic card details : Intel(R) 82945G Express Chipset Family. Is there any way I can fix this once for all ? Thanks. Edit 1 : rumtscho has suggested me to modify xorg.conf file. But I am not sure what HorizSync means? is it Horizontal frequency ? My monitor model is Acer v173. Here's my specification. So what should be HorizSync and VertRefresh ? Edit 2 : I have edited my Xorg.conf file as follows : Section "Monitor" Identifier "Configured Monitor" HorizSync 30-80 VertRefresh 55-75 EndSection then I added the resolution and restarted my computer and still I am facing the same problem. Is there something that I am missing? Edit 3 : For now I have edited /etc/gdm/Init/Default(gdm startup scripts) to include following xrandr commands, just below line initctl -q emit login-session-start DISPLAY_MANAGER=gdm xrandr --newmode "1152x864_60.00" 81.75 1152 1216 1336 1520 864 867 871 897 -hsync +vsync xrandr --addmode VGA1 1152x864_60.00<br/> xrandr -s 1152x864_60.00 This has solved my problem, but this commands have increased my computer's boot time. I think I will have to edit xorg file properly. Edit 4 : Instead of adding this files to gdm startup scripts I have created a shell script and added it to startup (System - Preference - Startup Applications) #!/bin/bash xrandr --newmode "1152x864_60.00" 81.75 1152 1216 1336 1520 864 867 871 897 -hsync +vsync xrandr --addmode VGA1 1152x864_60.00 xrandr -s 1152x864_60.00 And don't forget to add execution rights. (Right Click - Properties - Permission - Allow executing file as program)

  Read the article

• asus 1215p cannot get the 1366 x 768 resolution

  - by Arthur

  Hi everyone, im a little bit stuck. I had a windows 7 starter installed on this netbook, it wasn't that great so I installed windows 7 ultimate. everything is OK apart from the screen resolution. it doesn't let me choose the optimal 1366x768 resolution and defaults to lower quality, in fact it doesn't even list it. I have tried drivers from Microsoft, Asus and Intel and still no joy. Any suggestions? It has the Intel 3150 Graphics Media Accelerator Much appreciated :)

  Read the article

• Laptop changes resolution when the lid is closed/opened

  - by RedditGuy

  hi i've had a problem for the last couple of days where the resolution on my laptop changes when i close the lid i'm running windows xp professional sp2 on a dell inspiron 1501 the video chip is an ati radeon xpress 1150 according to the catalyst control center software i've got installed which i think came with the drivers or something i've seen this happen before but i installed an old game called road rash a couple days ago after seeing it mentioned on reddit and i'm wondering if it might be related anyone know how i can stop this from happening? i have a workaround where i can manually change the resolution to something else and then change it back but that's a lot of work to do every time i close the laptop which is a lot thanks!

  Read the article

• Can't run monitor at native 1080p resolution on Windows 7

  - by Rex

  I have a 24" ViewSonic VX2453 monitor that supports 1920x1080p, connected using HDMI. However at that resolution, the desktop goes off the screen. Using the Nvidia control panel, I have to set it to a custom resolution of 1804x1014 to display correctly. The monitor has its drivers properly installed (the correct model name shows up in control panel after installing the drivers), and I'm running 64 bit Win7 Ultimate. I have a GeForce 560 Ti card, if that helps. Why does this happen?

  Read the article

• constructor function's object literal returns toString() method but no other method

  - by JohnMerlino

  I'm very confused with javascript methods defined in objects and the "this" keyword. In the below example, the toString() method is invoked when Mammal object instantiated: function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.toString = function(){ return '[Mammal "'+this.name+'"]'; } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal); Despite the fact that the toString() method is not invoked on the object someAnimal like this: alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal.toString()); It still returns 'someAnimal is [Mammal "Mr. Biggles"]' . That doesn't make sense to me because the toString() function is not being called anywhere. Then to add even more confusion, if I change the toString() method to a method I make up such as random(): function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.random = function(){ return Math.floor(Math.random() * 15); } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert(someAnimal); It completely ignores the random method (despite the fact that it is defined the same way was the toString() method was) and returns: [object object] Another issue I'm having trouble understanding with inheritance is the value of "this". For example, in the below example function person(w,h){ width.width = w; width.height = h; } function man(w,h,s) { person.call(this, w, h); this.sex = s; } "this" keyword is being send to the person object clearly. However, does "this" refer to the subclass (man) or the super class (person) when the person object receives it? Thanks for clearing up any of the confusion I have with inheritance and object literals in javascript.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu failed to detect monitor and very low resolution?

  - by Hiren

  I tried different versions of Ubuntu from 11.04 to 11.10 beta, but got same problem. My desktop pc configuration is, - intel core i5 2400 - DH67BL Motherboard - Inbuilt motherboard graphics - No extra graphics card attached - Acer-H193HQV 18.5" Monitor - 2GB RAM - 250GB Harddisk Problem : Ubuntu can't detect my monitor and saying it Unknown. Moreover, monitor's original resolution is 1366x768 but in the list of resolution there is only 1024x768 and 800x600 are there.

  Read the article

• Display resolution in duplicate monitor

  - by Taher

  I use duplicate one monitor laptop LCD and other monitor that monitor resolution is bigger than laptop LCD how can i set laptop LCD resolution for them? when i use mirror button it set 1024 * 768 but my laptop LCD resolution is 1366 * 768 how can i set this resolution for them? because when i set this resolution i get error. My laptop is hp dv6 6080 and vga is intel sandy bridge if i change to AMD vga can i resolve this problem?

  Read the article

• Web Safe Area (optimal resolution) for web app design

  - by M.A.X

  I'm in the process of designing a new web app and I'm wondering for what 'web safe area' should I optimize the app layout and design. I did some investigation and thinking on my own but wanted to share this to see what the general opinion is. Here is what I found: Optimal Display Resolution: w3schools web stats seems to be the most referenced source (however they state that these are results from their site and is biased towards tech savvy users) http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php (aggregate data from something like 15,000 different sites that use their tracking services) StatCounter Global Stats Display Resolution (Stats are based on aggregate data collected by StatCounter on a sample exceeding 15 billion pageviews per month collected from across the StatCounter network of more than 3 million websites) NetMarketShare Screen Resolutions (marketshare.hitslink.com) (a web analytics consulting firm, they get data from browsers of site visitors to their on-demand network of live stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month) Display Resolution Summary: There is a bit of variation between the above sources but in general as of Jan 2011 looks like 1024x768 is about 20%, while ~85% have a higher resolution of at least 1280x768 (1280x800 is the most common of these with 15-20% of total web, depending on the source; 1280x1024 and 1366x768 follow behind with 9-14% of the share). My guess would be that the higher resolution values will be even more common if we filter on North America, and even higher if we filter on N.American corporate users (unfortunately I couldn't find any free geographically filtered statistics). Another point to note is that the 1024x768 desktop user population is likely lower than the aforementioned 20%, seeing as the iPad (1024x768 native display) is likely propping up those number. My recommendation would be to optimize around the 1280x768 constraint (*note: 1280x768 is actually a relatively rare resolution, but I think it's a valid constraint range considering that 1366x768 is relatively common and 1280 is the most common horizontal resolution). Browser + OS Constraints: To further add to the constraints we have to subtract the space taken up by the browser (assuming IE, which is the most space consuming) and the OS (assuming WinXP-Win7): Win7 has the biggest taskbar footprint at a height of 40px (XP's and Vista's is 30px) The default IE8 view uses up 25px at the bottom of the screen with the status bar and a further 120px at the top of the screen with the windows title bar and the browser UI (assuming the default 'favorites' toolbar is present, it would instead be 91px without the favorites toolbar). Assuming no scrollbar, we also loose a total of 4px horizontally for the window outline. This means that we are left with 583px of vertical space and 1276px of horizontal. In other words, a Web Safe Area of 1276 x 583 Is this a correct line of thinking? I tried to Google some design best practices but most still talk about designing around 1024x768 which seems to be quickly disappearing. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

  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

• Host Name Resolution - ISA 2006 - VPN PPTP

  - by Brian Lee Jackson

  We are running an ISA 2006 server and PPTP VPN connection works fine. Clients are able to connect to internet, access Outlook, CRM, etc. The problem we are encountering is that host name resolution is not working. Example, when connected via VPN I can’t ping any box other than the VPN server by the host name. Nslookup also fails. I can ping everything fine via IP address. But for clients, they need to be able to access their “mapped” drives over the VPN which all are mapped by host name. I recently took over this position and it sounds like this used to work. What would be the best place to check first? I haven’t had much exposure to ISA and have been reading up a bit on installation procedures, etc. DNS is hosted and running on our domain controller, as well as WINS. It isn’t on the ISA box. Is there a firewall policy that perhaps got removed? What usually is required for host name resolution to pass through. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

  Read the article

• Outlook 2007 panes keep moving when changing resolution

  - by SilverbackNet

  This problem is really bugging one of our users ever since he got a larger monitor. Now that the monitor has a different resolution than his laptop, every time he unplugs it to go home, the three Outlook panes get all jumbled up. The navigation is huge, the list is shoved over, and the reading pane is almost smushed out of existence, the the opposite when he comes back in and the reading pane fills the screen. He's sick of adjusting it every day. He always runs it maximized, for maximum reading area. Keeping the application within a 1024x768 window wouldn't really be an option for him. Is there any way built into Outlook to automatically adjust pane sizes when the resolution changes? If not, is there a third-party app that can help, or a way to script the changes into the registry somehow? (I can do running the script whenever the screen state changes.) If this is fixed in 2010 I might be able to convince the other admin that this is a good enough reason to allow it (which will require a new beta version of our archiving software).

  Read the article

• Monitor flickers in native resolution.

  - by ptikobj

  With my new Samsung Syncmaster BX2450 I have the following problem: In Windows XP (SP2), all resolutions above 1440x900 have either strange pixel errors or an extreme flickering. It seems, that the effect worsens for higher resolutions. In special, I would like to run the monitor with its native resolution (1920x1080), however I can't watch longer than 5 seconds on the monitor because of the flickering... My Graphics Card is a Geforce FX 5200 with the most up-to-date driver (according to Nvidia.com: Forceware 175.19) and I'm having the monitor connected to its DVI-output. The strange thing is, under Ubuntu 10.04, all resolutions work just perfect, so the display must be alright. edit: seems to be a driver problem... if I use the proprietary NVIDIA drivers in Ubuntu, I have the same problem as in Windows. I would like to reformulate my question: Is there a modified/alternative Geforce FX 5200 driver (as there is in Ubuntu) for Windows that allows me to use 1920x1020 without problems ? I already tried the omega drivers: unfortunately, it still looks poor on the native resolution.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >