SEO

I got three new disks from CheapBytes, the install went just as it should.
Looks like that was my problem before-- bad media. I got stale NFS
handles on my old set of disks, couldn't tab complete or ls -l filenames
or rpm packages. So now I have a working Mandrake.

I even got my resolution set. There are three utilities to deal with,
whose interaction I don't entirely understand. One of them seems to set
the maximum capabilities of my monitor, another one independently sets the
color depth and the maximum resolution that will be allowed, and they
require a relogin. And the Gnome control panel sets the resolution that
will actually be used, and can be applied immediately.

Mandrake sure wants a lot of screen real-estate. In 640x480 mode the
entire window for the control panels won't even fit, even though it's
mostly whitespace, so I had to right-click on the window edge and scoot it
up before I could click on the buttons at the bottom. If they're going to
make the window bigger than the screen, they should have scroll bars on
it.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:35:02 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>
>I got three new disks from CheapBytes, the install went just as it should.
>Looks like that was my problem before-- bad media. I got stale NFS
>handles on my old set of disks, couldn't tab complete or ls -l filenames
>or rpm packages. So now I have a working Mandrake.

Whoohoo! Always good to hear.
<snip>
>Mandrake sure wants a lot of screen real-estate. In 640x480 mode the
>entire window for the control panels won't even fit, even though it's
>mostly whitespace, so I had to right-click on the window edge and scoot it
>up before I could click on the buttons at the bottom. If they're going to
>make the window bigger than the screen, they should have scroll bars on
>it.

In my experience with Mandrake, I HATE the way GNOME looks under the
default settings. Not that I have any logical reason why the default
settings are terrible, they just annoy me to no end. Personal
preference, I guess. I tend to use KDE, because I like it better
(again, no logical reason, just personal preference), but if you're
willing to take some time fiddling with the settings for GNOME, you
can get it to look decent, even under 640x480 resolution. Just tinker
with it a bit.

Susan

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:35:02 +0000, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

>
> I got three new disks from CheapBytes, the install went just as it should.
> Looks like that was my problem before-- bad media. I got stale NFS
> handles on my old set of disks, couldn't tab complete or ls -l filenames
> or rpm packages. So now I have a working Mandrake.
>
> I even got my resolution set. There are three utilities to deal with,
> whose interaction I don't entirely understand. One of them seems to set
> the maximum capabilities of my monitor, another one independently sets the
> color depth and the maximum resolution that will be allowed, and they
> require a relogin. And the Gnome control panel sets the resolution that
> will actually be used, and can be applied immediately.
>
> Mandrake sure wants a lot of screen real-estate. In 640x480 mode the
> entire window for the control panels won't even fit, even though it's
> mostly whitespace, so I had to right-click on the window edge and scoot it
> up before I could click on the buttons at the bottom. If they're going to
> make the window bigger than the screen, they should have scroll bars on
> it.

From where I'm sitting, I'm not so sure you do have your resolution set
right. Is there some reason for the 640x480? This looks like the Doze safe
mode resolution. I'm running 1400x1050 on my desk top and my old Doze
laptop is 800x600, which feels like working in a straight jacket.

If I'm offbase here, excuse me all to hell, but you look like you could
use some help. If you do, holler HELP!!

Also, is this Mandrake 9.2, or 9.1?

I'll check back later.

--
imotgm

In article <pan.2003.11.15.18.13.07.641161@invalid.yahoo.com> ,
imotgm <imotgm@invalid.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:35:02 +0000, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>> I got three new disks from CheapBytes, the install went just as it should.
>> Looks like that was my problem before-- bad media. I got stale NFS
>> handles on my old set of disks, couldn't tab complete or ls -l filenames
>> or rpm packages. So now I have a working Mandrake.
>>
>> I even got my resolution set. There are three utilities to deal with,
>> whose interaction I don't entirely understand. One of them seems to set
>> the maximum capabilities of my monitor, another one independently sets the
>> color depth and the maximum resolution that will be allowed, and they
>> require a relogin. And the Gnome control panel sets the resolution that
>> will actually be used, and can be applied immediately.
>>
>> Mandrake sure wants a lot of screen real-estate. In 640x480 mode the
>> entire window for the control panels won't even fit, even though it's
>> mostly whitespace, so I had to right-click on the window edge and scoot it
>> up before I could click on the buttons at the bottom. If they're going to
>> make the window bigger than the screen, they should have scroll bars on
>> it.
>
>From where I'm sitting, I'm not so sure you do have your resolution set
>right. Is there some reason for the 640x480? This looks like the Doze safe
>mode resolution. I'm running 1400x1050 on my desk top and my old Doze
>laptop is 800x600, which feels like working in a straight jacket.
>
>If I'm offbase here, excuse me all to hell, but you look like you could
>use some help. If you do, holler HELP!!
>
>Also, is this Mandrake 9.2, or 9.1?
>
>I'll check back later.

It's 9.2. I set it to 640x480 in the course of playing with different
resolutions, partly just to verify that the resolution changed at all,
since I didn't know how to judge just by the size of the icons. They're
pretty big icons. I"m sure it still goes to 800x600 strobe light, and it
doesn't give me any options on refresh rate there, just 800x600 or
something different. But that's not such a problem as long as I keep a
dark background and light text, so I'm putting up with it for now.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:32:18 +0000, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:


>>> I even got my resolution set. There are three utilities to deal with,
>>> whose interaction I don't entirely understand. One of them seems to set
>>> the maximum capabilities of my monitor, another one independently sets the
>>> color depth and the maximum resolution that will be allowed, and they
>>> require a relogin. And the Gnome control panel sets the resolution that
>>> will actually be used, and can be applied immediately.

Which three utilities are you referring to. It's your settings in these
three that are fighting with each other. That's why you are getting the
weird effects, ie your desktop and your screen size are different. For
short term, special purposes, this can have benefits. Long term it will
drive you nuts. You need to get them in sync.


>>> Mandrake sure wants a lot of screen real-estate. In 640x480 mode the
>>> entire window for the control panels won't even fit, even though it's
>>> mostly whitespace, so I had to right-click on the window edge and scoot it
>>> up before I could click on the buttons at the bottom. If they're going to
>>> make the window bigger than the screen, they should have scroll bars on
>>> it.

> It's 9.2. I set it to 640x480 in the course of playing with different
> resolutions, partly just to verify that the resolution changed at all,
> since I didn't know how to judge just by the size of the icons. They're
> pretty big icons. I"m sure it still goes to 800x600 strobe light, and it
> doesn't give me any options on refresh rate there, just 800x600 or
> something different. But that's not such a problem as long as I keep a
> dark background and light text, so I'm putting up with it for now.

The resolution you pick, is a function of how big your monitor is, and how
good your eye sight is. My monitor is 19 in. and I run 1280x960 to
1400x1050 most of the time. Linux lets you resize the icons, and the font
size on the desktop so you can shuffle all that to get a personal desktop
where everything is right for you.

Recap;

List the three utilities, give your monitor size, can you still see your
hand when your arm is outstretched? ;P

Back later,


--
imotgm

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:32:18 +0000, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.15.18.13.07.641161@invalid.yahoo.com> ,
> imotgm <imotgm@invalid.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's 9.2. I set it to 640x480 in the course of playing with different
> resolutions, partly just to verify that the resolution changed at all,
> since I didn't know how to judge just by the size of the icons. They're
> pretty big icons. I"m sure it still goes to 800x600 strobe light, and it
> doesn't give me any options on refresh rate there, just 800x600 or
> something different. But that's not such a problem as long as I keep a
> dark background and light text, so I'm putting up with it for now.
Have you tried configuation/configure your computer? That usually works.
--
Neil
Cut the spamless for email