x2x or XWin -screen 0 2048 768 ?

[Harold L Hunt II]

Jean-Claude,

Have you run Cygwin/XFree86 as follows?

XWin -screen 0 2048 768


Does that work at all?  Are you able to size the window using the mouse 
so that it displays at up to 2048x768?  If not, perhaps we can change 
that behavior later.


As far as maximization size, you will notice that all other Windows 
applications only size to the size of the current monitor when you click 
the maximize button.  Thus, we are following the standard behavior. 
Also, think about the limited options that we have here.  Pretty much 
our only other option would be to create a screen large enough to fill 
both monitors on startup, say 2048x768, and display that size by 
default.  Well, what if the user doesn't want to have their screen 
stretched across two displays, then that is just too bad for them, they 
have to have it stretched across two displays.  I don't think that would 
be acceptable as the default behavior.


If you propose an extremely detailed new default behavior scheme, that 
can actually be implemented, and that doesn't do anything detrimental to 
the 99% of users that use the default behavior, then I will most likely 
implement your proposed new logic.  Or, you can propose a detailed new 
command-line parameter if you wish that provides a different behavior 
for multiple-monitor systems.  More than likely you will realize that we 
are doing pretty much what other Windows applications do and that there 
isn't a default behavior that is much better.  Of course, I may just be 
overlooking some simple improvement.


Hope that helps.


Harold





Jean-Claude Gervais wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 	Can anyone point me in the right direction?
> 
> I've added a second video card to my computer and am running Windows with a
> large (2048x768) desktop.
> 
> I'd like to run XWin like that too, but it and all the other apps only
> maximize on ONE of the screens.
> 
> Although if a window is not maximized and can be sized, I can stretch it
> across both screens, I figure there must be a better way.
> 
> 	Does anyone here know anything about this?
> 
> Jean-Claude
> 
>