[time-nuts] Lady Heather's Window

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Mon Feb 2 01:59:09 UTC 2009


John Miles skrev:
>> I think a more flexible fashion of setting size would be a good thing.
>> The preferred fasion is always being able to do standard resize by
>> dragging the edge, but saying x*y size at command line kind of works.
> 
> Yep, the code could support arbitrary x*y sizes, but he has several groups
> of related parameters that are tied to the discrete size options -- and
> also, I can only go into fullscreen mode in standard VGA/EVGA resolutions.
> So I probably won't put a lot of work into that.  Left as an exercise to the
> reader, as it were.  If I hack Mark's code too extensively, it'll be hard to
> catch back up when he posts new updates.

Maybe just detect the cases and selects among them.

>> Avoiding the shrinking should be the main thing to do then, in this case
>> it hurts more than it helps.
> 
> Yes, that's true in all cases, really.  It just confuses people.  When I
> first wrote this code, there were some severe performance penalties
> associated with odd scale factors on many systems, so halving the window
> size in the event where the desktop area wasn't big enough to accommodate
> its client area seemed like a good idea.

I can see that.

> I also didn't want users running with a downsampled window without intending
> to, since that's like running an LCD at a resolution other than its native
> one, only worse.  The half-size window is a pretty good clue that things are
> configured suboptimally.

Well... yes.

> I'll probably just "fix" the problem with a readme file, since there aren't
> any easy hacks that work well in all cases where the desktop resolution is
> too small for the window.  Forcing fullscreen mode in those cases would also
> be an option.

I think it would be more usefull.

>> Oh... The oscillator ADEV positions at 2000 s and 5000 s is displaced
>> over the 500s and 1000s respectively, 2 digits too much to the left and
>> halfway up on the mentioned values, seems like 16 left and 16 up if the
>> font is 8 x 8 as you say.
> 
> Not sure I follow you there; is this happening in a specific resolution?
> The table seems to look OK in the default res (attached) - is this similar
> to what you're seeing?

No, I was using the /vs as needed for the smallest resolution in order 
to avoid shrinking.

Cheers,
Magnus




More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list