On 2008/01/02 18:31 (GMT-0500) jfweber@gilweber.com apparently typed:
Did the reinstall and reconfigured the monitor. This time I set the diagonal size to 19" (I measured the screen size and found that it was not really a 20"). Set the resolution to 1152X864 (XGA). That gave me
1024x768 is XGA 1152x864 is XGA+ 1280x960 is QVGA 1280x1024 is SXGA (5:4 rather than 4:3, poorly suited to standard CRTs) 1400x1050 is SXGA+
76X67 DPI which while not right was at least better than before when I was getting 80X64 DPI. Output also gave me 1152X768 pixels and 386X290 mm.
Significant disparity between vertical and horizontal DPI normally indicates something needs fixing. If you're running a conventional 4:3 resolution, then if one DPI is 76, then the other should be as close as possible to 76. 67 is clearly not close.
Now when I look at rectangular powerpoint slides and .jpgs they're still squished, but not as much as before. When I checked the pages suggested by Felix the 1" black bar he shows for measurement is about 1 1/4", and the various boxes he shows are not the same size horizontally and vertically, so my monitor and video chip are still not happy working together.
This isn't fundamental to solving your problem, but it's a related issue best normally solved as a part of running sax2 or as a cleanup of the sax2 results. It may in your case be best left to after you get rectangles rectangular, after you have a nicely working X and understand how you got it to be that way. Modern desktop environments are designed to prefer a display DPI of 96, or something as close thereto as practical. The lower the DPI, the more granular desktop objects look. IOW, the higher the DPI, the higher the apparent quality. In the case of your 20" nominal, 19" actual CRT display, the closest you can come to 96 is by specifying use of a display resolution of 1400X1050 (SXGA+), which is about 92.1 DPI on your display. The 80 and lower DPI values we have seen in your Xorg.0.log means your Desktop quality running 1152x864 is suboptimal, and 1024x768 even worse. If you find yourself running sax2 interactively (e.g. running sax2 with no command line options), take the opportunity to select 1400x1050. If not, this can be dealt with after getting rectangular rectangles. Using 1400x1050 on your display will mean the image that's supposed to be 1" wide will be as close to actually being 1" wide as possible given your actual physical display size.
But given the problem I had trying to switch video drivers I am now very reluctant to try again. I think I'll just live with the slightly squished images until a new driver comes out that is not buggy. Maybe I just had bad luck, and trying "sax2 -r -m 0=i810" again would work out OK, but I'm just not that brave. :o)
So many thanks for your help. Sorry that I could not test your theories to find whether both drivers were problematic.
"sax2 -r -m 0=i810" is not my instrucion, and not Jan's instruction, but SUSE's instruction. You just need to do it if you want progress getting 10.3 working on your i845G. Just don't try it from X. Do it from a virtual console. As to switching from the intel driver to the i810 driver, it is technically as simple as substituting one string for the other on the Driver line in xorg.conf. The problem is that due to the combination of your (somewhat old) i845G chip and the bugs in the various X components and in the drivers themselves, other things in xorg.conf probably also need to be changed for best results. That's one reason why the use of sax2 rather than direct editing of xorg.conf. -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org