[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gnome resolution



I tried commands:
$  import -window root tempfile.png
$ file tempfile.png
tempfile.png: PNG image data, 1024 x 768, 16-bit/color RGB,
non-interlaced
$
So my resolution is 1024 x 768. 
I have changed Icon view in Nautilus to 50%. I have changed desktop and
windows font to 8.
Now it looks bether, but still opened windows (e.g. Skype) are quite
big. Do you know where can i make them smaller?
Thanks for help.
  Dexter

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 16:45 +0000, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:22:28PM +0100, Dexter wrote:
> > i've debian installed on Laptop 15". I use Gnome DM. I 've set up
> > resolution 1024x768, which is i think maximum for my LCD display,
> > becouse XF86Server ignores higher resolution. 
> 
> Did it work, then? Are you getting 1024x768? To test: take a screenshot
> (using the gnome tool or 'import -window root tempfile.png') and run the
> program `file' over the result. This will give you the resolution.
> Example:
> 
> jon@anubis:~$ import -window root tempfile.png
> jon@anubis:~$ file tempfile.png
> tempfile.png: PNG image data, 1280 x 1024, 16-bit/color RGB,
> non-interlaced
> 
> (there's probably a much easier approach to doing this. The
> gnome-display-properties program seems to tell you, for example.)
> 
> > But still my icons and open windows are quite big, like I would use
> > lover resolution. If I lover lesolution to 800x600, than there are
> > even biger.  Did I miss some setings?  Why I can't get bether
> > resolution?
> 
> For a lower resolution, a smaller number of pixels are occupying the
> same amount of space on the screen as for a larger resolution.
> Therefore, it's normal for an icon to appear larger at a smaller
> resolution.
> 
> In GNOME, you can run nautilus-file-management-properties (shows up as
> `File Management Properties' or similar on the GNOME menu under settings
> or preferences or somesuch) and select smaller icon sizes (they're
> expressed in percentages, I believe).
> 
> -- 
> Jon Dowland
> http://jon.dowland.name/
> 
> 



Reply to: