[Info-vax] getting pixel dimensions of monitor

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-02-03, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <helbig at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <kelvou$3b5$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
><clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: 
>
>> That's true, reading the EDID structure says nothing about the graphics
>> controller's capabilities, but I got the impression that Phillip was more
>> interested in finding out what the monitor itself was capable of.
>
> I'm not sure.  I have one monitor which is 1280x1024 with these numbers
> in DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_SETUP.COM and it looks OK.  With another machine
> and another monitor, I had the same numbers, but the images were
> stretched.  Obviously something wrong.  With the latter monitor and a
> third machine (and different graphics card), I have again the same
> numbers and the aspect ratio of a DECterm, say, looks OK.  Moving it
> around, it looks like the real dimensions are 1024x768. 
>

If your monitors have EDID support and if you have a Linux box to hand,
connect each monitor to the Linux box, boot the machine and start X and
then look in /var/log/Xorg.0.log (or equivalent) to see what it tells you.

> There is the physical monitor (perhaps with the possibility to change 
> some settings), the graphics card and various symbols and logical names 
> defined when DECwindows starts up.  The connection between these three 
> things is not clear to me.  In the monitor in which I am now typing 
> this, the real dimensions appear to be 1024x768 but 1280x1024 are the 
> values in the corresponding piece of DECW$PRIVATE_SERVER_SETUP.COM and 
> it still "works".
>

Are we talking about LCD monitors (which have one native resolution only),
or are we talking about CRT monitors (which have multiple resolutions up
to a maximum monitor specific value) ?

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world