LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2009, 08:15 PM   #1
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Rep: Reputation: 1
Screen resolution problem under XFCE on Linux Mint


Just loaded Mint 7 XFCE on my *old* machine. I've had trouble with screen resolution under XFCE whereby I keep having to change the display resolution every time I boot up.

Menu > Settings > Display always defaults back to 1152x864 when what I'd really like is 1280x1024.

SO I set it to 1280x1024 each time I log in. It works, I log out (with the "save session for future logins" checkbox checked - really don't know if this is relevant) and sure as anything, next time I log in I have the resolution back at 1152x864

Now, I ought to mention that I did have to edit
Code:
/etc/X11/xorg.conf
and inserted the following to get 1280x1024 appear in the Display list:
Code:
VendorName	"LG"
ModelName	"Flatron L1953H"
ModeLine	"1280x1024" 108.0 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1024 1028 1066
inside the Section "Monitor" part.

Anyone have any ideas how I can get XFCE to remember that I want a 1280x1024 resolution and NOT keep reverting to 1152x864??
 
Old 10-03-2009, 02:43 AM   #2
Laurens73
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Zeewolde, Flevoland NL
Distribution: Debian squeeze (Gnome) on netbooks; Debian Lenny on servers and Debian wheezy (XFCE) on new laptops
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 23
Indeed the save session will not work in XFCE to keep your resolution, it saves only the running programs.

Option 1:
Depending on the video card you use you can use the software from the video card to change and save the resolution settings.

Option 2:
Setting the resolution in /etc/X11/xorg.conf manually opening it with your favourite text editor

Try to find Section "Screen" and make sure there is a resolution set. If it is not, just add the followning lines above the EndSection line:

Code:
 DefaultDepth 24
 SubSection "Display"
  Depth 24
  Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
 EndSubSection
You could skip the other modes to the right of "1280x1024" but sometimes it can come in handy when in situations of using an other monitor wich is not capable of using a resolution like 1280x1024.

Last edited by Laurens73; 10-03-2009 at 02:45 AM.
 
Old 10-03-2009, 08:43 AM   #3
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Cool

Thanks very much, Laurens73! I took your "option 2" and now the resolution goes straight to 1280x1024 every time automatically!

So for anyone who's interested, my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file now looks like this:

Code:
Section "Monitor"
        Identifier      "Configured Monitor"
        VendorName      "LG"
        ModelName       "Flatron L1953H"
        ModeLine        "1280x1024" 108.0 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1024 1028 1066
EndSection

Section "Screen"
        Identifier      "Default Screen"
        Monitor         "Configured Monitor"
        Device          "Configured Video Device"
SubSection "Display"
        Modes "1280x1024"
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Device"
        Identifier      "Configured Video Device"
EndSection
Thanks once again, Laurens73
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-03-2009, 08:43 AM   #4
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Cool

Thanks very much, Laurens73! I took your "option 2" and now the resolution goes straight to 1280x1024 every time automatically!

So for anyone who's interested, my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file now looks like this:

Code:
Section "Monitor"
        Identifier      "Configured Monitor"
        VendorName      "LG"
        ModelName       "Flatron L1953H"
        ModeLine        "1280x1024" 108.0 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1024 1028 1066
EndSection

Section "Screen"
        Identifier      "Default Screen"
        Monitor         "Configured Monitor"
        Device          "Configured Video Device"
SubSection "Display"
        Modes "1280x1024"
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Device"
        Identifier      "Configured Video Device"
EndSection
Thanks once again, Laurens73
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-03-2009, 08:59 AM   #5
AniketBhattacharya
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Asansol,West Bengal,India
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Question Same problem!!!!

I am new to Linux and do not know how to modify the xorg.cong file.However,when I had installed Xubuntu Jaunty Jackalope,I got a screen resolution of 8xx X 6xx pixels,which I could not change.I somehow managed to open the file using online help and modified it accordingly.But still,I did not get 1024 x 768 resolution(I have a 15" CRT LG Studioworks 552V monitor).How do I solve this issue???
 
Old 10-03-2009, 05:38 PM   #6
baileybaird
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurens73 View Post
Indeed the save session will not work in XFCE to keep your resolution, it saves only the running programs.

Option 1:
Depending on the video card you use you can use the software from the video card to change and save the resolution settings.

Option 2:
Setting the resolution in /etc/X11/xorg.conf manually opening it with your favourite text editor

Try to find Section "Screen" and make sure there is a resolution set. If it is not, just add the followning lines above the EndSection line:

Code:
 DefaultDepth 24
 SubSection "Display"
  Depth 24
  Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
 EndSubSection
You could skip the other modes to the right of "1280x1024" but sometimes it can come in handy when in situations of using an other monitor wich is not capable of using a resolution like 1280x1024.
i have tried this but it will not save due to authorisation error. how could i get around this? i cannot figure out the authorisations page or many other pages do to my resolution problems. all of my windos are WAY to big for me to see what going on...
 
Old 10-04-2009, 01:05 AM   #7
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
baileybaird, the files at /etc/X11/xorg.conf are owned by user root and so in order to edit this file (xorg.conf) you need to use the sudo command. I use a program called gedit to do my text editing and to run as root, I issue this command at the terminal:

Code:
sudo gedit /etc/X11/xorg.conf
You really ought to make a copy of your existing xorg.conf file first, in case you mess it up. For that, you need something like:
Code:
sudo cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup
Finally, you might want to read the xorg.conf man pages for more details about the Display, Monitor, and Screen sections.

Good luck!
 
Old 10-04-2009, 01:19 AM   #8
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
AniketBhattacharya, you will need to do the same thing. You can only edit the file if you are either logged in as user root or you use the sudo command. You also want to make sure that your monitor and video card can support the desired resolution.

I'm not an expert, but you might need to add a ModeLine entry in the Section "Monitor" section of xorg.conf. For example:
Code:
Section "Monitor"
        Identifier      "Configured Monitor"
        VendorName      "LG"
        ModelName       "Flatron L1953H"
        ModeLine        "1280x1024" 108.0 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1024 1028 1066
EndSection
Here the bold section is the ModeLine I added to get 1280x1024. Do a Google search on ModeLine and xorg.conf to get more information.

Good luck!
 
Old 10-12-2009, 09:46 AM   #9
Laurens73
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Zeewolde, Flevoland NL
Distribution: Debian squeeze (Gnome) on netbooks; Debian Lenny on servers and Debian wheezy (XFCE) on new laptops
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by manorina View Post
Thanks very much, Laurens73!
-------------------------------------
Thanks once again, Laurens73
You're welcome

Quote:
Originally Posted by manorina View Post
I'm not an expert, but you might need to add a ModeLine entry in the Section "Monitor" section of xorg.conf.
Just like the Modes entry the ModeLine entry isn't needed in most cases, only when Linux sees a global chipset capable of more than the device the chipset is put in actually can do. Windows would use the resolutions mentioned in the driver for that monitor. Linux probes its hardware based on global chipsets. A big edge of probing hardware this way is that Linux doesn't need a driver for every single device, but sometimes it can give some trouble. For example your monitor wich model problably has to be forced to run lower resolutions than its chipset is capable of, assuming this monitor has a bigger brother wich has full support of that resulution
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:04 PM   #10
caieng
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: 16
First: thanks for the information above, quite helpful.

Second: I wonder if anyone can explain to me why it is, that, for the SAME ten year old computer, if I install Puppy Linux, Windows 98, Windows 95, or Windows XP, I obtain the proper screen resolution (1024 x 760), but, with almost all of the other distros of Linux, including Slackware, Suse, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu et al, the resolution is only 800 x 600? I don't mean to imply that 800 x 600 is the DEFAULT resolution, though it is, for those distros, other than Puppy Linux, but rather, that 800 x 600 is the MAXIMUM resolution permitted. None of the other distributions PERMIT 1024 x 768. They all DO PERMIT resolutions LOWER than 800 x 600, however, coarser is not better, in my view. I am unaccustomed to working with such mediocre visual images, as one observes at 800 x 600.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurens73
Linux probes its hardware based on global chipsets.
Ok, so, does that mean, that Puppy Linux probes differently, from all of the other distros? Why can't the other distros probe as well as Puppy does? What is there about the probing mechanism that is so inadequate, at least on older computers? Absent Puppy Linux, or Windows, one would have thought the video controller on my ten year old computer was defective.

Third: Why is it that with windows xp or 98, I only need to click with the mouse on the desktop, to change the screen resolution? What, do you mean that these modifications, described above, to xorg.conf, can not be executed graphically, i.e. by selecting from a drop down menu, instead of typing? Then, isn't that true for the whole operating system??? What is so special about the video monitor resolution, that one must act as though it were 1979, instead of 2009? Is there some intrinsic design feature of Linux, (apart from Puppy Linux, of course) such that screen resolution MUST be adjusted by going through all of the contortions above, rather than by simply allowing the user to choose graphically, from a list, using his/her mouse? Is Linux (other than Puppy Linux) really so far behind Windows 95?

Fourth: These problems, i.e. the mediocrity of the screen resolution, disappear, upon exposure of the same distro to a more recent computer. The same wretched software which was unable to even OFFER the user a resolution that Puppy Linux actually installed, (upon generating an appropriate list of alternatives from which the user could choose,) adequately probed the hardware on the newer models.....So, what is it about ten year old computers that Linux finds so difficult? (Obviously, excepting Puppy Linux, of course.)

regards,
CAI ENG
 
Old 10-16-2009, 06:03 AM   #11
manorina
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Eastern Australia
Distribution: Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 18

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
What, do you mean that these modifications, described above, to xorg.conf, can not be executed graphically, i.e. by selecting from a drop down menu, instead of typing? Then, isn't that true for the whole operating system???
Linux can be frustrating in the respect that you mention. I agree that you ought to be able to do anything needed to configure a system via the graphical interface. As it turns out, I put in the code mentioned above into the xorg.conf file and then the 1280x1024 resolution did appear in the display resolution list via the XFCE desktop interface display settings. I only had to delve into xorg.conf once. But in my humble opinion, this is the power of Linux. It allows you do almost anything, if you have the patience and persistence. But you don't always have a graphical interface to help you along. Some things are clumsy to do in Linux, some things are so elegantly simple.
 
Old 10-16-2009, 06:56 AM   #12
Laurens73
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Zeewolde, Flevoland NL
Distribution: Debian squeeze (Gnome) on netbooks; Debian Lenny on servers and Debian wheezy (XFCE) on new laptops
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by caieng View Post
First: thanks for the information above, quite helpful.

Second: I wonder if anyone can explain to me why it is, that, for the SAME ten year old computer, if I install Puppy Linux, Windows 98, Windows 95, or Windows XP, I obtain the proper screen resolution (1024 x 760), but, with almost all of the other distros of Linux, including Slackware, Suse, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu et al, the resolution is only 800 x 600? I don't mean to imply that 800 x 600 is the DEFAULT resolution, though it is, for those distros, other than Puppy Linux, but rather, that 800 x 600 is the MAXIMUM resolution permitted. None of the other distributions PERMIT 1024 x 768. They all DO PERMIT resolutions LOWER than 800 x 600, however, coarser is not better, in my view. I am unaccustomed to working with such mediocre visual images, as one observes at 800 x 600.

Ok, so, does that mean, that Puppy Linux probes differently, from all of the other distros? Why can't the other distros probe as well as Puppy does? What is there about the probing mechanism that is so inadequate, at least on older computers? Absent Puppy Linux, or Windows, one would have thought the video controller on my ten year old computer was defective.

Third: Why is it that with windows xp or 98, I only need to click with the mouse on the desktop, to change the screen resolution? What, do you mean that these modifications, described above, to xorg.conf, can not be executed graphically, i.e. by selecting from a drop down menu, instead of typing? Then, isn't that true for the whole operating system??? What is so special about the video monitor resolution, that one must act as though it were 1979, instead of 2009? Is there some intrinsic design feature of Linux, (apart from Puppy Linux, of course) such that screen resolution MUST be adjusted by going through all of the contortions above, rather than by simply allowing the user to choose graphically, from a list, using his/her mouse? Is Linux (other than Puppy Linux) really so far behind Windows 95?

Fourth: These problems, i.e. the mediocrity of the screen resolution, disappear, upon exposure of the same distro to a more recent computer. The same wretched software which was unable to even OFFER the user a resolution that Puppy Linux actually installed, (upon generating an appropriate list of alternatives from which the user could choose,) adequately probed the hardware on the newer models.....So, what is it about ten year old computers that Linux finds so difficult? (Obviously, excepting Puppy Linux, of course.)

regards,
CAI ENG
You're welcome The reason of different distro's reacting different on the same hardware has to do with the policies of each distro itself. For example Ubuntu uses a lot of proprietary software in its kernel, and Debian prefers everything to do in open source and full documentation. Let alone when using a distro wich is much more different. Newer distro's got modules auto-installed for newer computers. Older distro's got them for older pc's.

A few possible solutions to your resolution problem (if a higher resolution in xorg.conf doesn't suffice):

1. Replacing your kernel video driver modules for legacy variants if they are available. For example: using an old ATI Rage card with a new distro makes it work slow and without high resolutions, but downloading and installing the legacy drivers will get you this card using a maximum resolution of 1600x1200@16 with minimum 3D support.

2. Consider downgrading Xorg if there is an other variant available for your distro.

3. Install an older distro. Sometimes it's better to install a complete distro from the time the pc comes from, cause we also don't want to install Windows Vista / 7 on an old Pentium 2 8)

What video card have you got installed on your pc?
 
Old 10-16-2009, 07:43 AM   #13
caieng
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurens73
What video card have you got installed on your pc?
Thanks for your response. Much appreciated.

I do not have a separate video card. The video controllers on my computers are generally integrated as part of the chip set.

The two older computers which I am currently evaluating as potential candidates for a server, both use the VIA chip set, which I believe has a Trident video controller integrated, though I may be wrong.

Point is, however, that Puppy Linux properly probed the video graphic controller.

I wonder why the other distributions were unable to do this????

Here's the information reported by Puppy linux:
h31.5-48.5v40-70(1024x768) x 16.

I suppose it will be necessary with the other distros, to edit one or more files, in order to be able to run the computer as I normally do in WinXP, with nothing more than a mouse click....

Regards,
CAI ENG
 
Old 10-16-2009, 08:00 AM   #14
caieng
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 28
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by manorina
I only had to delve into xorg.conf once. But in my humble opinion, this is the power of Linux.
Gee, how wrong a person can be, eh?

I write that, because I would have thought, contrarily, just the opposite: The fact that someone must edit a file demonstrates not, in my opinion, the strength of an operating system, but rather, its weakness. We could have, and did have to, edit files back in the 70's before graphical interfaces existed...

Why should it be evidence of "power", or "strength" to require a user to sit there typing, instead of clicking once with the mouse?

What increased functionality has one achieved by this requirement to sit there like a zombie, typing meaningless code into an unknown file of indeterminate location, using an editor with non-intuitive functionality, and then, presumably, rebooting the computer, instead of clicking the mouse two or three times?

Process A, (ignoring the learning curve!!!) typing, requires 3 minutes.
Process B, clicking the mouse three times, requires 3 seconds, 60 times faster than method A.

Imagine an operating system that runs 60 times faster than another....Would you prefer to use the slower method?
Would you still write that the slower method is more "powerful" than the faster method? If so, then we need to understand, since typing and editing unknown files is obviously MUCH slower, upon what parameter does this notion of "powerful", rest?

I am reminded of the sales meeting attended by carriage whip distributors from all over USA, in 1906, listening to the marketing guru explain why horse driven carriages were superior to automobiles.

Regards,
CAI ENG
 
Old 10-16-2009, 08:08 AM   #15
Laurens73
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Zeewolde, Flevoland NL
Distribution: Debian squeeze (Gnome) on netbooks; Debian Lenny on servers and Debian wheezy (XFCE) on new laptops
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 23
Normally it shouldn't be a problem if it's an integrated card or a separate one, and all cards have their own chipsets, even if the memory is shared.

There is an X server for your card if it's a Trident. Its name is xserver-xorg-video-trident

If this doesn't work, there's an other option to force your video to a standard vesa mode, but it only works when your vesa drivers are installed: xserver-xorg-video-vesa

Alter /etc/X11/xorg.conf in the Device section:
Code:
Section "Device"
        Identifier      "Configured Video Device"
        Driver          "vesa"
EndSection
Your identifier for your video card could differ, that's no problem. It's just a name for the card. I'm not sure wich driver name is for the trident card, but you could consider using this:
Code:
Section "Device"
        Identifier      "Configured Video Device"
        Driver          "trident"
EndSection
And, of course, set the video resolution in the display subsection which is located in the screen section:
Code:
 DefaultDepth 24
 SubSection "Display"
  Depth 24
  Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
 EndSubSection
 
Old 10-16-2009, 08:17 AM   #16
Laurens73
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Zeewolde, Flevoland NL
Distribution: Debian squeeze (Gnome) on netbooks; Debian Lenny on servers and Debian wheezy (XFCE) on new laptops
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by caieng View Post
Gee, how wrong a person can be, eh?

I write that, because I would have thought, contrarily, just the opposite: The fact that someone must edit a file demonstrates not, in my opinion, the strength of an operating system, but rather, its weakness. We could have, and did have to, edit files back in the 70's before graphical interfaces existed...

Why should it be evidence of "power", or "strength" to require a user to sit there typing, instead of clicking once with the mouse?

What increased functionality has one achieved by this requirement to sit there like a zombie, typing meaningless code into an unknown file of indeterminate location, using an editor with non-intuitive functionality, and then, presumably, rebooting the computer, instead of clicking the mouse two or three times?

Process A, (ignoring the learning curve!!!) typing, requires 3 minutes.
Process B, clicking the mouse three times, requires 3 seconds, 60 times faster than method A.

Imagine an operating system that runs 60 times faster than another....Would you prefer to use the slower method?
Would you still write that the slower method is more "powerful" than the faster method? If so, then we need to understand, since typing and editing unknown files is obviously MUCH slower, upon what parameter does this notion of "powerful", rest?

I am reminded of the sales meeting attended by carriage whip distributors from all over USA, in 1906, listening to the marketing guru explain why horse driven carriages were superior to automobiles.

Regards,
CAI ENG
I fully disagree with that. If Linux was meant to be an operating system for people who aren't interested in computers who just want to do their work with it or play the games installed on it: yes. Then editing a file in stead of clicking a button would be old fashioned and obsolete, but Linux it's origins is a server system, designed to be stable and flexible. The only way to accomplish that is by editing config files by hand. BTW most standard settings (including resolution and standard settings) also can be done with a GUI. The only problem is that all distro's use their own and someone with Debian with KDE installed can't explain how to use the GUI of Puppy with Gnome for example. But the config files below the graphical environments are very much alike. That's why the most help on forums is being done in the console and/or by editing files.
 
  


Reply

Tags
resolution, screen


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
xFce - How do I change the screen resolution? neocookie Linux - Software 10 07-02-2010 11:24 PM
Linux Mint 7 Gloria XFCE Networking Problem orc_dragoon Linux Mint 1 08-18-2009 02:24 AM
xorg.conf screen resolution overridden by XFCE? songangel Slackware 5 04-03-2009 12:05 PM
Mint 6 Screen Resolution problem kenc3 Linux - Newbie 1 03-18-2009 08:49 PM
finding screen resolution in xfce ekamlesh Linux - Newbie 2 01-09-2009 03:37 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration