Can you simulate what you want?

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #241,149

by Another Scott

1/12/06 11:56:09 AM

Can you simulate what you want?

Instead of 6 square virtual desktops, make 3 double-wide virtual desktops, perhaps? You would still have the issue of having to (somehow) run multiple views of the same application if you want to see it on both tubes at the same time, but it might reduce your desktop flipping a little.

Maybe you can get your boss to get you one of [link|http://www.digitaltigers.com/displays-atlas.shtml|these] and not need worry about it any more. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #241,164

1/12/06 1:35:50 PM

It is closer to...

just run 2 copies of X, one for each monitor. Then put 3 virtual desktops on one side, and 3 on the other.

Your suggestion gives me 3 possible pairs of virtual desktops up at once. This gives me 9 out of the 15 desired pairs of virtual desktops up at once. Any time that I'm interested flipping between the other 6 combinations, I'll be cursing away. :-/

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Dual desktops, to same set of virtual desktops? - (ben_tilly) - (47) - Jan. 4, 2006, 06:08:54 PM EST

I haven't found anything. - (folkert) - (35) - Jan. 10, 2006, 11:49:17 PM EST

Thanks for trying - (ben_tilly) - (31) - Jan. 11, 2006, 02:30:41 AM EST

Brute-force method - (drewk) - (30) - Jan. 11, 2006, 09:33:40 AM EST

That solves the wrong problem - (ben_tilly) - (29) - Jan. 11, 2006, 11:15:39 AM EST

Punt - (drewk) - (28) - Jan. 11, 2006, 12:08:00 PM EST

Ironic - (ben_tilly) - (27) - Jan. 11, 2006, 01:46:42 PM EST

No reply would have been better than #240993. IMHO. -NT - (Another Scott) - (26) - Jan. 11, 2006, 01:50:51 PM EST

Can you explain why? - (ben_tilly) - (25) - Jan. 11, 2006, 06:33:37 PM EST

Clarification - (drewk) - (4) - Jan. 11, 2006, 07:07:40 PM EST

Can you tell me how... - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Jan. 11, 2006, 09:47:41 PM EST

I think this is clearer. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:13:41 PM EST

Yes, that is clearer - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:18:35 PM EST

It's an "instance" problem - (drewk) - Jan. 12, 2006, 09:44:14 AM EST

Why people get pissed off at you: - (admin) - (17) - Jan. 11, 2006, 07:27:44 PM EST

Try to word my ideal response - (ben_tilly) - (16) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:10:38 PM EST

I did... - (admin) - (1) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:40:20 PM EST

Not quite - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 11, 2006, 11:27:59 PM EST

Been meaning to ask - (drewk) - (13) - Jan. 13, 2006, 09:58:28 PM EST

WTF is that supposed to mean? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (12) - Jan. 13, 2006, 10:55:17 PM EST

Lighten up, Francis[1] - (drewk) - (8) - Jan. 13, 2006, 11:09:02 PM EST

None of which I have seen - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 14, 2006, 01:08:29 AM EST

You've never seen *any* of them? - (drewk) - (6) - Jan. 14, 2006, 01:12:29 AM EST

I don't watch TV, remember? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Jan. 14, 2006, 01:25:13 AM EST

Two were movies, and yes I remember - (drewk) - (3) - Jan. 14, 2006, 02:05:10 AM EST

Well next time please do - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Jan. 14, 2006, 02:56:42 AM EST

Ben, you and I both had somewhat eclectic upbringings - (boxley) - Jan. 14, 2006, 09:22:57 AM EST

Didn't mean to - (drewk) - Jan. 14, 2006, 10:58:09 AM EST

maybe the same planet I'm from 'cause - (cforde) - Jan. 14, 2006, 03:13:52 AM EST

Nanu, nanu! -NT - (admin) - (1) - Jan. 14, 2006, 12:04:34 AM EST

Shazbot! -NT - (Yendor) - Jan. 14, 2006, 11:21:31 AM EST

Jesus wept - (broomberg) - Jan. 14, 2006, 01:00:14 AM EST

My $0.02. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 11, 2006, 07:44:43 PM EST

Thanks, that helps -NT - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:15:51 PM EST

What about VNC? - (bepatient) - (2) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:24:38 AM EST

How could that possibly work? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Jan. 11, 2006, 10:59:05 AM EST

nope, you're correct - (bepatient) - Jan. 11, 2006, 11:40:20 AM EST

Maybe Xfce 4.2? - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 11, 2006, 11:23:56 AM EST

Thanks, that *does* look promising..or not - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 12, 2006, 11:27:41 AM EST

s/linux/osx/g I know, solving wrong problem :-) -NT - (boxley) - (8) - Jan. 12, 2006, 09:16:35 AM EST

You can't do what I want with OS X, either. -NT - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 12, 2006, 10:52:48 AM EST

perhaps you are right but from your description - (boxley) - (6) - Jan. 12, 2006, 11:33:52 AM EST

Read the description again - (ben_tilly) - (5) - Jan. 12, 2006, 11:43:34 AM EST

Can you simulate what you want? - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 12, 2006, 11:56:09 AM EST

It is closer to... - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 12, 2006, 01:35:50 PM EST

From what I'm reading.... - (Simon_Jester) - (2) - Jan. 12, 2006, 02:04:30 PM EST

That part of it is very doable - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 12, 2006, 01:51:07 PM EST

An alternate approach (new thread) - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 12, 2006, 05:11:00 PM EST

I say your young men'll be fritterin'!
119 ms