Wine (?) spoiling F12 boot : MITIGATED

[BeartoothHOS]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:53:22 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> BeartoothThpd30 wrote:
>> 	Follow-ups set to gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.general
	[....]
>>  	Somewhere among all the above, I got disgusted with the
>> display, which turned out to be 800x600 -- despite being connected
>> directly (no KVM switch!) to the 1680x1050 monitor. The app I tried to
>> correct with turned out (later, on another machine) *not* to be
>> system-config-display, but something called "gnome-display-properties";
>> so I edited 1680x1050 into xorg.conf.
>> 
> Right about this point I cringe, I have had bad luck editing xorg.conf
> in recent Fedora. 

	I hear you loud & clear; I've spent a lot of miserable time in 
that durance vile, on and off this list. Otoh, thanks to this discussion, 
I'm back on the machine now.

> In general Fedora will like you better if you don't
> have xorg.conf, which may have been related to part of the problem. 

	That's news. I knew that it no longer existed by default ...

> At
> the recommendation of a number of people I use system-config-hardware to
> be sure the display type is set right, 

	How do you get that? Neither yum nor PackageKit (nor yet "yum 
whatprovides") seem to know aught of it.

> the the Preferences->Display to
> set the resolution. Failing in this use system-config-display --xorg to
> create a new file, then edit that. Only needed to do that on one
> machine.

	I got an error message denying the existence of " --xorg"

> I make no claim to be an expert, I just have learned not to shoot myself
> in the foot.

	Between your post and Tom Horsley's, I happened to think of 
changing the driver -- and did, from nv to vesa. I don't now recall 
exactly what all else I did, but I do remember an oddity. 

	At one point, I tried again to edit xorg.conf, and got a message 
saying it didn't exist. I ran system-config-display instead to create one 
-- and it did, with vesa instead of nv.

	After all that, I can still only set the display up to 1280x1024, 
not 1680x1050 (which this machine, I'm sure, did support before). But 
that's within the monitor's own ability to adapt to.

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Neo-Redneck Not Quite Clueless Power User
I have precious (very precious!) little idea where up is.