Doesn't Linux technically give you much larger resolutions?

[Legendary_Bibo]

I was thinking about this a while ago, but you know how we have workspaces? Doesn't that technically mean that everyone can possibly have much larger virtual resolutions than our monitors support and all we're doing is panning across it?

Also, we have a max of 256 (16x16) workspaces (Somewhere in compiz I saw a setting that dealt with 32x32 workspaces) so I guess my max virtual resolution is 30720x17280. It's not smooth, in fact it's very slow to use that many, but I mean it's there as a feature, and maybe someday every computer could use it smoothly.

[RiceMonster]

Considering you can still only display so many pixels at a time, I don't think that really counts. Not to mention that work spaces are more of a way of grouping windows than providing an additional screen.

[koleoptero]

You can't work on a single image across desktops in gimp, it just doesn't work that way.

[Legendary_Bibo]

You can't work on a single image across desktops in gimp, it just doesn't work that way.

You can put windows across several workspaces. It makes working on an image more difficult, but it's possible.

[Legendary_Bibo]

Considering you can still only display so many pixels at a time, I don't think that really counts. Not to mention that work spaces are more of a way of grouping windows than providing an additional screen.

Well it's like you're panning across one giant desktop with groupings.

[Copper Bezel]

Resolution is what goes to the graphics card. Workspaces don't have anything to do with that.

[3Miro]

Workspaces give you wide area for work and they are definitely very convenient, however, I wouldn't exactly call it "resolution".

[koenn]

I was thinking about this a while ago, but you know how we have workspaces? Doesn't that technically mean that everyone can possibly have much larger virtual resolutions than our monitors support and all we're doing is panning across it?

Technically, you're right, although the workspaces are more like having multiple screens, without having multiple monitors.

there is, however, at least one window manager (that I know of) that actually did what you descibe : provide a screen (or "desktop") that was larger than the actual display (or monitor) - you'd have eg a 1024x768 desktop on a 800x600 monitor - so you could see only part of the actual desktop, and you'd sort of slide the visual part to another region to see what was there.

http://www.fvwm.org/documentation/manpages/unstable/fvwm.php

Fvwm provides both, a large virtual desktop and multiple disjoint desktops which can be used separately or together. The virtual desktop allows you to pretend that your video screen is really quite large, and you can scroll around within the desktop.

[BrokenKingpin]

Who would actually make use of that many virtual workspaces anyways. Going over 4 almost seems pointless.

[3Miro]

Who would actually make use of that many virtual workspaces anyways. Going over 4 almost seems pointless.

I use 6 - 8 on regular basis and I am not the only one. Depending on what you are doing, it is not pointless.

[BrokenKingpin]

I use 6 - 8 on regular basis and I am not the only one. Depending on what you are doing, it is not pointless.
Just out of curiosity do you pretty much just have one window per workspace? If so wouldn't switching workspaces almost be the same as selecting the different window with a task manager on the panel?

I sometimes have more than 15 windows open when I am working, but still don't really see the need of having more than 4 workspaces, and certainly not 8. But to each their own.

Anyways, my point was that no one could make use of over a hundred lol.