[futurebasic] Re: [FB] Does size matter (A PG Pro problem)?

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : October 1999 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: Chris Stasny <staz@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:13:13 -0500
>>In a message dated 10/15/99 10:34:19 AM, tedd@... writes:
>><< However, as I said, the y direction for a maximum window
>>appears to be limited to 275. Is this not correct? >>
>>That is not correct. Even the 9" screen is capable of y = 342 pixels.
>>Where did you get the 275 figure?
>>Roger Clary
>As I said in a previous post, I am using PG Pro. But, with your keen eye
>and attention to detail, you've discovered a small bug in PG Pro.
>The bug is that the old "Classic" screen size for a monitor frame is wrong
>-- by 20 pixels -- as I thunk it.
>For example, the frame shown by PG Pro places a rectangle (drawn 6 pixels
>wide) on the screen such that the right/bottom corner is located at global
>screen position 342,512. However, the top/left corner is located at 20,0
>(not 0,0) -- which includes the finder menu. Now, if a programmer tries to
>design a window (as I did) such that the window is as large as it can be
>for the Classic monitor, then the window should fit within the frame drawn
>by PG Pro. That means that the designed window will be 20 pixels too small
>in the y direction. A window with size of (0,0)-(310,510) just covers the
>I can now use a larger window which solves one of my space problems.

I believe the PG frame is exactly correct. On a Plus, the outside of the
frame exactly touches the bottom of the menu bar and the bottom of the
window. If you fit your window to the inside of the frame, then you are
using a small precalculated border to keep things even all the way around.
But if you run PG on a Plus, (or set your monitor to 640x480 and run a
frame for a 13" screen) you'll see that it is exact -- right down to the
last pixel.


-STAZ  ~)~

800.348.2623 Orders  http://www.stazsoftware.com
228.255.7086 FAX     mailto:staz@...