https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=553
--- Comment #47 from Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-10-04 13:26:08 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> But what if, instead of *changing* the screen layouts in between sessions of
> word, you *start* with the dead space and see if you can get word to open with
> the menu/ribbon hiding in the dead space?
Yes, that's what I did: 1 = primary, both monitors are 1600 x 1050, laptop
running Windows XP SP3 32bit.
+---------------+
| |
| 1 | +---------------+
| | | |
+---------------+ | 2 |
x======|=====x |
| +---------------+
| WORD |
x============x
First, I rearranged the monitors as shown, shifting Monitor #2 down a bit, then
I opened Word and moved it into the dead space so that only the small part on
Monitor #2 was visible. Then I closed Word. When I reopened it, it opened in
the same location as I left it with most of the toolbar/window not visible.
With either of the 2 patches I submitted applied, when Wireshark is placed in
the same initial position, closed then reopened, Wireshark is shifted up so
that the left-corner is visible on monitor #1, although it still looks strange
because there's a discontinuity at the border between 1 & 2 due to the shift,
but then every application would (and does) look like this though.
With patch #1, the Wireshark main window is shifted to the top of Monitor #1
whereas with patch #2, Wireshark is shifted only up high enough so that the
height doesn't go past the bottom edge of monitor #2. For example, replace
WORD above with WS (Wireshark) as the initial starting position, then perform
the same steps. The result:
Patch #1 Patch #2
+----------x====+=======x +---------------+
| | | WS | | |
| 1 | | +---------------+ | 1 | +---------------+
| x====|=|=====x | | x====|=|=====x |
+---------------+ | 2 | +---------------+ | | 2 |
| | | WS | | |
+---------------+ x======+=====x---------+
But this example is actually not a very good one to show the affect of the
patches though, especially because in this case patch #1 behaves exactly the
same as Wireshark does today. This was only a comparison of how Wireshark
behaves vs. how another application behaves, in this case Microsoft Word.
Another example that better illustrates the differences between how Wireshark
behaves today vs. with patch #1 and then with patch #2 is:
Initial condition: Wireshark's x0,y0 is on Monitor #2 and Wireshark's width is
greater than the width of Monitor #2.
+---------------+ +---------------+
| | | x=====|=============x
| 1 | | 2 | | WS |
| | | x=====|=============x
+---------------+ +---------------+
Today: Wireshark x0,y0 already visible, but it gets shifted to the left-edge of
Monitor #2 anyway.
+---------------+ +---------------+
| | x===============|=x
| 1 | | 2 WS | |
| | x===============|=x
+---------------+ +---------------+
Patch #1: Wireshark x0,y0 is already visible on Monitor #2, so there's no
change.
+---------------+ +---------------+
| | | x=====|=============x
| 1 | | 2 | | WS |
| | | x=====|=============x
+---------------+ +---------------+
Patch #2: Wireshark x0,y0 is already visible on Monitor #2; however, the window
extends past the right edge of Monitor #2 such that the entire window is not
visible. Wireshark is shifted left as far to the left as is needed in order
for the entire window to now be visible:
+---------------+ +---------------+
| x=|=|===============x
| 1 | | | WS 2 |
| x=|=|===============x
+---------------+ +---------------+
I guess I am leaning toward patch #1, as it's the least intrusive one. The
user can adjust the size & position from there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
