usableDesktop

[Richmond]

Right:

On Windows XP:

moved the taskbar to the top of the desktop and did a

put the working screenRects  routine and got: 0,28,1392,973

where

put the screenRect gives 0,0,1392,945

so, a few questions:

why, when I position a stack just below my taskbar and do this

put the top of stack "TOPPP"

do I get 50 ????????

why is item 4 of "the working screenRects" larger than item 4 of "the 
screenRect" ?

Oh, and I have my resolution set to 1392,945.

______________________________________

It is a load of rubbish.
______________________________________


Similarly, on Mac OS 10.6.7

I get a working screenRect of 0,22,1920,1032

a screenRect of 0,0,1920,1080

and the top of my stack positioned just under the menuBar gives me 44

44 is NOT 22, nor, for that matter, is it 80 - 32

so why you should write "in my case, we are 22 off the top, 45 off the 
left side"

I just don't know, unless you have mysteriously shrunk your Mac menuBar 
to half its normal
fatness.

Richmond.


> Hi Richmond,
>
> your little routine computes the place to be spared to the RIGHT, you should
> use items 2 and 4 for setting the TOP of your stack.
>
> By the way, to add to my previous post, I tried to put the dock to the left side and the working screenrect gives: 45,22,1680,1050
> thus it seems usable (at least on mac): in my case, we are 22 off the top, 45 off the left side. For the right and the bottom, they are still some computiation to do, if for example you want to set the maxheight and the maxwidth of your stack.
>
> One learns everyday: what I discovered today is that the effective screenRect is a sub-option of the working screenRect. It seems rather logical because the (unavailable) effective screenRect should be a huge virtual surface allowing for accessory screens and so on. Probably limited by the maximum values of a signed integer or something like that.
>
> Jacques
>