| 7:54 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It would be the same for both, wouldn't it? You can't open a window to be one size in one monitor and a different size in another.
| 9:08 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It depends on how the multiple monitors are setup. Each could has different resolution.
| 9:24 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 9:34 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It will be the size of the current application's portion of the desktop. Thus, if you have two monitors with a 1600◊1200 resolution, it is not going to show 3200◊1200, but instead only the resolution for the monitor in which the app currently runs. This can, certainly, as has already been mentioned, be different between the two.
| 9:37 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually ... Just did another test. If you have it set to allow windows to span the two monitors (thus maximizing over both monitors instead of the normal one) it will show the combined total, which in this case can be completely different than the two resolutions combined, as it will take into account dead space from adjusting the desktops height wise.
It also depends on the video card, whether you have only one or two ... and (if one) whether it is capable of treating both monitors as one single desktop internally.
| 10:10 pm on Mar 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In Safari Version 2.0.3 (417.9.2) and Firefox/220.127.116.11 under Mac OS X 10.4.5, the monitor size reported is whichever monitor contains the majority of the current window's area.
I suspected it would report whichever monitor contained the upper left hand corner of the window, so the result was quite surprising to me.
| 1:46 am on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the info and tests; I was especially after the info provided by DrDoc and whoisgregg in the last two posts.