The resolution and the correctness of the icons are two different things,
I think. It looks a lot better if you can set the resolution to the same as
you set it on the local monitor (ie 1280 x 1024 or whatever that number
is). The goofy icons seem to come and go, but correct themselves
after you drill down and come back up. But you are right, the best
resolution does not seem to be as nice as the older one. HOWEVER,
I'll take one that works over one that looks crisp, if I have to.
Cordially,
Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
(248) 552-4968 Voicemail, Fax, Pager
---------------------- Forwarded by Leslie Clark/Southfield/IBM on 12-07-98
05:02 AM ---------------------------
HCRLR1@MEAD.COM on 12-03-98 08:31:05 AM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc: (bcc: Leslie Clark/Southfield/IBM)
Subject: Web interface
With a powerful PC (200-300Mhz, 64mb RAM) and graphics that support
1024x768 High color, the Web interface works great. Sure easier than an
X-emulator for operations folks who only need to monitor the network.
I'll try again since I haven't heard any ideas ****
Hello there; my configuration is rs6000-240 dual processor, AIX 4.2.1,
Netview 5.1 just installed. Here is the question:
Does anybody knows what kind of video-card/monitor resolution is
recommended for the web client display through the web browsers? With the
pc that I have using netscape communicator 4.04 the visual quality of the
maps is very poor; sometimes I don't get the proper icons; instead I get an
oval symbol with or without labels, also some maps seems to be out-scale as
the icon connections exit the window frame for that map; it seems as if the
html page for some maps doesn't use the full size of the page, instead
clovers every icon in some part of the page. Also sometimes I get icons one
top of others. In some cases a reload of the page fixes the problem. Is
there a problem with the videocard/screen resolutions or I'm missing
something? If this is the quality of the web tool on version 5.1 I rather
use the previous one with its slower response and without connections, but
visible.
Any help is appreciatted.
Thanks.
.
.
Jorge A. Jiles
Network Analyst
Computing & Network Services
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
|