There is no OS limitations.
The size of the form is corrected inside the Form's SetBoundsCore virtual
portected method. I've been told that this problem had been fixed for .NET
2.0.

Signature
Stoitcho Goutsev (100) [C# MVP]
"Stoitcho Goutsev (100) [C# MVP]" <100@100.com> schrieb:
> There is no OS limitations.
> The size of the form is corrected inside the Form's SetBoundsCore virtual
> portected method. I've been told that this problem had been fixed for .NET
> 2.0.
Mhm... But why does this limitation apply to other applications (Notepad,
Internet Explorer, Visual Studio .NET, ...) too? The limitation still
exists in VS 2005 February CTP.

Signature
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Chris Dunaway - 04 Apr 2005 14:35 GMT
Do you know if VS2005 will support multiple monitor setups? It would
be cool to put the form designer or code editor on one screen and the
toolbox, server explorer, etc. on the other.
Ajay Kalra - 04 Apr 2005 15:03 GMT
Hello Chris,
> Do you know if VS2005 will support multiple monitor setups? It would
> be cool to put the form designer or code editor on one screen and the
> toolbox, server explorer, etc. on the other.
If I understand you correctly, I can do this now in VS2003(or VC6 for that
matter). Its not a feature of the application.

Signature
Ajay Kalra [MVP - VC++]
ajaykalra@yahoo.co
Chris Dunaway - 04 Apr 2005 21:24 GMT
I wasn't aware. I'll have to try it.
thanks
Danny T - 04 Apr 2005 22:36 GMT
>> Do you know if VS2005 will support multiple monitor setups? It would
>> be cool to put the form designer or code editor on one screen and the
>> toolbox, server explorer, etc. on the other.
>
> If I understand you correctly, I can do this now in VS2003(or VC6 for
> that matter). Its not a feature of the application.
Yep, it works. Shame you can't have code on one screen, and the
forms/controls designers on the other!

Signature
Danny
Ajay Kalra - 05 Apr 2005 02:58 GMT
Hello Danny,
> Yep, it works. Shame you can't have code on one screen, and the
> forms/controls designers on the other!
That actually is a very good idea. I never looked into that possibility.
Perhaps its already there.

Signature
Ajay Kalra [MVP - VC++]
ajaykalra@yahoo.com
Danny T - 05 Apr 2005 08:39 GMT
>> Yep, it works. Shame you can't have code on one screen, and the
>> forms/controls designers on the other!
>
> That actually is a very good idea. I never looked into that possibility.
> Perhaps its already there.
If it is, I can't find a way to do it. So I always have Property &
Solution Explorer on the second screen. It'd be nice to be able to see a
visual representation at the same time as code (how many times do you
Ctrl+Tab back and forth from code to design to check things!)
:-(

Signature
Danny
kevininstructor@state.or.us - 08 Apr 2005 18:27 GMT
Been working dual monitors in 2003 without any issues.
> Hello Chris,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If I understand you correctly, I can do this now in VS2003(or VC6 for that
> matter). Its not a feature of the application.
Stoitcho Goutsev \(100\) [C# MVP] - 04 Apr 2005 23:41 GMT
There is no limitation in Notepad or any application. The tracking size is
limited by the OS, which means you cannot drag and resize a window bigger
than whatever
GetSystemMetrics for SM_CXMAXTRACK and SM_CYMAXTRACK returns. The last can
be controlled via processing WM_GETMINMAXINFO message.
Though, programmatically you can set any size you want. The size is limited
only by the datatype that windows API uses - 32 bit integer for WinNT
platforms and 16 bit integer for Win9x if I'm not mistaking.
> "Stoitcho Goutsev (100) [C# MVP]" <100@100.com> schrieb:
>> There is no OS limitations.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Internet Explorer, Visual Studio .NET, ...) too? The limitation still
> exists in VS 2005 February CTP.
Danny T - 05 Apr 2005 08:41 GMT
Stoitcho Goutsev (100) [C# MVP] wrote:
> Though, programmatically you can set any size you want. The size is limited
> only by the datatype that windows API uses - 32 bit integer for WinNT
> platforms and 16 bit integer for Win9x if I'm not mistaking.
Hey, it's a good job they've double the size of that integer - imagine
the panic we'd have had when our new monitors support > 32k pixel
resolutions!! ;-D