|
Grex > Micros > #199: FreeBSD, Linux, or other PC Unixes? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 257 responses total. |
toking
|
|
response 78 of 257:
| 
Feb 22 16:40 UTC 1999 |
(found xf86config, didn' do me too much good, so I think I"ll just have
to live with 8bpp)
|
dang
|
|
response 79 of 257:
|
Feb 24 19:31 UTC 1999 |
(resp:78 if you need more than 8 bpp, you need a command line option on
the command line that starts the actual X server. If you are using
startx, then try "startx -- -bpp 32" which will start with 32 bpp.
Don't forget the "--", which signals startx that the following options
are for X rather than xinit. If you use xdm, then you need to edit
/etc/X/xdm/Xservers and add " -bpp 32" to the end of the line containing
/usr/X11R6/bin/X.)
resp:77 I use Accelerate X for my Diamond Monster Fusion. It's a brand
new alpha server. However, until recently, I couldn't use Accelerated X
because there wasn't a server. There is a way around it. Look here:
http://www.uno.edu/~adamico/banshee/
|
jshafer
|
|
response 80 of 257:
|
Feb 25 12:23 UTC 1999 |
Hmm. Not sure how useful that will be, as I'm not using a banshee or
Linux, but I'll check it out in more detail later... Thanks.
|
toking
|
|
response 81 of 257:
|
Feb 25 16:53 UTC 1999 |
if you read the page a little more it talks about how it could be useful
on something that's not a banshee
|
dang
|
|
response 82 of 257:
|
Feb 26 16:34 UTC 1999 |
Exactly. It should work exactly the same on any modern graphics card.
I had it running on my banshee for several months, and it's okay. No
acceleration, so it's a bit slow, but otherwise okay.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 257:
|
Feb 28 01:49 UTC 1999 |
What's the point of 32-bit color? I was under the impression (perhaps
mistaken) that 24-bit color already could generate more shades than the
human eye could discern. Is 32-bit color just a sop to the 'more is better'
crowd?
|
mwg
|
|
response 84 of 257:
|
Mar 2 05:26 UTC 1999 |
I've found that xanim (a video player for Linux) will work with 16 or 32
bpp, but not 24. Strange.
|
dang
|
|
response 85 of 257:
|
Mar 2 22:14 UTC 1999 |
xearth, a "View of earth from space" program, won't work at 24 bpp
either. Just 16 or 32.
|
gregb
|
|
response 86 of 257:
|
Mar 3 02:49 UTC 1999 |
Okay, here's /my/ situation: I'm running Red Hat 5.2 along with Win98,
using Lilo (DOS is the default boot). For me installation went quite
smoothly. I was a bit concerned that it might have trouble with my
SCSI card (Adaptec 2940UW), but was delighted that Linux recognized
it. Each OS has it's own physical HD...Sorta. I have three physical
drives: Two 540 meg (C: and D:), and one 4.3 gig (E:-G:). I dedicated
a little over a gig on the big drive. I've partitioned Linux into "/"
and "/swap."
I've also installed Linux in my laptop at work. That one shares a
single 2.1 gig drive with Win98. Only problem with that setup is I
can't get X to work right. It comes on, but everything's super-
magnified. I've tried every video setting under Xconfigureator without
success.
At first, I thought I'd go with Slackware, cuz that was the one I'd
heard about most, but after doing some research, I went with Red Hat.
They were getting great reviews about how easy to install it was and
about their RPM system, which was a big plus for me as I've heard
manually installing Linux stuff was rather frustrating. Plus with the
boxed version, they included a couple bonus CD's full of docs, FAQ's,
apps, and not one, but two e-books on learning Linux in PDF format.
And I paid a whooping 35 bucks for it; The regular price was $54.
I guess the next question for me is, "What's next?" Well, as I
speak...er, type, I've DL'ed WordPerfect8 for Linux. That'll be my
first _real_ app. Whew! that sucker was big, over 26 megs. I guess I
should start reading the stuff on the other CD's I mentioned, starting
with the e-books.
Anybody have any suggestions, comments about anything I've written,
feel free. I'm still quite the newbie where Linux is concerned, but I
want to learn it all. I'm hoping to eventually dump MF...I mean MS
from my system.
Have a good one.
|
toking
|
|
response 87 of 257:
|
Mar 3 07:21 UTC 1999 |
what kinda laptop is it?
|
eprom
|
|
response 88 of 257:
|
Mar 3 17:00 UTC 1999 |
isn't there a trick where you press control-alt-plus key and it adjusts
the resolution?
|
pfv
|
|
response 89 of 257:
|
Mar 3 18:05 UTC 1999 |
Keypad plus & minus - yeah, if you told X to use it.. And, if yer
setup has multiple modes.
|
gregb
|
|
response 90 of 257:
|
Mar 4 00:15 UTC 1999 |
Re. 87: It's a Fujitsu Lifebook 200
Re. 88, 89: Been there, done that, no help. And don't even _think_ of
sugesting I contact Fujitsu. while the laptop itself runs fine,
dealing with F'edupsu is a nightmare on anybody's street.
|
mwg
|
|
response 91 of 257:
|
Mar 10 20:20 UTC 1999 |
Super-magnified sounds like VGA resolution. You probably need to find
out the chipset of your video hardware and get the specific X server for
that set, which may be tough on newer models. I've only gotten suppord
for my 2-year old Diamond video card for full functionality in the last 3
months or so. If your X software is less than 3.3.3 you might want to go
to www.xfree86.org and download the latest version.
|
gregb
|
|
response 92 of 257:
|
Mar 11 17:28 UTC 1999 |
>Super-magnified sounds like VGA resolution.
That's what it was alright. However, during setup, I specified I had
SVGA, but nomater what res I set or monitor I specified, It kept
droping back to VGA. However, since my post, I've had /some/ success:
I switched from using Xconfigurator, a Red Hat-specific program I
believe, to the std. XF86config. I was able to specify the exact
chipset (Trident) I had. I now have a regular 800x600 display. Now,
the only prob is the desktop and menus are all black; Icons, however,
are visable. <Sigh!>...back to the drawing board, I guess.
|
gregb
|
|
response 93 of 257:
|
Mar 11 17:31 UTC 1999 |
Speaking of X, I'm having some trouble distinguishing between the terms
"X server" and "Windows Mngr." Can someone clarify these, perhaps
using the DOS world as an analogy? It's not vital, but I would like to
be clear on what's what.
|
pfv
|
|
response 94 of 257:
|
Mar 11 17:47 UTC 1999 |
The "X Server" or "X" or "X11" is a server-program that provides
all the usual (and obnoxious) gobbledegook requisite of a Graphic
User Unterface (GUI) in a "windowing environment".
The "Window Manager" is a "client" program that adds another layer
between the user, the GUI - which is what this provides - and the
server.
_Theoretically_, you program to "X ne. X11" and the program is
supposed to run under ANY OTHER "window manager". This is prolly
a reasonable assumption, until you get to stuff like KDE and GNOME
and ENLIGHTENMENT - all of which require additional libraries for
support, and so do the better of the programs for them. This is
even a problem with Motif/Lesstiff programs, and I'm sure someone
can mention some more of these idiot-syncracies.
The client/server approach even applies to X and its own "font
server": with this "font server", you have the ability to teach
X and linux to use TrueType (and FreeType ;-) fonts in addition to
the typical unix font-crap. Unices are truly rich in client/server
examples and implementations.
This help any?
|
mwg
|
|
response 95 of 257:
|
Mar 17 18:20 UTC 1999 |
Re:#92 How much memory does your video card have?
|
pfv
|
|
response 96 of 257:
|
Mar 17 18:35 UTC 1999 |
*sigh* Even 4m is moer than enough for the basics.
|
gregb
|
|
response 97 of 257:
|
Mar 25 00:43 UTC 1999 |
Re. 92: Two megs., more than enough at 800x600x16-bit. But, hey, I'd
be willing to settle for 256-color it it'll give me 800x600, or at
least a true 640x480.
At this point, after playing with every setting I can think of, I get
three possible results: 1) A blank screen, which means having to re-
boot to get back to normal. 2) A 640x480 display that shows all the
proper backgroun/menu/text colors but blows everything up to 320x200
proportions, without a virtual desktop. 3) An 800x600 display that
shows no background/menu/text colors (all black), but /does/ display
all icons properly, and has the virtual desktop.
As it stands, after a week of fiddling, I've given up on X and decided
to concentrate on the other aspects of Linux, which there are plenty.
I'll just have to chalk it up to one more reason never to get Fujitsu
products again.
|
kentn
|
|
response 98 of 257:
|
Mar 25 01:50 UTC 1999 |
A week of fiddling isn't too far off if your set up doesn't click right
out of the box. The best luck I've had in getting X set up for my video
card was going through the recommended calculations by hand (well pocket
calculator) and fiddling until I had it the way I liked it. Using all
the configurators and auto-set up programs I've only been able to get
close. Take a deep breath, relax, leave off of it for a while, then go
back and read the docs (on my FreeBSD system the one about calculations
is called VideoModes.doc and is in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc/ but may be
in a different place on your system) and see if you can't squeeze a
compromise out of your video card/monitor combination (I had a 1-meg
card doing 800x600 at 256-color and a bit of virtual desktop, but it
took a lot of fiddling). Good luck.
|
shf
|
|
response 99 of 257:
|
Mar 25 11:44 UTC 1999 |
2 meg was not enough video memory for me, and sometimes, at higher
resolutions, even 8meg will give me the dreaded black windows.
|
gregb
|
|
response 100 of 257:
|
Mar 27 20:40 UTC 1999 |
Re. 98: Well, like I said earlier, this is happening only on my
laptop, which considering it came from Fujitsu, shouldn't be too
surprising. I'll never touch their stuff again. My tower box is
running just fine, thank you.
Your right about the docs. I've been looking through my RH CD's and
there's a ton of info in there. Hopefully, there'll be something
regarding laptops or LCD displays I can use. If not, there's a ton
more of online docs, mailing lists, HOWTO's, etc.
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 257:
|
Mar 28 17:28 UTC 1999 |
I actually find fiddling with the video parameters in XF86Config
to be kind of fun. It's useful not to have to settle for one of
the standard screen resolutions (640x40, 800x600, 1024x768, etc)
but instead can specify whatever best suits your needs. I currently
run at a screen resolution of 1184x888. Why? Well, because it's the
smallest resolution at which I can fit two 80-column text windows
(xterm or emacs) side-by-side using a decent font and with a decent
refresh rate (85 Hz).
|
gregb
|
|
response 102 of 257:
|
Mar 30 22:25 UTC 1999 |
Well, it's only fun if it works. Otherwise, it's just frustrating.
Fortunately, there's a lot of non-graphic stuff to learn about. Today,
I've discovered the benefits of VC's, which makes applying things I'm
learing easier.
|