| 1 |
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:50:14 +1000 |
| 2 |
"Alan E. Davis" <lngndvs@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I gather that there was a bug in the mga drivers some time ago, and it |
| 5 |
> appears that the xorg drivers have incorporated the patches I have seen |
| 6 |
> during my google searches. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I had one running on Gentoo last year, before the motherboard on an |
| 10 |
800 MHz Athlon Slot-A died. X ran fine. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I do wonder what to do about framebuffers, though. Tiring of the battle, |
| 13 |
> after many years of avoiding framebuffers, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Have you tried just using - vesa? Or vga? It should work. Turning on everything |
| 16 |
is always a sure way to break a kernel. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Description: when scrolling the buffer, some lines are doubled, some are |
| 20 |
> lost, and using Firefox at least, when I type Ctrl-L, the frame displays |
| 21 |
> properly until it is scrolled again. I have found descriptions of similar |
| 22 |
> issues on the Inet, but nothing that has helped get my system to work |
| 23 |
> properly. Does this symptom ring a bell with anyone? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Generally, it's because the gfx card can't refresh from it's internal memory fast enough. |
| 27 |
As I recall, the Mystique had an optional memory module, which I have on mine. Perhaps |
| 28 |
its just that your trying to use too high a resolution and hitting the cards performance |
| 29 |
limits? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
With due respect, save up your pennies and get a current Gfx card. Should be around |
| 32 |
US$42. Sure, that's a months wages in some parts of the world. But still - throwing a massively |
| 33 |
powerful processor in a system with a dead-end Gfx card is kind of wasteful, unless you're making |
| 34 |
this thing into a server. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Bob |
| 37 |
- |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives