Console and X at 1680x1050 - X

This is a discussion on Console and X at 1680x1050 - X ; Hi there, I've just bought a new 1680x1050 widescreen monitor and I'd like to use the framebuffer and 3d acceleration on it. I've tried an nvidia card, which has a very good framebuffer driver into the kernel, capable of driving ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Console and X at 1680x1050

  1. Console and X at 1680x1050

    Hi there,

    I've just bought a new 1680x1050 widescreen monitor and I'd like to use
    the framebuffer and 3d acceleration on it.

    I've tried an nvidia card, which has a very good framebuffer driver into
    the kernel, capable of driving my monitor at its native 1680x1050
    resolution, but which conflicts with its proprietary drivers needed for 3d
    acceleration...

    I've also tried an ATI card, but its framebuffer driver doesn't work for
    me (all I get is a multicolored corrupted display when I run fbset
    1680x1050-60), its proprietary driver (8.28.8 for my Radeon 9250) is very
    hard to compile and configure and I've read that it also conflicts with
    the framebuffer driver (if you get it working...).

    I don't see recent Matrox consumer cards in the shops, which perhaps could
    have the right support into the kernel...

    Anyone can suggest me how to have the console and X both working at
    1680x1050, perhaps with 3d acceleration?

    Thanks for your replies.


    --
    hamradio@toglimi.quipo.it
    ANTI-SPAM: please cut "toglimi." for my real e-mail address.
    Powered by Linux 2.6.23.1-rt11 on Debian Etch
    Registered Linux user #291116 http://counter.li.org

  2. Re: Console and X at 1680x1050

    HamRadio staggered into the Black Sun and said:
    > I've just bought a new 1680x1050 widescreen monitor and I'd like to
    > use the framebuffer


    What does a text console get you that you can't achieve with a maximized
    xterm, konsole, or gnome-terminal? Answer that and you may be able to
    find a better solution.

    > I've tried an nvidia card, which has a very good framebuffer driver,
    > but [that] conflicts with [the] proprietary drivers needed for 3d


    See above.

    > I've also tried an ATI card, but its framebuffer driver doesn't work
    > [and] its proprietary driver (8.28.8 for my Radeon 9250) is very hard
    > to compile and configure and I've read that it also conflicts with the
    > framebuffer driver


    See above.

    > I don't see recent Matrox consumer cards in the shops


    Didn't they stop making video cards a while back? ...guess not, they
    still show G400s (old) and various other models on pricewatch.

    > [Can anyone] suggest me how to have the console and X both working at
    > 1680x1050, perhaps with 3d acceleration?


    See first paragraph. Also think about Intel video cards, since the i810
    and descendants have fully open 3D acceleration code available, so the
    likelihood of conflicts between it and the i810 framebuffer is small.
    The real problem is that most Intel video cards are soldered to the
    boards they came with, and 3D performance is less than nVidia or ATi
    cards. Your best/cheapest real-world solution is probably to use the
    evil binary-only nVidia modules and a maximized xterm/konsole. HTH,

    --
    Once I saw this wino who was eating grapes, and I said, "Dude, you
    have to wait." --Mitch Hedberg
    Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

+ Reply to Thread