[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ATI Rage Mobility (Mach 128) under FC-2



William Hooper wrote:

>> Sorry to repeat myself,
>> but does anyone have a machine with this card (or board)
>> running at 1024x728x16bpp (or better)?
>> Or 1024x480x16bpp?
> 
> Repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere.  If anyone had any
> assistance to offer they would have.  Please file a bug.

I did file a bug with xorg bugzilla.

The reason I repeated myself was that some people responded
suggesting that the fault lay in my xorg.conf ,
which I assumed (perhaps wrongly) meant that they had solved the problem.

Also there was a certain amount of confusion (certainly on my part)
between ATI Rage and ATI Radeon.
The Xorg "ati" driver covers both,
and there seem to be problems with both,
but they appear to be unrelated.

It was suggested for example that I should try the driver from ATI,
but as far as I could see this did not claim to work with ATI Rage.
(ATI Rage is now listed among "discontinued cards" at http://www.ati.com .
All the current cards seem to be called ATI Radeon.)

Incidentally, I tried the xorg.conf you kindly sent me,
and this worked with 800x600 in 16bpp.
Recall that I was looking for 1024x480 in 16bpp,
with "Virtual" 1024x728.
I haven't been able to work out 
which screen sizes Xorg (or XFree86) will accept.
Is it just a convention that 800x600 is always offered?
Would 790x590 work just as well?
And why 1024x728?
728 seems a strange number to choose.




 

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]