From wanqing.wu at openwave.com Thu Jul 1 04:15:40 2004 From: wanqing.wu at openwave.com (Wanqing Wu) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:15:40 -0700 Subject: ATI Mach64 Rage II video card driver in Red Hat 9 (Fedora Core2) References: <010201c45d97$9c862b60$6500a8c0@myopwv.com> Message-ID: <001a01c45f22$1216afe0$6700a8c0@wanqingwu> Actually I am using RedHat Fedora Core 2, not RedHat 9. Sorry about that. Please see the attached config and log files. Thanks a lot. -Wanqing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike A. Harris" To: "Red Hat XFree86 discussion list" Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: ATI Mach64 Rage II video card driver in Red Hat 9 (Fedora Core2) > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Wanqing Wu wrote: > > >I installed the latest red hat Linux, Fedora Core 2, in my machine. But the X server cannot be > >started. I got the following error message: > > > >Module: init10 X11R6.7.0 > >Driver: atimisc_drv.o > >Error: ATI cannot read V_BIOS > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The driver can't read the video BIOS. > > > >My machine has the video card, ATI Mach64 3D Rage IIC. The driver installed > >is atimisc_drv.o of X11R6. > > > >Could you please let me know what is wrong ? Do I have the correct driver ? > >If I don't have the correct driver, where can I get the one for my video card ? > > You have the correct (and only) driver. For one reason or > another it can't read the video BIOS, and will not function. You > need to determine the cause of that first, and then try to fix > it. Make sure that your CMOS is configured correctly, and that > you're using Red Hat supplied XFree86 rpms and kernel. > > > By the way, in the Subject line of your email you state: > > "Re: ATI Mach64 Rage II video card driver in Red Hat 9 (Fedora Core 2)" > > I presume you mean "Red Hat Linux 9" there. "Red Hat Linux 9" > and "Fedora Core 2" are two totally different operating system > releases which have nothing in common with each other. From your > email though, it appears that you are using Fedora Core 2, not > Red Hat Linux 9. > > > Post your X server log file and config file somewhere and pass on > the URL, and we'll have a look. > > > _______________________________________________ > xfree86-list mailing list > xfree86-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/xfree86-list > IRC: #xfree86 on irc.redhat.com > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: xorg.conf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Xorg.0.log Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18699 bytes Desc: not available URL: From flavor_tagger at hotmail.com Tue Jul 6 04:01:49 2004 From: flavor_tagger at hotmail.com (Kevin Flynn) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:01:49 -0400 Subject: What is X server DPI used for? Message-ID: Hello, I recently learned that my X server (stock xorg-x11-6.7.0-2 from FC2) is running at 75x75 DPI while my LCD display (SXGA+ with 1400x1050 pixels, and 12x9 inches physical size) apparently has a resolution of about 116 DPI. So I tried with restarting X with -dpi 116, but I don't really notice any differences. In fact, I tried setting it across a broad range of values and still saw no apparent differences. What does the X server use the DPI parameter for? Does it matter if X is using a different DPI than the native resolution of my display? Will my fonts be screwed up or something? Thanks for any clue to a newbie. -KF _________________________________________________________________ MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com From mitch48 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 9 02:18:01 2004 From: mitch48 at sbcglobal.net (Nifty Hat Mitch) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:18:01 -0700 Subject: What is X server DPI used for? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040709021801.GI21325@xtl1.xtl.tenegg.com> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:01:49AM -0400, Kevin Flynn wrote: > Hello, > > I recently learned that my X server (stock xorg-x11-6.7.0-2 from > FC2) is running at 75x75 DPI while my LCD display (SXGA+ with > 1400x1050 pixels, and 12x9 inches physical size) apparently has a > resolution of about 116 DPI. So I tried with restarting X with -dpi > 116, but I don't really notice any differences. In fact, I tried > setting it across a broad range of values and still saw no apparent > differences. What does the X server use the DPI parameter for? > Does it matter if X is using a different DPI than the native > resolution of my display? Will my fonts be screwed up or something? There are numerous ways of measuring fonts. In the end they are rendered to a height based on the apparent dot per inch aspect of the screen. One interaction is the selection of pre rendered fonts. ..../X11/fonts/75dpi/... ..../X11/fonts/100dpi/... I see in /etc/X11/Xresources ! Fix the Xft dpi to 96; this prevents tiny fonts ! or HUGE fonts depending on the screen size. Xft.dpi: 96 This tells me that you might change things with a line in your $HOME/.Xresources file like: Xft.dpi: 116 If you like the fonts leave things! When attempting to match fonts to various displays some ugly results are possible. Keep good notes so you can undo or redo this class of changes. If you understand how to get a virtual terminal you might touch /etc/X11/Xresources but global files should be kept as original as possible. A badly configured display can be hard to fix. -- T o m M i t c h e l l /dev/null the ultimate in secure storage. From acosta at ar.microlink.com.br Thu Jul 15 01:36:04 2004 From: acosta at ar.microlink.com.br (Andre Costa) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:36:04 -0300 Subject: Fw: Trouble using truetype fonts on FC2 Message-ID: <20040714223604.2ad613f9.acosta@ar.microlink.com.br> I am not sure this list is still active, but I am cross-posting here hoping someone here can shed some light on this... I have just confirmed (accessing file:/// on Nautilus) that the problem happens only with GTK 1.x -- at least Verdana font (and the other MS TTF) has been displayed just fine. TIA Andre --------------- Begin forwarded message --------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:32:49 -0300 From: Andre Costa To: Fedora ML Subject: Trouble using truetype fonts on FC2 Hi, I have recently upgraded FC1 to FC2 (woo-hoo! =)), and all seems to be going well -- except for TTF support. I have gone through the instructions here [http://www.rockhopper.dk/linux/software/fonts-in-xfree.html], but I can't seem to be able to enable Windows TTF. The very same procedure works flawlessly on FC1. All steps seem to succeed, all proper files seem to be on the right place etc. 'xlsfonts' lists windows fonts without complaints. However, fonts appear ugly, as you can see by these screenshots from Sylpheed: http://gwpr03.microlink.com.br/~acosta/Sylpheed-FC1.png http://gwpr03.microlink.com.br/~acosta/Sylpheed-FC2.png First one is how it looks on FC1 (I took it from my computer at work, but it was working like that on my home computer as well). I am using Verdana font, and it looks just like it should. Second one shows how it is appearing on FC2 -- this font is definitely not Verdana. Sylpheed is configured to use this font on both versions: -microsoft-verdana-medium-r-normal-*-*-90-*-*-p-*-iso8859-1 I am running Xorg at 100x100dpi, using nvidia drivers. /etc/X11/fs/config has: [...] catalogue = /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo, /usr/share/fonts/ttf, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Windows, /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1, /usr/lib/openoffice/share/fonts/truetype # in 12 points, decipoints default-point-size = 120 # 100 x 100 and 75 x 75 #default-resolutions = 75,75,100,100 default-resolutions = 100,100,75,75 [...] fonts.scale and fonts.dir have been created on /usr/share/fonts/ttf with: ttmkfdir > fonts.scale mkfontdir I can't see what's wrong... any specific Xorg procedure I should do? Anyone else can confirm successfully enabling MS fonts on FC2? (please note: I would like to do it for both GTK 1.x and GTK2). TIA Andre -- Andre Oliveira da Costa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list at redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list --------------- End forwarded message ----------------- -- Andre Oliveira da Costa From thumper2474 at comcast.net Sun Jul 18 01:48:35 2004 From: thumper2474 at comcast.net (Thumper) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:48:35 -0700 Subject: Problems with ATI Radeon 9600 PRO on 2.4.21-15 kernel Message-ID: <95269688-D85C-11D8-9D7F-000A95B3B818@comcast.net> I am trying to configure the ATI Radeon 9600 PRO graphics card with a 2.4.21-15 kernel and XFree86 4.3, but the display will not start. Any help would be appreciated. TIA Andrew Details: After installing RHEL3.0, I downloaded the fglrx-4.3.0-3.9.0.i386.rpm and ran through the rpm -Uh --force as suggested by ATI. This log looks clean - it did warn about the tainting of the kernel - but ATI expects this. After running through the fglrxconfig - which with the exception of the monitor refresh rates - was default. Then when running startx, I am getting the following error message (WW) fglrx: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:1:0:1) found Could not init font path element /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo/, removing from list! SESSION_MANAGER=local/ababb-lnx1:/tmp/.ICE-unix/4971 AUDIT: Sat Jul 17 18:46:36 2004: 4966 X: client 4 rejected from local host What i am seeing is that the monitor temporarily flickers and then just goes blank. Thanks again From philip at alexanderworks.org.uk Wed Aug 11 22:40:48 2004 From: philip at alexanderworks.org.uk (Philip Pawley) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:40:48 +0100 Subject: ATI Radeon 9200SE Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20040811232321.029eba48@mail.alexanderworks.org.uk> I have an ASUS SK8V motherboard and Opteron 146 with an ASUS video card powered by the ATI Radeon 9200SE chip. I installed Fedora Core for x86_64. The installation always hangs on boot-up, unless I set the AGP in the bios to 4x instead of 8x. I have a lot of questions:- 1. Is it true that the Radeon driver only supports 4x? 2. If so, is 8x support likely soon? 3. I take it the ATI XFree86 driver won't work for xorg - is that correct?? 4. I don't understand the difference between XFree86 and xorg. Can you point me to an explanation 5. In the meantime, is there another way of making it work, without having to set the bios to 4x? 6. If there isn't, I think I would like to get a video card with about the same capabilities that is fully supported in Fedora Core. What do you suggest? Thanks for your time, Philip Pawley From alexdeucher at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 02:37:54 2004 From: alexdeucher at gmail.com (Alex Deucher) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:37:54 -0400 Subject: ATI Radeon 9200SE In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20040811232321.029eba48@mail.alexanderworks.org.uk> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20040811232321.029eba48@mail.alexanderworks.org.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:40:48 +0100, Philip Pawley wrote: > I have an ASUS SK8V motherboard and Opteron 146 with an ASUS video card powered by the ATI Radeon 9200SE chip. > I installed Fedora Core for x86_64. > > The installation always hangs on boot-up, unless I set the AGP in the bios to 4x instead of 8x. > > I have a lot of questions:- > > 1. Is it true that the Radeon driver only supports 4x? at the moment yes, however there was an 8x patch floating around a while ago, however, experience shows you won't really see any difference in performance between 4x and 8x. > 2. If so, is 8x support likely soon? there is a patch floating around. I suppose it needs more testing then someone needs to apply it to cvs. > 3. I take it the ATI XFree86 driver won't work for xorg - is that correct?? Ati's binary drivers work fine with xorg. one of the goals of the project to is to maintain compatibility with nvidia and ati's binary drivers. > 4. I don't understand the difference between XFree86 and xorg. Can you point me to an explanation Due to a variety of reasons, xorg forked from xfree86 right before xfree86 4.4.0 was released. xorg retains the old xfree86 license and, in my opinion, is more accepting of community involvement. > 5. In the meantime, is there another way of making it work, without having to set the bios to 4x? I'm not sure. agpgart or the kernel agp driver should set it correctly assuming you have 4x mode specified in your X config. Or just set the BIOS to 4x. the agp kernel driver (both linx and windows) should be able to change to the proper mode at run time. > 6. If there isn't, I think I would like to get a video card with about the same capabilities that is fully supported in Fedora Core. What do you suggest? the 9200 should be fine. see above comments. > > Thanks for your time, good luck, Alex > > Philip Pawley > From fedora at wir-sind-cool.org Tue Sep 14 06:22:10 2004 From: fedora at wir-sind-cool.org (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:22:10 +0200 Subject: FC2/FC3 xorg x11 mga driver problem? Message-ID: <20040914082210.109d37fd.fedora@wir-sind-cool.org> In short: Fedora Core 2 and Fedora Core 2.90, Matrox Millennium G400/G450 graphics card, KDE or GNOME, Open Inventor demos flicker badly on FC2 until the window is moved to a different position, while with FC1 no such symptoms are experienced on the same machine. The problem goes away with "Option Accel off", but that slows down 2D graphics operations (like window movement) too much. Does anybody have any ideas on what could be the culprit or what I could test to find out? To describe the symptoms further, when I start /usr/lib/Inventor/gview.RUNME e.g., I see only the cleanly rotating sails of the windmill. The windmill itself flickers and is hardly visible. When I move the window a few cm, the symptoms go away, and everything looks good. Does that make sense? But when I move the window across the screen's border and back to the middle, the flickering is back. It's the same with all demos. FC2 binaries and src.rpms here (signed with key 8ff214b4): ftp://packman.iu-bremen.de/fedora/2 Fedora.us package submission ticket: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1802 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: