NavigationUser loginSpam?See spam posts on this site? If so, please don't reply to the spam! Instead, just report the URL to the webmaster. |
getting xorg working on an old box .....Dear Debianists, In a recent post I reported a problem with xorg working on an old Gateway I followed the advice and did dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg and eventually Thanks for this recommendation. I also put in the Belinea 10 20 10 monitor specs (I use this monitor) in the The rest of the choices were pretty much default ones. The box then spent ages whirring away and writing to the swap area (low RAM The error was (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible and a few other lines followed Suggestions and comments welcome. Regards, Michael Fothergill _________________________________________________________________ -- |
getting xorg working on an old box .....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> Dear Debianists,
>
> The error was
>
> (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible
>
> and a few other lines followed
> by
> killed.
Hi Michael,
this error is not sufficient to stop an X server, it is just a bit of
info that states that this card does not have this advanced feature
(used for eyecandy). Show us more lines that have EE,WW,II or similar.
Cheers,
Kev
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | 'under construction' |
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFpr9sv8UcC1qRZVMRAuGiAJ96H7S1ArCttPd3nu8GvkDzhXrUQgCfbqFX
ychQFJ56/pQ2AhARWrnkPpU=
=FlmZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
>From: Kevin Mark
>To:
>Subject: Re: getting xorg working on an old box .....
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:51:24 -0500
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> > Dear Debianists,
> >
> > The error was
> >
> > (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible
> >
> > and a few other lines followed
> > by
> > killed.
>Hi Michael,
>this error is not sufficient to stop an X server, it is just a bit of
>info that states that this card does not have this advanced feature
>(used for eyecandy). Show us more lines that have EE,WW,II or similar.
>Cheers,
>Kev
Hmmm.... THis is worrying because this was the only error I saw on the
terminal. MInd you maybe there was one of these other errors elsewhere in
the log file that didn't appear on the terminal................
Would the log file be in e.g. /var/log/xorg.0.log or something like that?
I could boot up the machine and go in the file and sniff around for more
errors.
I will see what I can find and come back at you guys later.
Thank you for this advice.
Regards
Michael Fothergill
>- --
>| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
>| : :' : The Universal | 'under construction' |
>| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
>| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
>| my keysever: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFFpr9sv8UcC1qRZVMRAuGiAJ96H7S1ArCttPd3nu8GvkDzhXrUQgCfbqFX
>ychQFJ56/pQ2AhARWrnkPpU=
>=FlmZ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/07 16:59, Michael Fothergill wrote:
>
>
>
>> From: Kevin Mark
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: getting xorg working on an old box .....
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:51:24 -0500
>>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:40:07PM +0000, Michael Fothergill wrote:
>> Dear Debianists,
>
>> The error was
>
>> (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible
>
>> and a few other lines followed
>> by
>> killed.
> Hi Michael,
> this error is not sufficient to stop an X server, it is just a bit of
> info that states that this card does not have this advanced feature
> (used for eyecandy). Show us more lines that have EE,WW,II or similar.
> Cheers,
> Kev
>
>> Hmmm.... THis is worrying because this was the only error I saw on the
>> terminal. MInd you maybe there was one of these other errors elsewhere
>> in the log file that didn't appear on the terminal................
>
>> Would the log file be in e.g. /var/log/xorg.0.log or something like that?
Close. /var/log/Xorg.0.log. Do you use startx or xdm?
>> I could boot up the machine and go in the file and sniff around for more
>> errors.
>
>> I will see what I can find and come back at you guys later.
>
>> Thank you for this advice.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFpsT4S9HxQb37XmcRAuzkAJ971PFWsDcTtVBtMxncaJMJyMrNUQCdFCx1
cvYXgJ52aLRuzoZIqw5DCro=
=FENn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
> >> The error was
> >
> >> (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible
> >
> >> and a few other lines followed
> >> by
> >> killed.
> > Hi Michael,
> > this error is not sufficient to stop an X server, it is just a bit of
> > info that states that this card does not have this advanced feature
> > (used for eyecandy). Show us more lines that have EE,WW,II or similar.
> > Cheers,
> > Kev
> >
> >> Hmmm.... THis is worrying because this was the only error I saw on the
> >> terminal. MInd you maybe there was one of these other errors elsewhere
> >> in the log file that didn't appear on the terminal................
> >
> >> Would the log file be in e.g. /var/log/xorg.0.log or something like
>that?
>
>Close. /var/log/Xorg.0.log. Do you use startx or xdm?
I use gdm as the login window. I have never actually seen the window of
course because xorg hasn't worked correctly yet. But gdm did try to fire
up.
However at the terminal prompt after interrupting a failed xorg session I
typed in startx.
Was this dumb of me?
Regards,
Michael Fothergill
>
> >> I could boot up the machine and go in the file and sniff around for
>more
> >> errors.
> >
> >> I will see what I can find and come back at you guys later.
> >
> >> Thank you for this advice.
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFFpsT4S9HxQb37XmcRAuzkAJ971PFWsDcTtVBtMxncaJMJyMrNUQCdFCx1
>cvYXgJ52aLRuzoZIqw5DCro=
>=FENn
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/07 17:23, Michael Fothergill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> >> The error was
>> >
>> >> (EE) AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI compatible
>> >
>> >> and a few other lines followed
>> >> by
>> >> killed.
>> > Hi Michael,
>> > this error is not sufficient to stop an X server, it is just a bit of
>> > info that states that this card does not have this advanced feature
>> > (used for eyecandy). Show us more lines that have EE,WW,II or similar.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Kev
>> >
>> >> Hmmm.... THis is worrying because this was the only error I saw on
>> the
>> >> terminal. MInd you maybe there was one of these other errors
>> elsewhere
>> >> in the log file that didn't appear on the terminal................
>> >
>> >> Would the log file be in e.g. /var/log/xorg.0.log or something like
>> that?
>>
>> Close. /var/log/Xorg.0.log. Do you use startx or xdm?
>
> I use gdm as the login window. I have never actually seen the window of
> course because xorg hasn't worked correctly yet. But gdm did try to
> fire up.
> However at the terminal prompt after interrupting a failed xorg session
> I typed in startx.
>
> Was this dumb of me?
Dumb? No.
I just don't favor [xgk]dm because if X doesn't work, you still have
a functional system.
> Regards,
>
> Michael Fothergill
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >> I could boot up the machine and go in the file and sniff around for
>> more
>> >> errors.
>> >
>> >> I will see what I can find and come back at you guys later.
>> >
>> >> Thank you for this advice.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFpvXyS9HxQb37XmcRAiEVAKDCXaGRiu46aux56q/Bg33K1JEa/gCfSzuO
8ctYC4liYmsokTvPO2Kqw6g=
=VOqN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Michael Fothergill napisał(a):
>
>
> I use gdm as the login window. I have never actually seen the window of
> course because xorg hasn't worked correctly yet. But gdm did try to
> fire up.
> However at the terminal prompt after interrupting a failed xorg session
> I typed in startx.
>
Hi gdm and kdm are both "resource consumeing" so i recomend using xdm or
just startx command on an old machine. Especially when You're short on
RAM. After running the window manager the ?dm's don't do nothing more
than stay in the memory till You finish Your xsession. xdm is the
smallest of the three.
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Jakub Narojczyk wrote:
> Hi gdm and kdm are both "resource consumeing" so i recomend using xdm or
> just startx command on an old machine. Especially when You're short on
> RAM.
Yes they are. gdm a lot more so than kdm (I chucked gdm because I
thought it was even too slow on my 3GHz Athlon).
> After running the window manager the ?dm's don't do nothing more
> than stay in the memory till You finish Your xsession.
Actually they will be swapped out, so after the actual X session starts,
they won't consume any valuable RAM.
Anyway, I agree with your advice: Use xdm, or no desktop manager at all.
--Daniel
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
> Jakub Narojczyk wrote:
>
> > Hi gdm and kdm are both "resource consumeing" so i recomend using xdm or
> > just startx command on an old machine. Especially when You're short on
> > RAM.
>
> Yes they are. gdm a lot more so than kdm (I chucked gdm because I
> thought it was even too slow on my 3GHz Athlon).
Indeed, so why even install them, right? (as it was originally
proposed --> startx would do the trick)
> > After running the window manager the ?dm's don't do nothing more
> > than stay in the memory till You finish Your xsession.
>
> Actually they will be swapped out, so after the actual X session starts,
> they won't consume any valuable RAM.
>
> Anyway, I agree with your advice: Use xdm, or no desktop manager at all.
>
> --Daniel
I kinda jumped in late on this one, but here's my 2 cents: using a
light window-manager (fluxbox, for instance) will also help (as
opposed to something exotic [in this case] as kdm or gnome).
Best regards,
-Cisco
======================
GIT - Guru-In-Training
Debian (Etch)
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Hi all.}} In a recent post I reported a problem with xorg working on an old Gateway}} 2000 PC I use. The problem was that I chose 24 depth and the ATI Mach 64}} graphics card could not support it.
Probably i'm going to say a stupid thing...But..i've worked for a lot with old pc with linux, and using xorg (for terminal services purpose).And i've seen that old video card need only a thing:xorg VESA driver.
No trident, s3, ati or other.Try forcing vesa driver to use with your video card in xorg.conf.Hope it helps you!Bye
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Jakub Narojczyk wrote:
> Michael Fothergill napisał(a):
>>
>>
>> I use gdm as the login window. I have never actually seen the window
>> of course because xorg hasn't worked correctly yet. But gdm did try
>> to fire up.
>> However at the terminal prompt after interrupting a failed xorg
>> session I typed in startx.
Your main problem is the configuration of xserver-xorg but you don't
offer any of the errors that you should be getting (EE)
Get rid of gdm and do not install any dm, it's a waste of resources, a
user with an old box cannot afford, use startx.
# dpkg -P gdm
# apt-get clean
As for your xorg problems, install the following packages:
xserver-xorg-core
xserver-xorg-input-all
xserver-xorg-video-all
then do a:
# dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
Install icewm or fluxbox, or whatever you fancy, forget about Gnome or
KDE, not with that kind of box.
Edit your .xinitrc:
$ nano .xinitrc (it will be blank)
and leave it looking like this:
#!/bin/sh
numlockx &
icewm
then save/exit from nano
Ctrl+o will save
Ctrl+x will exit
startx
Hopefully, this will let you in the Xs.
KISS protocol: Keep It Simple, Stupid
PII 266 128 MB RAM - Sid (Sidux) - IceWM/Ratpoison
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:24:30 -0500
macondo wrote:
> Your main problem is the configuration of xserver-xorg but you don't
> offer any of the errors that you should be getting (EE)
Actually he did in the first post.
> Get rid of gdm and do not install any dm, it's a waste of resources,
> a user with an old box cannot afford, use startx.
>
> # dpkg -P gdm
dpkg? why not 'apt-get --purge gdm'?
> As for your xorg problems, install the following packages:
>
> xserver-xorg-core
> xserver-xorg-input-all
> xserver-xorg-video-all
Why the -all packages? xserver-xorg-input-kbd and
xserver-xorg-input-mouse should be enough for the input part and for
video the xserver-xorg-video-vesa (to try Mirco Piccin's suggestion)
and the coresponding driver for his video card.
> Install icewm or fluxbox, or whatever you fancy, forget about Gnome
> or KDE, not with that kind of box.
>
> Edit your .xinitrc:
>
> $ nano .xinitrc (it will be blank)
>
> and leave it looking like this:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> numlockx &
> icewm
You don't need to have a .xinitrc (I don't). startx will use
x-window-manager (or x-session-manager) which can be configured with
update-alternatives. If icewm is the only wm than it will be that one
anyway.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:24:30 -0500
> macondo wrote:
>
>> Your main problem is the configuration of xserver-xorg but you don't
>> offer any of the errors that you should be getting (EE)
>
> Actually he did in the first post.
Sorry, i didn't get the first one.
>> Get rid of gdm and do not install any dm, it's a waste of resources,
>> a user with an old box cannot afford, use startx.
>>
>> # dpkg -P gdm
>
> dpkg? why not 'apt-get --purge gdm'?
Same thing, apt-get is just a front-end for dpkg.
>> As for your xorg problems, install the following packages:
>>
>> xserver-xorg-core
>> xserver-xorg-input-all
>> xserver-xorg-video-all
>
> Why the -all packages? xserver-xorg-input-kbd and
> xserver-xorg-input-mouse should be enough for the input part and for
> video the xserver-xorg-video-vesa (to try Mirco Piccin's suggestion)
> and the coresponding driver for his video card.
Why not? i just want to make sure something is not missing.
>
>> Install icewm or fluxbox, or whatever you fancy, forget about Gnome
>> or KDE, not with that kind of box.
>>
>> Edit your .xinitrc:
>>
>> $ nano .xinitrc (it will be blank)
>>
>> and leave it looking like this:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> numlockx &
>> icewm
>
> You don't need to have a .xinitrc (I don't). startx will use
> x-window-manager (or x-session-manager) which can be configured with
> update-alternatives. If icewm is the only wm than it will be that one
> anyway.
If indeed it's the only one, what's wrong with .xinitrc? it's simple and
you don't have to learn 'update-alternatives. Besides with .xinitrc or
.xsession you can include apps to start when you enter the X system
>
> Regards,
> Andrei
--
KISS protocol - Keep It Simple, Stupid
PII 266 128 MB RAM - Sid (Sidux) - IceWM/Ratpoison
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:50:34 -0500
macondo wrote:
> Why not? i just want to make sure something is not missing.
I thought we were talking about a low end machine. I wouldn't install
stuff I will certainly not need. I fact I wouldn't do that on any
machine.
> If indeed it's the only one, what's wrong with .xinitrc? it's simple
> and you don't have to learn 'update-alternatives. Besides
> with .xinitrc or .xsession you can include apps to start when you
> enter the X system
My point was that it's not necessary with only one wm installed. "If it
ain't broke don't fix it". (Don't know where that comes from).
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:50:34 -0500
> macondo wrote:
>
>> Why not? i just want to make sure something is not missing.
>
> I thought we were talking about a low end machine. I wouldn't install
> stuff I will certainly not need. I fact I wouldn't do that on any
> machine.
Weeks from now, when all this mess is fixed, you will get all the
drivers by default, what are you gonna do then? Delete each one that is
not the one you use?
There are other ways of saving space (xserver-xorg-core) and increasing
the speed of an old box.
>> If indeed it's the only one, what's wrong with .xinitrc? it's simple
>> and you don't have to learn 'update-alternatives. Besides
>> with .xinitrc or .xsession you can include apps to start when you
>> enter the X system
>
> My point was that it's not necessary with only one wm installed. "If it
> ain't broke don't fix it". (Don't know where that comes from).
Maybe not, but .xinitrc is something you use in any linux distro or bsd,
what if you're not using Debian? AFAIK, it is the only one using
update-alternatives.
Regards,
--
KISS protocol - Keep It Simple, Stupid
PII 266 128 MB RAM - Sid (Sidux) - IceWM/Ratpoison
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:11:09 -0500
macondo wrote:
> Weeks from now, when all this mess is fixed, you will get all the
> drivers by default, [...]
What do you mean by that?
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:11:09 -0500
> macondo wrote:
>
>> Weeks from now, when all this mess is fixed, you will get all the
>> drivers by default, [...]
>
> What do you mean by that?
The mess i'm referring to, is the actual problem we're having now with
the configuration of xserver-xorg in which the drivers for mouse, kbd,
and video drivers and even the xfonts-base (in some instances) are
missing in Etch and Sid default installation/dist-upgrade.
Thus, the necessity to do a separate installation of the packages
xserver-xorg-input-all/video-all etc, etc.
Regards,
--
KISS protocol - Keep It Simple, Stupid
PII 266 128 MB RAM - Sid (Sidux) - IceWM/Ratpoison
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Dear Debianists,
Thank you for all your responses concerning the xorg problem on my old
box. I have spent one further session trying to get xorg working on the box
since I originally made the first posting.
At that stage the advice was to try to find an error serious enough to
explain the crash I had observed. Unfortunately when I returned to the box
to look for the error I found that the older Xorg log files had not been
stored. The two ones present were from runs where I had terminated them
before they could generate any errors.
It took absolutely centuries to run it again before I could generate a log
file and even then all I got was another flaky AIGLX screen 0 is not DRI
compatible error again. It was also very hard to kill the Xorg off once it
was initiated if you wanted to change the configuration parameters and see
if it might then work.
Doing control alt delete was better than doing the control C and control Y
woody woodpecker key tap routine. But if you did the control alt delete
thing too much it would reboot the entire machine. It also got harder to
kill it if you left it running for too long. It took a lot of skill and
farting around to get this to work in a routine predictable way. Eventually
I got it to do this reasonably.
I gave up on the idea of varying input parameters and then running it for
centuries until it would eventually write an error file that I could look
at. This was just too slow a proposition. You might as well use an abacus.
So what I did was just to vary the input parameters in reconfigure mode and
then run it and kill it as fast and effectively as I could after it had been
given enough time to have a chance of working properly if it looked it was
going to. I always did runs using the ATI Mach 64 graphics card driver.
I had not seen the posting by Mirco Piccin at that stage which suggested
using the VESA driver option. I will try this when I next get a chance to
work on this box again. What I found was that runs got a little less
hopeless looking if you reduced the resolution to 640 x 480 as Mirco Pirrin
reported on his old box and put the colour depth to 1. But it never fired
up properly. It just produced an image on the screen that looked sort of OK
while it struggled to fire up for ages and ages and ages..........
So I gave up with it.
I am going to try again with the VESA driver as I mentioned above. But I do
have a few more questions about all of this before I go away.
Some could be dumb but I need to ask them based on the new postings.
1.In one posting it was suggested that if Xorg doesn't work when you fire up
xdm or kdm or gdm then it doesn't matter; you can simply not use them. I
assume this means you could type in startx instead at the command prompt and
then you could fire up e.g. gnome it would work.... Is this true? Can gnome
work it Xorg fails? Or is gnome dependent on xorg to work?
2.In an earlier posting it was suggested that I could use gnome core instead
of gnome to save on memory and cpu effort etc on the old box. What features
do you get with only gnome core?
3.It was suggested that I get rid of gdm by entering # dpkg -P gdm and then
# apt-get clean. What about doing # aptitude remove gdm? Is this equivalent
here?
4.It was also suggested in the same posting that I install
xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-input-all and xserver-xorg-video-all. Would
I have to do aptiude remove xorg first and then install these packages one
by one if I tried this? What is the advantage of doing this over the xorg
installation you get from the desktop choice in Etch?
5.It was also suggested that I use e.g. fluxbox or icewm etc. I did use
xfce64 before on this box when I had Sarge on it. But it was a bit pesky
not having a floppy icon etc. I didn't want to have to use command line
stuff there. Also it was a pain figuring out how to configure the printer
using xfce64 relative to gnome. Also Etch has gutenprint on it that has a
driver specific for the Epson printer I use which is cool.
6.The posting mentioned above also talked about changing the xinitrc file
contents. What is the philosophy behind this?
Your comments on this are appreciated. I have another slightly younger box
in my sights where I work.
Regards
Michael Fothergill
_________________________________________________________________
Find Love This New Year With match.com! http://msnuk.match.com
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:20:31 +0000
"Michael Fothergill" wrote:
[snip]
You can kill the Xserver with Ctrl-Alt-Backspace
> Some could be dumb but I need to ask them based on the new postings.
>
> 1.In one posting it was suggested that if Xorg doesn't work when you
> fire up xdm or kdm or gdm then it doesn't matter; you can simply not
> use them. I assume this means you could type in startx instead at
> the command prompt and then you could fire up e.g. gnome it would
> work.... Is this true? Can gnome work it Xorg fails? Or is gnome
> dependent on xorg to work?
Very simple put, Gnome is just the nice graphics you see. Xorg is the
infrastructure needed to display it.
> 2.In an earlier posting it was suggested that I could use gnome core
> instead of gnome to save on memory and cpu effort etc on the old
> box. What features do you get with only gnome core?
Gnome is also a collection of various software. gnome-core contains
just the strictly necessary.
> 3.It was suggested that I get rid of gdm by entering # dpkg -P gdm
> and then # apt-get clean. What about doing # aptitude remove gdm? Is
> this equivalent here?
'aptitude remove' leaves the config files behind. The equivalent would
be 'aptitude purge'. Both will do the trick. 'apt-get clean' or
'aptitude clean' will remove the package from your local cache (saves
you some space).
> 4.It was also suggested in the same posting that I install
> xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-input-all and
> xserver-xorg-video-all. Would I have to do aptiude remove xorg first
> and then install these packages one by one if I tried this? What is
> the advantage of doing this over the xorg installation you get from
> the desktop choice in Etch?
If you have the package xorg installed then you probably have those
installed as well. If you want to save some space later just remove
what you don't need.
> 5.It was also suggested that I use e.g. fluxbox or icewm etc. I did
> use xfce64 before on this box when I had Sarge on it. But it was a
> bit pesky not having a floppy icon etc. I didn't want to have to use
> command line stuff there. Also it was a pain figuring out how to
> configure the printer using xfce64 relative to gnome. Also Etch has
> gutenprint on it that has a driver specific for the Epson printer I
> use which is cool.
Gnome has nice features, but will run slower.
> 6.The posting mentioned above also talked about changing the xinitrc
> file contents. What is the philosophy behind this?
If you have a display manager (gdm) then you don't need that, because
you can use the menu to select which WM (xfce, fluxbox, ...) or DE
(Gnome, KDE) you want to use. If you don't have gdm and have only one
WM or DE, then you also don't need this because the system knows which
one to start. If you have more then one then there are 2 (or more) ways
of selecting which WM of DE to run. The generic way is to use X config
files (like .xinitrc). I prefer to use Debian's alternatives system.
Run 'update-alternatives --list x-window-manager' to list what WM your
system knows of. Run 'update-alternatives --config x-window-manager'
to select your default (system wide).
> Your comments on this are appreciated. I have another slightly
> younger box in my sights where I work.
Nice ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:24:30 -0500
> macondo wrote:
>> As for your xorg problems, install the following packages:
>>
>> xserver-xorg-core
>> xserver-xorg-input-all
>> xserver-xorg-video-all
>
> Why the -all packages? xserver-xorg-input-kbd and
> xserver-xorg-input-mouse should be enough for the input part and for
> video the xserver-xorg-video-vesa (to try Mirco Piccin's suggestion)
> and the coresponding driver for his video card.
Why install 'vesa' when you can install your card's driver? 'vesa' is
not the best choice, unless you got problems your card. My way you get
all the drivers.
--
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Hi all again. Why install 'vesa' when you can install your card's driver? 'vesa' is
not the best choice, unless you got problems your card. My way you getall the drivers.Install VESA driver..why?Well, i tell you my experience:i've worked a lot with old pc (pentium 133 mhz, MMX 200, pentium 3 500 etc etc) with low memory (min 40 mb ram - max 256 mb ram), with various video card:
S3, Trident, Cirrus...I've tried hard to obtain a functional X (xorg) environment.But, loading correct video-driver module (xorg-trident for trident video card, xorg-cirrus for cirrus video card, xorg-s3/xorg-s3virge for s3 video card...), the better result was to see a graphical environment with 640x480 (!!!!) resolution, when those "old" pc with a Win95 OS had a resolution up to 1024x768.
For me it's ok, i work well with shell.But those "old" pc were not for me, and need a graphical environment, with good resolution.So i've tried the "universal old video card driver" : VESA.
Only VESA.And xorg start to work very well. Resolution up to 1024x768.So, if your video card is "old", pls try VESA driver, forcing the use of this driver in xorg.conf.I assure you will see the difference.
Hope my experience helps you.Regards!
getting xorg working on an old box .....
Mirco Piccin wrote:
> Hi all again.
>
> Why install 'vesa' when you can install your card's driver? 'vesa' is
> not the best choice, unless you got problems your card. My way you get
> all the drivers.
>
>
> Install VESA driver..why?
>
> Well, i tell you my experience:
> i've worked a lot with old pc (pentium 133 mhz, MMX 200, pentium 3 500
> etc etc) with low memory (min 40 mb ram - max 256 mb ram), with various
> video card:
> S3, Trident, Cirrus...
>
> I've tried hard to obtain a functional X (xorg) environment.
> But, loading correct video-driver module (xorg-trident for trident video
> card, xorg-cirrus for cirrus video card, xorg-s3/xorg-s3virge for s3
> video card...), the better result was to see a graphical environment
> with 640x480 (!!!!) resolution, when those "old" pc with a Win95 OS had
> a resolution up to 1024x768.
>
> For me it's ok, i work well with shell.
> But those "old" pc were not for me, and need a graphical environment,
> with good resolution.
>
> So i've tried the "universal old video card driver" : VESA.
> Only VESA.
> And xorg start to work very well. Resolution up to 1024x768.
>
> So, if your video card is "old", pls try VESA driver, forcing the use of
> this driver in xorg.conf.
> I assure you will see the difference.
>
> Hope my experience helps you.
> Regards!
>
>
>
>
I see your point based on your experience. My situation is different, i
have a different video card: nVIDIA Riva128 with 4 MB RAM, for me, the
driver 'nv' works much better than 'vesa', i choose 1024x768 from the
list when i do a 'dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg' and configure it
manually instead of letting it 'auto-detect' and is perfect.
Thanks for the info.
Regards,
--
KISS protocol - Keep It Simple, Stupid
PII 266 128 MB RAM - Sid (Sidux) - IceWM/Ratpoison
--
Re: getting xorg working on an old box .....
How did you manage that?
I am fighting with vesa and my Ati Max64 GX, with runs fine unter Win NT with 1024x768.
The maximum i got is 800x600 (after fiddling with hfreq and vertrefresh).
Whichever depth i used then ati driver was complaining.
Can you give me your xorg.conf as an example.
Will be great help to me.
Regards!
getting xorg working on an old box .....
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:54:57 -0500
macondo wrote:
> Why install 'vesa' when you can install your card's driver? 'vesa' is
> not the best choice, unless you got problems your card. My way you
> get all the drivers.
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > video the xserver-xorg-video-vesa (to try Mirco Piccin's suggestion)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
--