Rusty Brooks wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Valentin Ossman wrote:
>
> ==>Very simple: The 9385 and 9382, do not use the same driver. A different
> ==>chip
> ==>version does mean different driver. This is not just a new rev. of the
> ==>chip
> ==>or some bug fix, it's just other chip. It may be similar, so you get
> ==>some
> ==>thighs working, but not the same.
> ==>I had similar problems with some windows driver not for my video card
> ==>chip.
> ==>All got resolved when the right driver was installed.
>
> I'm pretty sure they do use the same driver... in fact they both seem to
> use large parts of the TGUI 9660 driver. The card is definately a 9382.
> It is detected as such in both win95 and x -probeonly. However, when in
> actual use, XF86_SVGA says it's using the 9385 driver.
>
> It works in VGA mode, but only at 320x200.
As I said: It's not the same card. If it was the same card it had had
the
same name!
There are few ways to operate a graphic card. You can always draw the
image
pixel by pixel but you can also tell the card to draw lines, boxes, fill
boxes and so on. The result is faster graphic interface. If the driver
tryes
to use a feature that is not supported by your card, then you get
unwanted
results on the screen.
For example in your case, when the driver asks the card to draw a box
with
some specific properties like a border an so on, and your card does not
treat this request as supposed by the driver, you get some black boxes
on the
screen.
The fact that your card works OK in VGA mode shows that when the image
is
drawn pixel by pixel, every thing is OK, but when using the indaeqvat
driver,
the resul is not the wanted one.
Valentin
--
Have a nice day!
Valentin Ossman
E-mail address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/valentin-ossman
Phone +972-3-6320220 Ext.#325
Check out Galileo's pages at :
http://www.GalileoT.com
