Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:05:43 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would have said, Quadros run even hotter (given that they are clocked > higher), but for your question: the NVIDIA binary-only drivers support > all NVIDIA cards, including the Quadro series. I have never seen them > myself in an Opteron box (highest end I've seen myself is a 5950). Actually, Quadros tend not to run hotter -- they are a bit underclocked with respect to the Geforce Ultra series cards. For this reason, Quadros benchmark a bit slower than the Ultra cards for video games; however, in theory, anyway, they're more reliable than the Ultras. It used to be that Quadros had only a few extra features versus their non-Quadro cousins -- faster wire-frame modes, overlay planes, 10-bit LUTs, etc. This was the case on GNU/Linux, at least. On Win32, Quadros have drivers that are somehow "tuned" for digital content creation packages like Maya and 3D Studio Max., though I don't know what, exactly, the benefits of these drivers are. You can see most of the driver-related benefits of Quadro cards on GNU/Linux by reading the README file that accompanies the Debian nvidia-glx package. The latest Quadros (FX 4xxx series) support longer pixel shader programs than the non-Quadro versions, and there's also new Quadro that supports an HD I/O daughtercard. Also, Quadro cards tend to have dual DVI connectors. Most non-Quadro cards that I've seen have one DVI and one VGA connector. d
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:48:17 -0700, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I recently shoved an Asus V9520 (a GeForce 5200 card) into an Athlon 64 > machine running Debian. As far as I can tell, after scouring the > internet for related information, this is pretty nearly the only card > you can get with working dual DVI outputs on 64-bit Linux. After > struggling with non-working ATI dual digital outputs for years, I am so > happy to have this working (finally). I have a Quadro FX 4000 on an AMD64 machine, and dual DVI works fine for me, as well. d
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:59:29PM -0400, Tom Vier wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > So, either cough up US$50 for a current-but-not-so-hot ATI card, which > > is supported for the most basic stuff by a free driver, or spend US$100 > > 3d works fine on my radeon 9200. i play quake2 on it and it's fast. > what features are missing? IIRC that card has a R250 or R280 chip, which still manages to slip into de "current-but-no-so-hot" category. What's not supported by the free drivers? Last time I looked, TNL was still not quite there. Shaders are not supported (what ATI calls shaders for that chip). Things like 3D textures, which that chip does support, isn't supported by the driver (at least not with hardware acceleration). The z-buffer acceleration that's supported by that chip isn't supported by the driver either. I'm not sure about antialiasing. And that's pretty much it, because that chip doesn't have many more features beyond the standard OpenGL pipeline. And the quake2 engine is about 8 years old (IIRC, but 1996 sounds like it). It was programmed with quite different hardware in mind (back then a Pentium II was a fast machine and 64 MB of RAM a lot), so it's to be expected, that it performs well with modern hardware. Even the Quake3 engine is old now (even if an large number of games out there are using it). But the game is still as much fun as it was back then, that's right :-) Marcelo
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > So, either cough up US$50 for a current-but-not-so-hot ATI card, which > is supported for the most basic stuff by a free driver, or spend US$100 3d works fine on my radeon 9200. i play quake2 on it and it's fast. what features are missing? -- Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 07:11 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:29:25AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: [snip] > Which is what I was trying to say. With 100+ million transistors, "3d > acceleration" constitutes more thann 90% of the chip's functionality. > If you want a 2D accelerator, find yourself a US$5 PCI card. It will > do about the same as any current US$300 card with those drivers and > makes more sense from an enviromental POV: it's easier and cleaner to > manufacture, doesn't dissipate as much heat, consumes much less power. Be careful about "the cheap road". When buying my Shuttle SFF box, I thought to myself, "I won't be doing any 3D stuff, so I'll save money and get the one with the built-in ProSavage8 video chip. Sure, "it's easier and cleaner to manufacture, doesn't dissipate as much heat, consumes much less power", but it sucks ass at 2D stuff like video. I like Hylke's idea of the Matrox G200. An NVIDIA Riva TNT32/M64 would also work just as well. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B YODA: Code! Yes. A programmer's strength flows from code maintainability. But beware of Perl. Terse syntax... more than one way to do it...default variables. The dark side of code maintainability are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you when code you write. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 09:55 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 16:38 +0300, Kyuu Eturautti wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: [snip] > Probably if you want a cheap card with *all* features supported in open > source drivers, you should pick up an ATI Rage 128. The PPC people and > others have really done a fine job with the driver. Is that still made any more? -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B "Large enterprises don't care about crusades. They want people to work more efficiently." Louis Nauges http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5198121.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:42:21 +0200 Thomas Habets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once upon a midnight dreary, Marcelo E. Magallon pondered, weak and weary: > > If you want a 2D accelerator, find yourself a US$5 PCI card. > > There is a problem with that actually. The cheap cards tend to suck ass > quality-wise. So even if you're only running text-mode on a server with them, > they tend to make the whole box unstable. And that's if they work at all in > the first place. Actually, a cheap Matrox G200 will have a lot better signal quality then any other modern card. All current ati and especially Nvidia cards have horrible end filters. Besides, the drivers for the g200 are very stable. Greets, Hylke
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 16:38 +0300, Kyuu Eturautti wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but > >> NVIDIA, which is available now and works. > > > > Not exactly. > > > > Current generation X (for example X.Org) seems to run fine on current > > generation ATI. [Well... it runs fine on 9600 and 9800 -- I'm only > > presuming it runs fine on X800.] > > > > It's the 3d acceleration which is not yet supported on amd64 for ATI. > > Two questions coming to my mind - first, to clarify, am I right in > assuming that if I don't want any 3D, I don't have to go toss my Radeon > away to run nothing more complex than a browser and a terminal in X on > AMD64? I have problems with my Radeon, even with plain 2D desktop graphics. On a Radeon 9700 Pro, there is noise of red dots all over the screen, at 1600x1200. If you use the ATI binary drivers, there is an option "TMDSCoherentMode", whose only effect seems to be to change the red dots to blue dots. Sigh. On another Radeon 7000-series card, which appears to have two DVI ports on the back, I cannot get the DVI output to work with the XFree86/Xorg drivers. ATI's drivers are required, and even then I can't get both DVI ports to work at once. > As for Nvidia, there's a lot of talk about Geforce series cards, but I've > too often found them to be unstable and quite hot (just imo, no flamebait > intended). So from Nvidia, I prefer the Quadro series. How's their > functionality, are there any experiences? I have a Quadro NVS at the office. It came with a Dell machine. With NVidia's drivers on Debian i386, it works fine (fast 2D and 3D). Even the quad head(yes FOUR outputs) works well. On another machine I have removed the fan from a GeForce 5200. Without using the 3D features, it still runs cold to the touch. Probably if you want a cheap card with *all* features supported in open source drivers, you should pick up an ATI Rage 128. The PPC people and others have really done a fine job with the driver. -jwb
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Once upon a midnight dreary, Marcelo E. Magallon pondered, weak and weary:
> If you want a 2D accelerator, find yourself a US$5 PCI card.
There is a problem with that actually. The cheap cards tend to suck ass
quality-wise. So even if you're only running text-mode on a server with them,
they tend to make the whole box unstable. And that's if they work at all in
the first place.
- -
typedef struct me_s {
char name[] = { "Thomas Habets" };
char email[] = { "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" };
char kernel[]= { "Linux 2.4" };
char *pgpKey[] = { "http://www.habets.pp.se/pubkey.txt"; };
char pgp[] = { "A8A3 D1DD 4AE0 8467 7FDE 0945 286A E90A AD48 E854" };
char coolcmd[] = { "echo '. ./_&. ./_'>_;. ./_" };
} me_t;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBKMzzKGrpCq1I6FQRAtqtAKDee2okhfa5ZsG+heVKTk/PSnpa/QCeIli+
3meLfkHLZ6154BEJ2nVs/1g=
=Ar0g
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 04:38:23PM +0300, Kyuu Eturautti wrote: > As for Nvidia, there's a lot of talk about Geforce series cards, but > I've too often found them to be unstable and quite hot (just imo, no > flamebait intended). So from Nvidia, I prefer the Quadro series. > How's their functionality, are there any experiences? I would have said, Quadros run even hotter (given that they are clocked higher), but for your question: the NVIDIA binary-only drivers support all NVIDIA cards, including the Quadro series. I have never seen them myself in an Opteron box (highest end I've seen myself is a 5950). Marcelo
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: >> So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but >> NVIDIA, which is available now and works. > > Not exactly. > > Current generation X (for example X.Org) seems to run fine on current > generation ATI. [Well... it runs fine on 9600 and 9800 -- I'm only > presuming it runs fine on X800.] > > It's the 3d acceleration which is not yet supported on amd64 for ATI. Two questions coming to my mind - first, to clarify, am I right in assuming that if I don't want any 3D, I don't have to go toss my Radeon away to run nothing more complex than a browser and a terminal in X on AMD64? As for Nvidia, there's a lot of talk about Geforce series cards, but I've too often found them to be unstable and quite hot (just imo, no flamebait intended). So from Nvidia, I prefer the Quadro series. How's their functionality, are there any experiences? -Kyuu 'Vekotin' Eturautti
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:29:25AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but > > NVIDIA, which is available now and works. > > Not exactly. > > Current generation X (for example X.Org) seems to run fine on current > generation ATI. [Well... it runs fine on 9600 and 9800 -- I'm only > presuming it runs fine on X800.] > > It's the 3d acceleration which is not yet supported on amd64 for ATI. Which is what I was trying to say. With 100+ million transistors, "3d acceleration" constitutes more thann 90% of the chip's functionality. If you want a 2D accelerator, find yourself a US$5 PCI card. It will do about the same as any current US$300 card with those drivers and makes more sense from an enviromental POV: it's easier and cleaner to manufacture, doesn't dissipate as much heat, consumes much less power. Marcelo
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 22:48 -0700, Jeffrey Baker wrote: > On Aug 21, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:01:39AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > > [snip] > I do have to wonder why they continue to support Red Hat so strongly. > Of all the Linux users I know, and especially the developers, not a > single person uses Red Hat Linux on a desktop machine. Yet, NVidia and > most other 3rd-party software vendors continue to support Red Hat > exclusively. I wonder when they will get a clue in this department? Because companies like to talk to, and make agreements with, other companies. So, companies like NVIDIA, Oracle, etc take these habits from the traditional business world and try to fit it into the Linux world. I'm not saying that it's The Right Thing, but that's how it is. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B "Python is executable pseudocode; Perl is executable line noise" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Aug 21, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:01:39AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: I have an ATi Radeon 9600 Pro. It works (in the sense that I can get X running acceptably). 2D works; 3D is unsupported. There are no 64-bit capable drivers for the 3D parts of the card for linux yet. ATi are being completely uncommunicative on the subject, and I'm starting to regret buying the card, after having been a happy ATi customer for many years. ATI treats the Linux community like crap (which is very sad, because the Linux community used to be very supportive of ATI). Some months ago (March maybe) someone from ATI, which I'm not allowed to name, said a Linux driver for Opteron systems was under development, and I was led to understand that it would be unwise to hold your breath waiting for it to be available. This driver would be of course binary-only. ATI does treat us like crap. Their binaries drivers have gotten worse with each of the previous ten or so revisions. I recommend avoiding them. So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but NVIDIA, which is available now and works. They provide binary-only drivers, but if you ask the right people and do it nicely[0], you can get a reaction and with a bit of luck, a reply. NVIDIA does staff and/or fund a certain number of people for doing Linux development. They have been hit repeatedly with a cluebat and they are getting better at it. I recently shoved an Asus V9520 (a GeForce 5200 card) into an Athlon 64 machine running Debian. As far as I can tell, after scouring the internet for related information, this is pretty nearly the only card you can get with working dual DVI outputs on 64-bit Linux. After struggling with non-working ATI dual digital outputs for years, I am so happy to have this working (finally). I use NVidia's revision 6111 drivers for amd64, but they don't install properly. They are able to delete the standard GL libraries but they can't install the NVidia-supplied copy. Oh well, I don't care for 3D anyway. I do have to wonder why they continue to support Red Hat so strongly. Of all the Linux users I know, and especially the developers, not a single person uses Red Hat Linux on a desktop machine. Yet, NVidia and most other 3rd-party software vendors continue to support Red Hat exclusively. I wonder when they will get a clue in this department? -jwb
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
Raul Miller wrote: > Not exactly. > > Current generation X (for example X.Org) seems to run fine on current > generation ATI. [Well... it runs fine on 9600 and 9800 -- I'm only > presuming it runs fine on X800.] > > It's the 3d acceleration which is not yet supported on amd64 for ATI. If you don't want 3D acceleration, why buy a 9600 instead of a 9200? Cameron. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 08:28:50PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but > NVIDIA, which is available now and works. Not exactly. Current generation X (for example X.Org) seems to run fine on current generation ATI. [Well... it runs fine on 9600 and 9800 -- I'm only presuming it runs fine on X800.] It's the 3d acceleration which is not yet supported on amd64 for ATI. -- Raul
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:01:39AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: >I have an ATi Radeon 9600 Pro. It works (in the sense that I can > get X running acceptably). 2D works; 3D is unsupported. There are no > 64-bit capable drivers for the 3D parts of the card for linux yet. > ATi are being completely uncommunicative on the subject, and I'm > starting to regret buying the card, after having been a happy ATi > customer for many years. ATI treats the Linux community like crap (which is very sad, because the Linux community used to be very supportive of ATI). Some months ago (March maybe) someone from ATI, which I'm not allowed to name, said a Linux driver for Opteron systems was under development, and I was led to understand that it would be unwise to hold your breath waiting for it to be available. This driver would be of course binary-only. So, if you want current-generation hardware you have no choice but NVIDIA, which is available now and works. They provide binary-only drivers, but if you ask the right people and do it nicely[0], you can get a reaction and with a bit of luck, a reply. NVIDIA does staff and/or fund a certain number of people for doing Linux development. They have been hit repeatedly with a cluebat and they are getting better at it. There _are_ commercial ATI drivers for Linux, and IIRC, not only for i386 but Opteron, too. My experience -- with i386 -- is that these drivers leave _a lot_ to be desired when compared against the latest XFree86. They might be faster, that's true, but what they have in speed, they lack in the features department. So, either cough up US$50 for a current-but-not-so-hot ATI card, which is supported for the most basic stuff by a free driver, or spend US$100 in a lowish-end NVIDIA card, with, dare I say, 95% of the functionality supported (TV-in Video-out is only so-so). Be warned, you'll have to use a binary-only kernel driver, which will taint your kernel, which looses you brownie-points with kernel developers (without enough of these, you don't get support). Marcelo [0] Hint, "nicely" somehow implies not asking them to "open source" their drivers. It's their code, they get to do with it whatever they please. You can try mentioning that you would have interest in them opening up the specs for their hardware, but again, _nicely_. If you choose to spend money in hardware which you already know is _not_ open, it's _your_ fault, not theirs.
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
Once upon a midnight dreary, Thomas J. Zeeman pondered, weak and weary:
> I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about
> hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series.
While not 9[26]00, 9550 works fine for me. 2D only.
"The ATI Proprietary Linux driver currently provides hardware acceleration for
3D graphics and video playback. It also includes support for dual displays
and TV Output.
[...]
Systems using 32-bit processors from Intel (Pentium III and later) and AMD
(Athlon and later) are currently supported. 64-bit drivers are under
development, and should be available in a future release. PowerPC, Alpha, and
others are not currently supported."
-- http://www.ati.com/products/catalyst/linux.html
For those who run this thing in 32bit mode, does this include a binary-only
kernel module? In that case I'll just stay with 2D-only thank you ATI.
> thanx,
> Thomas
No problem. But how did you know my name!?
:-)
(mail not pgp-signed since I'm not emailing from home)
-
typedef struct me_s {
char name[] = { "Thomas Habets" };
char email[] = { "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" };
char kernel[]= { "Linux 2.4" };
char *pgpKey[] = { "http://www.habets.pp.se/pubkey.txt"; };
char pgp[] = { "A8A3 D1DD 4AE0 8467 7FDE 0945 286A E90A AD48 E854" };
char coolcmd[] = { "echo '. ./_&. ./_'>_;. ./_" };
} me_t;
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. I have an nvidia fx 5600, and it works great with nvidia's binary drivers. No experience with the free nv driver.
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: Hi, Ever since I got close to the stage where I wanted to upgrade my Matrox P650 with a Sledgehammer (pun intended) I am looking for experiences by others with ATI or nVidia cards, especially with the OSS-drivers (especially since ATI has stil not delivered an AMD64-enabled Linux-driver). Unfortunately posts about them are a bit rare it seems, especially for Debian. So I would like to hear some experiences from you people. I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. thanx, Thomas The general experience with ATI and 3d acceleration of mordern cards is that its very poorly supported. ATI seems not to be commited to the providing a good driver for the Linux community. The current driver for ATI based cards for linux from ATI is limited to 32 bit, i386, and is no way comparable to the the Windows equivelent in terms of performance. Open source drivers for ATI based cards are beeing developed, but as the API for the ATI hardware is closed, these drivers does not support newer hardware capabilities. NVidia seems commited to providing a good driver for the Linux community. They provide the source to a kernel driver wrapper for a binary library. This is compilable with all major kernel versions (2.4.x, 2.6.x(.y)). Drivers are prodived for linux i386, x86_64, ia32, and for BSD i386 (IIRC). The drivers are on par with the Windows counterpart, and share the same codebase. Performance of the Linux drivers running 3D are equal or better than the Windows Driver. The drivers are quite stable. My biased oppinion is that NVidia is the hardware to choose when running Linux. It works without flaws on my AMD K8, in both 64 and 32 bit emulation mode running Debian pure64/gcc-3.4 and on my Amd K7 32 bit mode only. Regards Anders Fugmann
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
Dear Thomas On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0100, Dennis Dryden wrote: > On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 10:29, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: > [snip] > > I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about > > hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. > > The ATI Radeon 9600(rv350?) is not supported by ati on 64bit machines. I > haven't tryed a dri compatible ati card in a 64bit system yet so i cant > comment of that. I believe nVidia have 64bit drivers for all there cards > though. Yes, NVidia provides the Linux community with binary drivers. They are quite nicely integrated into Debian (NVidia allows Debian to redistribute the binary drivers in their packages). I have a GeForce FX 5200 here and it works fine with the NVidia driver. The XFree86 driver 'nv' did not work [1]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/08/msg00102.html Regards -- Philipp | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 44 632 60 38 Frauenfelder | home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]+41 44 862 73 14 [PGP]| http://www.math.ethz.ch/~pfrauenf/ Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux. See http://www.debian.org/
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 10:29, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: [snip] > I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about > hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. The ATI Radeon 9600(rv350?) is not supported by ati on 64bit machines. I haven't tryed a dri compatible ati card in a 64bit system yet so i cant comment of that. I believe nVidia have 64bit drivers for all there cards though. Dennis
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: > I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about > hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. i have a 9200 and it works in 32bit mode, and i'm pretty sure in 64bits, too. what doesn't work is 32bit drm + 64bit kernel. -- Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
Re: amd64 and video card experiences?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote: > Hi, > > Ever since I got close to the stage where I wanted to upgrade my Matrox > P650 with a Sledgehammer (pun intended) I am looking for experiences by > others with ATI or nVidia cards, especially with the OSS-drivers > (especially since ATI has stil not delivered an AMD64-enabled > Linux-driver). > > Unfortunately posts about them are a bit rare it seems, especially for > Debian. > So I would like to hear some experiences from you people. > > I am mostly looking at an ATI 9200 card, but I would not mind about > hearing experiences with 9600 series or nVidias 5200/5900XT series. I have an ATi Radeon 9600 Pro. It works (in the sense that I can get X running acceptably). 2D works; 3D is unsupported. There are no 64-bit capable drivers for the 3D parts of the card for linux yet. ATi are being completely uncommunicative on the subject, and I'm starting to regret buying the card, after having been a happy ATi customer for many years. Just my experience, Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: [EMAIL PROTECTED] carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- If you're not part of the solution, you're part --- of the precipiate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
