RE: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
Hey, I was able to finally get my indy to boot at 1280x1024, with "setenv monitor H" in the prom. This is for my SGI Indy, Newport 24-bit graphics, and my monitor is a "Radius PrecisionColor Display/20" a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971. I hope 1024x768 will be supported eventually, though. -brad > -Original Message- > From: Guido Guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Guido Guenther > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:29 PM > To: Bradley Bell > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XFree4.2 -> unstable? > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote: > > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9 > > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D > > NG1: Screensize 1024x768 > > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48 > > > > I'm pretty sure the monitor can support 1280x1024. (Radius > PrecisionColor > > Display/20 a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971). > > any ideas? > Maybe I've found the problem. Did you boot with "console=d1" set in the > PROM. I'll get 1024x768 when I do that and 1280x1024 when I boot with > "console=g1". I'll fix that, but don't hold your breath. > Regards, > -- Guido > > P.S.: and let's move this off -private and to -x or something. >
RE: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
Hey, I was able to finally get my indy to boot at 1280x1024, with "setenv monitor H" in the prom. This is for my SGI Indy, Newport 24-bit graphics, and my monitor is a "Radius PrecisionColor Display/20" a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971. I hope 1024x768 will be supported eventually, though. -brad > -Original Message- > From: Guido Guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Guido Guenther > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:29 PM > To: Bradley Bell > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XFree4.2 -> unstable? > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote: > > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9 > > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D > > NG1: Screensize 1024x768 > > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48 > > > > I'm pretty sure the monitor can support 1280x1024. (Radius > PrecisionColor > > Display/20 a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971). > > any ideas? > Maybe I've found the problem. Did you boot with "console=d1" set in the > PROM. I'll get 1024x768 when I do that and 1280x1024 when I boot with > "console=g1". I'll fix that, but don't hold your breath. > Regards, > -- Guido > > P.S.: and let's move this off -private and to -x or something. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote: > > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9 > > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D > > NG1: Screensize 1024x768 > > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48 > > > > I'm pretty sure the monitor can support 1280x1024. (Radius > PrecisionColor > > Display/20 a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971). > > any ideas? > Maybe I've found the problem. Did you boot with "console=d1" set in the > PROM. I'll get 1024x768 when I do that and 1280x1024 when I boot with > "console=g1". I'll fix that, but don't hold your breath. no, that's not it. Could it be that the monitor sense pins on the indy think it's only a 1024x768 monitor? The monitor has 5xBNC connections (it's multisync), with a macintosh monitor cable. That's plugged into a MAC->VGA adapter, which is connected to the indy via a VGA->13W3 adapter. :-) also, my memory's hazy, but I think it was working fine (but looking terrible) before, when I had an 8-bit video board in there, and xfree 4.0 or 4.1. -brad
RE: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote: > > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9 > > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D > > NG1: Screensize 1024x768 > > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48 > > > > I'm pretty sure the monitor can support 1280x1024. (Radius > PrecisionColor > > Display/20 a.k.a. Sony GDM-1971). > > any ideas? > Maybe I've found the problem. Did you boot with "console=d1" set in the > PROM. I'll get 1024x768 when I do that and 1280x1024 when I boot with > "console=g1". I'll fix that, but don't hold your breath. no, that's not it. Could it be that the monitor sense pins on the indy think it's only a 1024x768 monitor? The monitor has 5xBNC connections (it's multisync), with a macintosh monitor cable. That's plugged into a MAC->VGA adapter, which is connected to the indy via a VGA->13W3 adapter. :-) also, my memory's hazy, but I think it was working fine (but looking terrible) before, when I had an 8-bit video board in there, and xfree 4.0 or 4.1. -brad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x-terminal-emulator
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point to that. -brad On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 04:56:49PM -0800, Marc Martinez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in > > Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then it should be > > straightforward to make this requirement part of policy. > > > > To try to answer your question, my guess is that most, but not all, > > terminal emulators support these flags. > > rxvt's man page lists '-title' as the preferred switch, but also mentions > that -T is supported as well for compatibility. of the rxvt derivatives I > only have wterm installed presently, and while its manpage does not mention > the -T compatibility switch it does indeed honour it just like -title. > > both programs support -e as well. I'll let somebody else more familiar with > the others fill in the blanks (aterm, eterm, xvt, etc). > > Marc > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: x-terminal-emulator
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point to that. -brad On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 04:56:49PM -0800, Marc Martinez wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in > > Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then it should be > > straightforward to make this requirement part of policy. > > > > To try to answer your question, my guess is that most, but not all, > > terminal emulators support these flags. > > rxvt's man page lists '-title' as the preferred switch, but also mentions > that -T is supported as well for compatibility. of the rxvt derivatives I > only have wterm installed presently, and while its manpage does not mention > the -T compatibility switch it does indeed honour it just like -title. > > both programs support -e as well. I'll let somebody else more familiar with > the others fill in the blanks (aterm, eterm, xvt, etc). > > Marc > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
