Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-20 Thread Paul Mackinney
dman declaimed: On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 09:26:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia | drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the | 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, | should I use

Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread techlists
I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, should I use it? Is their a performance increase or decrease when using the framebuffer. What

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread David B Harris
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:26:21 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, should I use it? Is their a performance

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread dman
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 09:26:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia | drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the | 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, | should I use

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread David B Harris
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:19:39 -0500 David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't want to tell XFree to do that, though, trust me. But there Bah, just to clear something up; I mean you don't want XFree to eschew its own drivers and use the kernel framebuffer instead

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread Caleb Shay
On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 07:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, should I use it? Is their a performance

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread dman
own drivers and use the kernel framebuffer instead. Supposedly (at least for some cards) you can tell X to use fb for normal stuff and go straight to the hardware for accelerated stuff, but it didn't work for me. It should also work well (I expect) if you do have an accelerated fb and tell X to use

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread techlists
PROTECTED] wrote: I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, should I use it? Is their a performance increase or decrease when using

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread Brian Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, I think people are missing what I'm asking. I'm using the nvidia driver in XFree86. But, I have been doing vga=791 in lilo. So, what I was wondering...Does it hurt my setup, or is there an advantage to it? No harm to your setup, with the advantage of seeing

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread Brian Nelson
. Caleb Shay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote .. On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 07:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, should