On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 02:20:23AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:36:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > >From what I recall, dri didn't make any difference. I've a feeling
> > >that it
> > may have been dbe that reduced the corruption when removed, but I'll
> > ch
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:36:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >From what I recall, dri didn't make any difference. I've a feeling that it
> may have been dbe that reduced the corruption when removed, but I'll check
> that when I'm back with the machine this evening.
Right. Removing DRI makes
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 02:20:23AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:36:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > >From what I recall, dri didn't make any difference. I've a feeling
> > >that it
> > may have been dbe that reduced the corruption when removed, but I'll
> > c
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:36:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >From what I recall, dri didn't make any difference. I've a feeling that it
> may have been dbe that reduced the corruption when removed, but I'll check
> that when I'm back with the machine this evening.
Right. Removing DRI make
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:10PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:06:51PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't capable of going past
> > 1800x1400, and managed to gain about an extra 60 pixels of horizontal
> > resolution
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:10PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:06:51PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't capable of going past
> > 1800x1400, and managed to gain about an extra 60 pixels of horizontal
> > resolution
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:10PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> I'm not sure how XFree86 handles bug tracking, Branden should know
> though.
Actually, I don't. AFAICT XFree86's "bug tracking system" consists of
tracking down the person responsible for the relevant part of the code base
and e
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:34:10PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> I'm not sure how XFree86 handles bug tracking, Branden should know
> though.
Actually, I don't. AFAICT XFree86's "bug tracking system" consists of
tracking down the person responsible for the relevant part of the code base
and
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:06:51PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't capable of going past
> 1800x1400, and managed to gain about an extra 60 pixels of horizontal
> resolution before this bit me. At 16bpp it seems to appear at
> 1872x1404 or higher.
Ga
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:06:51PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't capable of going past
> 1800x1400, and managed to gain about an extra 60 pixels of horizontal
> resolution before this bit me. At 16bpp it seems to appear at
> 1872x1404 or higher.
G
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:46:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, it has to do with the size of the framebuffer, or possibly with the
> pixel clock. You get the same problem at 16bpp at absurdly high
> resolutions like 1932x1440 or whatever.
Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't c
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:46:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, it has to do with the size of the framebuffer, or possibly with the
> pixel clock. You get the same problem at 16bpp at absurdly high
> resolutions like 1932x1440 or whatever.
Yup. I switched to a V3 because my G100 wasn't
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:16:05PM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Thanks a bunch that actually fixed the problem, I guess it has to be
> something with how tdfx renders 24bit color. but then I am not too sure,
> don't know much about the graphics programming. just curious, any chance
> I could see
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:16:05PM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Thanks a bunch that actually fixed the problem, I guess it has to be
> something with how tdfx renders 24bit color. but then I am not too sure,
> don't know much about the graphics programming. just curious, any chance
> I could see
ly to message
From: jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1600x1200 broken with vooodoo3 and NEC FP950
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:39:23 -0500
>i actually run the 4.01 debs @ 1600x1200 16bpp on a voodoo3 2000 agp...
>but did get similar at 24bpp... try 16bpp.
>
>
>On Wed,
i actually run the 4.01 debs @ 1600x1200 16bpp on a voodoo3 2000 agp...
but did get similar at 24bpp... try 16bpp.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works, every res
> below it does. There is no log errors
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works,
> every res below it does. There is no log errors, just when 1600x1200
> launches, it scruches the entire screen to the top of the monitor.
This seems to be a known i
Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works, every res
below it does. There is no log errors, just when 1600x1200 launches, it
scruches the entire screen to the top of the monitor. Can't figure out what has
been changed. between the two. Any help would be great. also tdfx d
In reply to message
From: jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1600x1200 broken with vooodoo3 and NEC FP950
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:39:23 -0500
>i actually run the 4.01 debs @ 1600x1200 16bpp on a voodoo3 2000 agp...
>but did get similar at 24bpp... try 16bpp.
>
i actually run the 4.01 debs @ 1600x1200 16bpp on a voodoo3 2000 agp...
but did get similar at 24bpp... try 16bpp.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works, every res below
>it does. There is no log errors
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0800, Jason Mealins wrote:
> Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works,
> every res below it does. There is no log errors, just when 1600x1200
> launches, it scruches the entire screen to the top of the monitor.
This seems to be a known
Just upgraded from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1-3 and 1600x1200 no longer works, every res below it
does. There is no log errors, just when 1600x1200 launches, it scruches the entire
screen to the top of the monitor. Can't figure out what has been changed. between the
two. Any help would be great. also tdfx
22 matches
Mail list logo
