110] (II) Loading sub module "cirrus_laguna"
[ 804.110] (II) LoadModule: "cirrus_laguna"
[ 804.110] (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/cirrus_laguna.so
[ 804.110] (II) Module cirrus_laguna: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[ 804.110]compiled for 1.12.
On 2013 Jan 12 (Sat) at 10:57:56 -0500 (-0500), Scott McEachern wrote:
:On 01/12/13 10:27, Peter Hessler wrote:
:>I have Intel 4000 here, and I am unaccelerated, but do have native
:>resolution X, and lots of xterms and Firefox works as expected.
:>
:>2000 should be totally fine, and accelerated if
On 01/12/13 10:27, Peter Hessler wrote:
I have Intel 4000 here, and I am unaccelerated, but do have native
resolution X, and lots of xterms and Firefox works as expected.
2000 should be totally fine, and accelerated if I remember correctly.
I also have an onboard Intel 4000:
vga1 at pci0 dev
> I have Intel 4000 here, and I am unaccelerated, but do have native
> resolution X, and lots of xterms and Firefox works as expected.
> 2000 should be totally fine, and accelerated if I remember correctly.
Great! Quick search revealed I could go after g550 for about
35 euros. It has hd 2000 insid
On 2013 Jan 12 (Sat) at 16:23:42 +0100 (+0100), Zoran Kolic wrote:
:> The core i3-3225 is ivy bridge based, which means the graphics only works
under \
:> -current and no DRM acceleration until the driver support improves.
:
:Thanks for the answer.
:I must be wrong defining what I want. I would li
> The core i3-3225 is ivy bridge based, which means the graphics only works
> under \
> -current and no DRM acceleration until the driver support improves.
Thanks for the answer.
I must be wrong defining what I want. I would like to be able
to do "startx" and have 1280x1024, with browser and few
Zoran Kolic [zko...@sbb.rs] wrote:
>
> Yeah, I like amd better. On desktop it is 8120 bulldozer. And I
> like it.
>
> I might bother gentle readers, but have no clue what to buy and
> stay alive. I need exact processor name. So, if someone has amd
> or intel, integrated, wirking on amd64 5.2, ple
> Sadly right now Intel is going to be the best if you are going to use
> the integrated graphics. Intel graphics tend to be better supported than
> AMD (ATI).
I already have freebsd desktop and laptop. I want to get small
box, to put it in a corner, left in my room and play with it.
Sadly right now Intel is going to be the best if you are going to use
the integrated graphics. Intel graphics tend to be better supported than
AMD (ATI). That may change here in the next few generations as AMD
abandons UMS for KMS but if you want to make sure you'll get your full
resol
I found it too hard to find proper laptop for sane sum
of green papers, to run openbsd amd64.
In a haze of quest, I set my eyes on two lovely comp
cases:
chieftec bt-02b-180
silverstone sg05
Digested question would be: what integrated cpu works
on 5.2 amd64? Better to go after intel or amd? There
a
10 matches
Mail list logo
