Metro-x vs X-Accelerated
Sheila Thomas
Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
xfree86. Ideas?????
Patrick Leung
Sheila Thomas (sin...@erols.com) wrote:
: Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
: unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
: xfree86. Ideas?????
I don't know when support for your card will be included in Xfree, probably
within the next few months or earlier.
I recently acquired RH 4.0 with MetroX, but I have not tried it yet, and I
have no experience with Xaccel.
If you want Xaccel, look at http://www.xinside.com
you can download a demo version of xinside, and see if you like it or not.
Roeland Th. Jansen
Sheila Thomas (sin...@erols.com) wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
> terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
> unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
> xfree86. Ideas?????
why can't you wait ? it's available right now (3.2.2)
--
Grobbebol's Home (Linux 2.0.x i586)
Tom Satterfield
Sheila Thomas <sin...@erols.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
>terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
>unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
>xfree86. Ideas?????
I'm using X-Accelerated from X-inside with slackware with no problem.
It's only $10 (or so, not much) easy to setup and it works. I also
have a matrox card and the X-inside product is what I needed to make
it work. You will wait a long time (I guess) for xfree86. Don't know
about Metro, haven't used it.
Tom
Tom Satterfield
oops, I can't type correctly, I meant $100 (One Hundred $ and even
that is from memory, check the web page)
Tom
mumford
In article <32c8e5b5...@198.30.101.41>,
Tom Satterfield <satte...@gentire.com> wrote:
>Sheila Thomas <sin...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
>>terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
>>unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
>>xfree86. Ideas?????
>
>I'm using X-Accelerated from X-inside with slackware with no problem.
>It's only $10 (or so, not much) easy to setup and it works. I also
>have a matrox card and the X-inside product is what I needed to make
>it work. You will wait a long time (I guess) for xfree86. Don't know
>about Metro, haven't used it.
>
>Tom
>
$10? Where the hell did you buy this? Last price quote I saw for it
was $99 (check out www.xinside.com).
Btw, you don't have to wait anymore for xfree86.. it's out now with
matrox support.
--
Glenn Lamb - mum...@netcom.com -- Finger mum...@netcom.com for PGP Key.
PGPprint = E3 0F DE CC 94 72 D1 1A 2D 2E A9 08 6B A0 CD 82
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*NO SOLICITORS*
Christopher Horn
Sheila Thomas wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
> terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
> unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
> xfree86. Ideas?????
The new 3.2 XFree86 is out and I think I saw that it had Matrox support.
I've used both MetroX and AcceleratedX. AcceleratedX supports more cards
and does a better job of it.
Cheers,
Chris
BierMann
In article <32781B...@erols.com>, Sheila Thomas <sin...@erols.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
>terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
>unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
>xfree86. Ideas?????
I'm using a Stealth 64 Video VRAM with X-Accel on Linux. So far I have had
no problems and performance seems to be quite good. It was quite easy to
install and probably just as easy to uninstall (though I have no plans on
uninstalling it.
I don't know how it compares to other commercial servers, though.
Michael Witschke
Sheila Thomas wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
> terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
> unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
> xfree86. Ideas?????
I think, since yesterday (9/31/96) the new version of XFree86
(3.2) is avaiable and it includes support for Matrox cards in
the SVGA-server.
Michael
Saschi der Oberuser
Sheila Thomas (sin...@erols.com) wrote:
: Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
: terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
: unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
: xfree86. Ideas?????
I am using the AccelX Server (1.2) ... its fast and I can rely on it!
In terms of configurations it IS realy easy, no matter what hardware you
have. Most cards are supported, as the Millenium is, and I had never
problems (I have a S3-Trio32 1Meg, yea I know its cheap-ware).
I think the Accel Server is worth the money, and there are many
extensions available ... if you want to use OpenGL for example. Hardware
support for 3D-accel. should be coming in the next release ... that will
be fun with your card :)
Well the same should be true with MetroX, but I do not have it ...
wo...@madness.tmok.com
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:38:02 -0500, Christopher Horn <ch...@warwick.net> wrote:
>
>I've used both MetroX and AcceleratedX. AcceleratedX supports more cards
>and does a better job of it.
i've used Xaccel and it's a breeze to set up. very nice.
-wonko
Cesar A. Barria
wo...@madness.tmok.com wrote:
: -wonko
What do you guys think about the price for these servers? is $100.00
reasonable? Not that I can afford it anyway, I'm just wondering. It
seems quite expensive to me.
Later,
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Cesar Barria |cba...@csd.uwm.edu <- preferred
Electrical Engineering |cba...@soe.uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee|cba...@cae.uwm.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
John Wagner
Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
>
> Cesar A. Barria (cba...@news.uwm.edu) wrote:
> > : i've used Xaccel and it's a breeze to set up. very nice.
> >
> > reasonable? Not that I can afford it anyway, I'm just wondering. It
> > seems quite expensive to me.
>
> software does cost $$ sometimes.
> --
> Grobbebol's Home (Linux 2.0.x i586)
I currently use AcceleratedX on both my machines.. but since they
keep wanting $50 per upgrade, and have taken to charging MORE for
the items that they started with.. IE multihead in 1.1 but no
longer in 1.2 or above. (Add 199 more for it!)
I have a pair of Matrox cards... One is an MGA Ultima II+ and
the other is a Millenium, and since now the Mill, will be
supported (to a degree) in XFree*^, I will no longer use
AcceleratedX. The other Matrox card is in a machine that I
only use as a network server now... so don't really need X,
and since I am getting nickled and dimed to death (remind
you of any other company? MS) I've decided to suffer with
the good people in XFree and use the "beta" driver and
offer help to them.
Notto mention the fact that AcceleratedX (X-inside) still hasn't
really fixed the Matrox drivers, they seem to leave traces EVERYWHERE
on both my cards. And a problem that has been WELL known for YEARS
is that they can not return a console window to it's original form.
IE if you use something other than the normal 80x25 your screwed
once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
One should either, A) store the info and "restore" it after
X is killed, or B) fix the code that is broken!! Pointing
fingers just gets people MAD. The problem is still not fixed,
and this was first reported 2 years ago!!!! (or more)
The product they put out is nice... it works.. and it seems
fast enough, but alass. they didn't stay ahead of the times..
they don't support anything that XFree will not in the NEAR
future, so seeya X-inside.
Now a note for X-inside... Think about support for the daughter
cards for the Millenium, like the TV card and etc... this
would make you still an option.. but other than that, your
not faster... or better... so why pay?
John Wagner jgwa...@erols.com
I don't know what I'm doing... so don't hold it against anyone.
What I say is mine, unless you want to pay for it.
Roeland Th. Jansen
Thomas Roell
> I currently use AcceleratedX on both my machines.. but since they
> keep wanting $50 per upgrade, and have taken to charging MORE for
> the items that they started with.. IE multihead in 1.1 but no
> longer in 1.2 or above. (Add 199 more for it!)
Multihead is definitively seperate. For a good reason which is called
'support'. Given the brokenness of many graphics cards and
motherboards not every combination that should work actually works.
> I have a pair of Matrox cards... One is an MGA Ultima II+ and
> the other is a Millenium, and since now the Mill, will be
> supported (to a degree) in XFree*^, I will no longer use
> AcceleratedX. The other Matrox card is in a machine that I
> only use as a network server now... so don't really need X,
> and since I am getting nickled and dimed to death (remind
> you of any other company? MS) I've decided to suffer with
> the good people in XFree and use the "beta" driver and
> offer help to them.
The Ultima is not support by XF86. And before I forget it, there is an
insignificant difference between XF86 and Xaccel on the Millenium:
XF86 Xaccel
592277 1019020 lineStones
92427 953501 fillStones
24535 357756 blitStones
10978288 37796199 arcStones
545875 1988022 textStones
326470 863006 complexStones
94430 874349 xStones
This was on a P133, 32MB, Slackware96 ... (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Oh, BTW Xaccel passes the UniSoft xtest-suite, while other X-Servers
usually hang the system running it ...
> Notto mention the fact that AcceleratedX (X-inside) still hasn't
> really fixed the Matrox drivers, they seem to leave traces EVERYWHERE
> on both my cards.
Hmmm ... Maybe you are not on the announce lists, or missed it
somehow. The fix for has been available for Accelerated-X 1.3 for I
believe half a year. The Ultima however has a hardware problem, where
this kind of stuff appears randomly in 16bpp mode, which is not fixable.
> And a problem that has been WELL known for YEARS
> is that they can not return a console window to it's original form.
> IE if you use something other than the normal 80x25 your screwed
> once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
> dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
Aehm sorry to step in here. This is neither a bug nor a
problem. Xaccel has been designed in a way that it will restore 80x25
or starting with Accelerated-X 2.1 any kind of non-standard textmode
that is doable with a standard IBM VGA. This is mentioned in the docs
and the releasenotes. Reason for this is that the original idea in
X386 (which is the base for XF86) was that one could always read back
the state of the graphics controller 100%. As it turns out, this is
not always the case. As Accelerated-X always supported very esoteric
adapters we could not rely and actually didn't want to rely on the
fact that it would be possible to figure out all the non-standard
registers.
> One should either, A) store the info and "restore" it after
> X is killed, or B) fix the code that is broken!! Pointing
> fingers just gets people MAD. The problem is still not fixed,
> and this was first reported 2 years ago!!!! (or more)
As I said above it's not broken, it has been intentionally designed that
way. If you cannot live with that, there are other solutions out there
that might be the better suited for you. Nobody said Accelerated-X
was perfect.
For my part this textmode thing in general is kind of rediculus. The
only time I personally use text-mode is when the system boots. Why
using textmode if you can get graphics mode ?
- Thomas
--
Denver Office THOMAS ROELL /\ Das Reh springt hoch,
+1(303)298-7478 X INSIDE INC / \/\ das Reh springt weit,
1801 Broadway, Suite 1710 / \ \/\ was soll es tun,
Denver, CO 80202 ro...@xinside.com / Oelch! \ \ es hat ja Zeit.
John Wagner
Thomas Roell wrote:
>
> In article <327D6B29...@erols.com> John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > I currently use AcceleratedX on both my machines.. but since they
> > keep wanting $50 per upgrade, and have taken to charging MORE for
> > the items that they started with.. IE multihead in 1.1 but no
> > longer in 1.2 or above. (Add 199 more for it!)
>
> Multihead is definitively seperate. For a good reason which is called
> 'support'. Given the brokenness of many graphics cards and
> motherboards not every combination that should work actually works.
True but when I purchased 1.1 I took AcceleratedX from X-inside because
it HAD it... and in 1.2 they removed it... (not a good idea)
Kinda like a bait and switch.. (for me that is)
>
> > I have a pair of Matrox cards... One is an MGA Ultima II+ and
> > the other is a Millenium, and since now the Mill, will be
> > supported (to a degree) in XFree*^, I will no longer use
> > AcceleratedX. The other Matrox card is in a machine that I
> > only use as a network server now... so don't really need X,
> > and since I am getting nickled and dimed to death (remind
> > you of any other company? MS) I've decided to suffer with
> > the good people in XFree and use the "beta" driver and
> > offer help to them.
>
> The Ultima is not support by XF86. And before I forget it, there is an
> insignificant difference between XF86 and Xaccel on the Millenium:
>
> XF86 Xaccel
>
> 592277 1019020 lineStones
> 92427 953501 fillStones
> 24535 357756 blitStones
> 10978288 37796199 arcStones
> 545875 1988022 textStones
> 326470 863006 complexStones
> 94430 874349 xStones
>
> This was on a P133, 32MB, Slackware96 ... (sorry, I couldn't resist)
> Oh, BTW Xaccel passes the UniSoft xtest-suite, while other X-Servers
> usually hang the system running it ...
Good, this will be a good historical document later... XFree has just
started the driver... don't look at them as the SAME product...
but maybe in 3-4 months you should try that again.
>
> > Notto mention the fact that AcceleratedX (X-inside) still hasn't
> > really fixed the Matrox drivers, they seem to leave traces EVERYWHERE
> > on both my cards.
>
> Hmmm ... Maybe you are not on the announce lists, or missed it
> somehow. The fix for has been available for Accelerated-X 1.3 for I
> believe half a year. The Ultima however has a hardware problem, where
> this kind of stuff appears randomly in 16bpp mode, which is not fixable.
FIX? for which version of X 1.2 1.3 2.x?????
yea a minor fix was put out for 1.2 but it still has it's problems
If you want a better server UPGRADE is what I have been told. $$$$$
>
> > And a problem that has been WELL known for YEARS
> > is that they can not return a console window to it's original form.
> > IE if you use something other than the normal 80x25 your screwed
> > once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
> > dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> > yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
>
> Aehm sorry to step in here. This is neither a bug nor a
> problem. Xaccel has been designed in a way that it will restore 80x25
> or starting with Accelerated-X 2.1 any kind of non-standard textmode
> that is doable with a standard IBM VGA. This is mentioned in the docs
> and the releasenotes. Reason for this is that the original idea in
> X386 (which is the base for XF86) was that one could always read back
> the state of the graphics controller 100%. As it turns out, this is
> not always the case. As Accelerated-X always supported very esoteric
> adapters we could not rely and actually didn't want to rely on the
> fact that it would be possible to figure out all the non-standard
> registers.
AGAIN you say upgrade.... pay more money... cut it out... I want the
product I bought to WROK... not keep paying for upgrades to fix
BUGS yes BUGS in the old release. Why would a product ASSUME that
you are using 80x25??????????????????????????
I happen to have a 21" screen and 80x25 hurts the eyes to look at! :)
I'll user what ever I want in the console... and THEY should restore
THAT setup... not what they want.
YOU didn't have to figure out ANYTHING!!! stop... you're a partner with
Matrox... and they GAVE you the registers and all the OTHER info you
needed... This is a flat out bull story.. you can and SHOULD restore
those registers.. and if you can't REFUND me the cash I paid you
for a product that you CLAIM to work on this controller. If you can't
restore a simple register to it's original state.. that's kinda lame.
remeber you load modules based on cards... so you would need to make the
code HUGE.. just append it to the module for the card involved.
>
> > One should either, A) store the info and "restore" it after
> > X is killed, or B) fix the code that is broken!! Pointing
> > fingers just gets people MAD. The problem is still not fixed,
> > and this was first reported 2 years ago!!!! (or more)
>
> As I said above it's not broken, it has been intentionally designed that
> way. If you cannot live with that, there are other solutions out there
> that might be the better suited for you. Nobody said Accelerated-X
> was perfect.
No, but it's still better than anything else. I was only showing a few
facts, not trying to start a flame war. What I said IS true... why
it's done the way it is... well that's up to you, but it's still
a flaw in my book. Don't get me wrong... I still use your product,
and I happen to think that it's ok.. I just don't like getting
nickled to death... for some of the fixes that are needed to make it
better. These are NOT added features, only fixes for older releases
that SHOULD still function.
>
> For my part this textmode thing in general is kind of rediculus. The
> only time I personally use text-mode is when the system boots. Why
> using textmode if you can get graphics mode ?
I agree here, I only use text mode to boot... and then fly straight into
XDM... but when trouble hits.. well it's back to TEXT mode... and on a
21" screen 80x25 is kinda silly. And trust me... I just rebuild all of
my computers... and well I had X problems with the server. IE I had
the NE2000 card set at 0x300, and well the server hates that.. well
to find the problem I had to use... TEXT MODE :) and to browse in test
on a HUGE screen with even larger fonts takes longer. and "dmesg" takes
longer to look at. etc... Sure it doesn't keep the machine or server
from working.. I just would like the server to replace the mode...
>
> - Thomas
Thomas... All that said.. I will state again for the record.
I USE AcceleratedX from X-inside since it IS the best product on
the market "TODAY"
I happen to have 1.2 and don't want to spend $50 every 8 months
to get upgrades. 1.3.... 2.x .... what's next?
I don't have LARGE sums of cash.. if I did, I would be using a
REAL unix box.
John
P.S. I'm still thinking of getting your CDE package.. and if I do,
I'll end up getting your 2.x server anyway.. since it's still only
$50 ontop of the CDE package :)
--
root
In article <327E2BE0...@erols.com>,
John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> wrote:
>Thomas Roell wrote:
>>
>> In article <327D6B29...@erols.com> John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> > I currently use AcceleratedX on both my machines.. but since they
>> > And a problem that has been WELL known for YEARS
>> > is that they can not return a console window to it's original form.
>> > IE if you use something other than the normal 80x25 your screwed
>> > once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
>> > dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
>> > yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
>> For my part this textmode thing in general is kind of rediculus. The
>> only time I personally use text-mode is when the system boots. Why
>> using textmode if you can get graphics mode ?
>
>I agree here, I only use text mode to boot... and then fly straight into
>XDM... but when trouble hits.. well it's back to TEXT mode... and on a
>21" screen 80x25 is kinda silly. And trust me... I just rebuild all of
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
Insert VGA=ask in lilo.config.
Been around for just as long as the Xinside behavior (which still
doesn't happen in XFree86 3.2 at 60 lines, but then it's
slower....TANSTAAFL). Works fine for me ;-}
--
"...linux gives me a woody" =-ddt->
Roeland Th. Jansen
John Wagner (jgwa...@erols.com) wrote:
> I happen to have a 21" screen and 80x25 hurts the eyes to look at! :)
> I'll user what ever I want in the console... and THEY should restore
> THAT setup... not what they want.
this is the reason i didn't go for accelerated X. my 20" needs 132x43x9 to
be bearable to read.
since XFREE restores correctly on every card... I would think that
acelerated X could also.
Thanh Ma
John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> writes:
[...]
>I don't have LARGE sums of cash.. if I did, I would be using a
>REAL unix box.
As far as graphic card support is concerned, a REAL unix box is Linux.
Solaris may be next (Thomas definitely knows what I talk about).
SCO OpenServer/UnixWare is far way behind now.
--
Thanh Ma
t...@encore.com
Roeland Th. Jansen
Thomas Roell (ro...@xinside.com) wrote:
> > once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
> > dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> > yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
>
> problem. Xaccel has been designed in a way that it will restore 80x25
> or starting with Accelerated-X 2.1 any kind of non-standard textmode
> that is doable with a standard IBM VGA. This is mentioned in the docs
> and the releasenotes. Reason for this is that the original idea in
> X386 (which is the base for XF86) was that one could always read back
> the state of the graphics controller 100%. As it turns out, this is
> not always the case. As Accelerated-X always supported very esoteric
> adapters we could not rely and actually didn't want to rely on the
> fact that it would be possible to figure out all the non-standard
> registers.
it has been my decision 8NOT* to get accelerated X because 80x25 at a 20"
screen isn't fun at all. having 132x43x9 and XFREE 3.2 -- it works.
at least add the support for cards that do work -- XFREE can do it, so
accelerated X should be able too.
Thanh Ma
I believe you meant 'since XFREE restores correctly on every card' that
you use.
--
Thanh Ma
t...@encore.com
John Wagner
> >REAL unix box.
>
> Solaris may be next (Thomas definitely knows what I talk about).
> SCO OpenServer/UnixWare is far way behind now.
> --
> Thanh Ma
> t...@encore.com
As far as I am concerned... SCO is dead. That is not what I would
call UNIX... I was thinking more in the line of SUN SPARC box or
HP.. and YES I call Linux a "REAL" OS... but since I can't order
any of the normal UNIX products for it (software) I don't place
it in the same category.... SOON :) It is starting to see support.
John
Michael Holve
Roeland Th. Jansen wrote:
>
> Thomas Roell (ro...@xinside.com) wrote:
> > > once you leave X. I used 132x50... but couldn't read the screen if I
> > > dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> > > yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
>
> screen isn't fun at all. having 132x43x9 and XFREE 3.2 -- it works.
>
> at least add the support for cards that do work -- XFREE can do it, so
> accelerated X should be able too.
> --
> Grobbebol's Home (Linux 2.0.x i586)
I just popped on 2.1 of Accelerated-X myself, with the same problem -
I use a 21" Viewsonic monitor, and to have to use 80x25 is insane. Is
this the ONLY solution?! (please Email responses to me as well,
privately - thanks!)
Michael Holve
Network Manager & Webmaster
Department of Family Medicine
University of New York at Stony Brook
Email: ho...@fammed.som.sunysb.edu
Web: http://www.fammed.sunysb.edu/holve
Phone: (516) 444-2300
Fax: (516) 444-7552
Gatortags
bonito@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN (Saschi der
Oberuser) wrote:
>Sheila Thomas (sin...@erols.com) wrote:
>: Does anyone have experience with any of the commercial X servers in
>: terms of reliability and configuration ease? I'm running Slackware and
>: unfortunately can't wait for the Matrox card driver availability in
>: xfree86. Ideas?????
I tried MetroX BAD NEWS NO SUPPORT
They have left me spinning in the wind on a Mainboard upgrade.>
Thanh Ma
John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> writes:
>Thanh Ma wrote:
>>
>> John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I don't have LARGE sums of cash.. if I did, I would be using a
>> >REAL unix box.
>>
>> As far as graphic card support is concerned, a REAL unix box is Linux.
>> Solaris may be next (Thomas definitely knows what I talk about).
>> SCO OpenServer/UnixWare is far way behind now.
>> --
>> Thanh Ma
>> t...@encore.com
>As far as I am concerned... SCO is dead. That is not what I would
>call UNIX... I was thinking more in the line of SUN SPARC box or
>HP.. and YES I call Linux a "REAL" OS... but since I can't order
>any of the normal UNIX products for it (software) I don't place
>it in the same category.... SOON :) It is starting to see support.
So, that is the REAL unix that has extensive graphic cards support ?
(trying to get people back into the context)
--
Thanh Ma
t...@encore.com
michael smith
John Wagner wrote:
>
> on both my cards. And a problem that has been WELL known for YEARS
> is that they can not return a console window to it's original form.
> IE if you use something other than the normal 80x25 your screwed
> dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
In Thomas' defense, this is _not_ the X server's problem. If you
knew anything much about the interaction between X server and
console driver, or about PC video hardware, this would be
obvious.
> One should either, A) store the info and "restore" it after
> X is killed, or B) fix the code that is broken!! Pointing
> fingers just gets people MAD. The problem is still not fixed,
> and this was first reported 2 years ago!!!! (or more)
You can't "store" the info; in many cases the state cannot be
accurately determined from the registers in the card. The
_correct_ fix is for the console driver to drop back to
80x25 before handing over to the server because only _it_ knows
what state the card is in, and then reverse the process when
coming back. Needless to say, this is only a problem with
the Linux console driver.
> The product they put out is nice... it works.. and it seems
> fast enough, but alass. they didn't stay ahead of the times..
> they don't support anything that XFree will not in the NEAR
> future, so seeya X-inside.
Xinside perform a useful function, and their product is pretty
good. OTOH, the XFree people offer a solution which is often
more than adequate, and I have my fair share of gripes with
Xinside (really? it doesn't do that on our reference platform,
must be your hardware...), so don't tar me with the wrong
brush 8)
> John
Mike
Jason Heiss
ro...@xinside.com (Thomas Roell) writes:
<snip>
>- Thomas
>--
>Denver Office THOMAS ROELL /\ Das Reh springt hoch,
>+1(303)298-7478 X INSIDE INC / \/\ das Reh springt weit,
>1801 Broadway, Suite 1710 / \ \/\ was soll es tun,
>Denver, CO 80202 ro...@xinside.com / Oelch! \ \ es hat ja Zeit.
Now, just as soon as you support your products, I'll be happy. I had v1.2,
it worked fine. I forked over the $50 to upgrade to v1.3. It doesn't work.
Puts little dots all over my screen. After sending in two or three bug
reports, I finally got a response. Patrick Giagnocavo and I sent a few
email messages back and forth. He suggested something, I tried it and it
didn't fix the problem. I haven't heard from him or anyone else since. I
downloaded the v2.1 demo. It also exhibits the problem.
If you (Thomas) happen to be reading this, I'd really appreciate any help
in fixing the problem. I'm certainly not the first person to post regarding
troubles with your technical support. I think it would be good for business
and the general satisfaction of your customers if you helped people who had
problems.
Jason
wo...@madness.tmok.com
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 23:27:04 -0500, John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>As far as I am concerned... SCO is dead. That is not what I would
AMEN!!!
>call UNIX... I was thinking more in the line of SUN SPARC box or
Solaris supports my TurboGX pretty well. :)
>HP.. and YES I call Linux a "REAL" OS... but since I can't order
>any of the normal UNIX products for it (software) I don't place
True.
>it in the same category.... SOON :) It is starting to see support.
well, i don't think that matters to me anymore, since all my linux boxes are
now X-TERMs or do grunt work. (DNS, etc)
-wonko
John Wagner
wo...@madness.tmok.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 23:27:04 -0500, John Wagner <jgwa...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >As far as I am concerned... SCO is dead. That is not what I would
>
> AMEN!!!
Does anyone REALLY like SCO??????????
>
> >call UNIX... I was thinking more in the line of SUN SPARC box or
>
> Solaris supports my TurboGX pretty well. :)
Sure wish I had one.. even a clone would do :) (got a spare?)
>
> >HP.. and YES I call Linux a "REAL" OS... but since I can't order
> >any of the normal UNIX products for it (software) I don't place
>
> True.
>
> >it in the same category.... SOON :) It is starting to see support.
>
> well, i don't think that matters to me anymore, since all my linux boxes are
> now X-TERMs or do grunt work. (DNS, etc)
Well if MORE software companies would make software for Linux, it would
be
more than just a nice X-term or firewall machine. I happen to use it for
many other things too. But since I can't get any "NORMAL" products for
it
I can't use it in a production setting.
> -wonko
Mike Romans
Well worth it in the case of X Inside. Metro X, I would run XFree86
before running it so no I guess I would not pay $100 bucks for it. I
got it with my RedHat 3.0 and 4.0 and I still run X Inside. Much faster
and much better support of a wide range of cards.
Mike Romans
JTM MultiMedia, Inc.
Cesar A. Barria wrote:
>
> wo...@madness.tmok.com wrote:
> : On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:38:02 -0500, Christopher Horn <ch...@warwick.net> wrote:
> : >
> : >I've used both MetroX and AcceleratedX. AcceleratedX supports more cards
> : >and does a better job of it.
>
> : i've used Xaccel and it's a breeze to set up. very nice.
>
> : -wonko
>
> What do you guys think about the price for these servers? is $100.00
> reasonable? Not that I can afford it anyway, I'm just wondering. It
> seems quite expensive to me.
>
> Later,
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Cesar Barria |cba...@csd.uwm.edu <- preferred
> Electrical Engineering |cba...@soe.uwm.edu
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee|cba...@cae.uwm.edu
> -----------------------------------------------------
--
Mike Romans
JTM MultiMedia, Inc.
mro...@ecity.net
http://www.ecity.net/~mromans/
Andrej Bagon
> > > > dropped outta X... and the report from X-inside... was......
> > > > yep you guessed it.. NOT OUR problem! BAD ANSWER!
> >
> > screen isn't fun at all. having 132x43x9 and XFREE 3.2 -- it works.
> >
> > at least add the support for cards that do work -- XFREE can do it, so
> > accelerated X should be able too.
> > --
> > Grobbebol's Home (Linux 2.0.x i586)
>
> I just popped on 2.1 of Accelerated-X myself, with the same problem -
> I use a 21" Viewsonic monitor, and to have to use 80x25 is insane. Is
> this the ONLY solution?! (please Email responses to me as well,
> privately - thanks!)
>
> Michael Holve
> Network Manager & Webmaster
> Department of Family Medicine
> University of New York at Stony Brook
>
> Email: ho...@fammed.som.sunysb.edu
> Web: http://www.fammed.sunysb.edu/holve
> Phone: (516) 444-2300
> Fax: (516) 444-7552
liek quake. It simply hangs. the same is with netscape. I really don't
know why!! It works well with XFree 3.1.x and 3.2.
I have et4000/w32 server. 1710 Philips monitor. 486 dx2 66 local
machine, cyrixP150+ remote machine and 10mbit/s ethernet cards.
I really dunno what is wrong..maybe some misunderstanding between X
protocols of accelX...
Andrej
--
Andrej Bagon
e-mail: andrej...@guest.arnes.si
Home Page: http://www2.arnes.si/guest/ssngtsc6/index.html
Roeland Th. Jansen
Michael Holve (ho...@fammed.som.sunysb.edu) wrote:
> I just popped on 2.1 of Accelerated-X myself, with the same problem -
> I use a 21" Viewsonic monitor, and to have to use 80x25 is insane. Is
> this the ONLY solution?! (please Email responses to me as well,
> privately - thanks!)
I have been told or I have been understanding that the 'standard vga modes
of linux could be restored. I have been talking to two people at Xinside and
some vague stories about loosing data without ANY real scenario were told to
me.
Stating over and over again, that at least with XFREE it hasn't happened to
me so far, didn't help.
Xinside is just afraid that people start sueing them if something
disasterous happens.
I also have told them, that adding a command that enables it and also states
"you're on your own, if you loose data, it's your own fault" would be a good
idea. this would enable the use of X then. Now, I'm using XFREE instead.
faster than metro X and 132x43x9_16 works.
they also asked me why I want to switch back to text mode. why should I
switch to X ?? I'm using X *only* if I can't do it without.
the right tools for the right job. obviously, X doesn't fit many times.
LYNX isn't pretty, but a magnitude faster without annoying pictures. etc
Henry A Worth
Roeland Th. Jansen (ben...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Michael Holve (ho...@fammed.som.sunysb.edu) wrote:
: > I just popped on 2.1 of Accelerated-X myself, with the same problem -
: > I use a 21" Viewsonic monitor, and to have to use 80x25 is insane. Is
: > this the ONLY solution?! (please Email responses to me as well,
: > privately - thanks!)
: I have been told or I have been understanding that the 'standard vga modes
: of linux could be restored. I have been talking to two people at Xinside and
: some vague stories about loosing data without ANY real scenario were told to
: me.
It's really quite simple, some registers, or sometimes even individual
bits, are WRITE-ONLY, that is they cannot be read. This means it's
impossible in some cases to determine what mode the card was in
(at least in a portable manner looking only at the video card,
interactions with the console driver would be a solution, but very
non-portable and subject to being broken with every kernel du`jur).
One thing to note is that even for XFree86, which supports numerous OS's,
only Linux has been such a @#!% recurrent pain to get semi-reliable
mode restorations at even standard resolutions. Maybe you should
encourage the console driver maintainers to make Linux VC switching
more fail-safe -- i.e. track and restore the VC's current text mode
and font upon VC reentry and not rely upon the application restoring
it upon exit -- or better yet, make and submit the change yourself.
--
Henry Worth - henry...@amail.amdahl.com
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.
Roeland Th. Jansen
Henry A Worth (ha...@eng.amdahl.com) wrote:
> Roeland Th. Jansen (ben...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> : of linux could be restored. I have been talking to two people at Xinside and
> : some vague stories about loosing data without ANY real scenario were told to
> : me.
>
> It's really quite simple, some registers, or sometimes even individual
> bits, are WRITE-ONLY, that is they cannot be read. This means it's
> impossible in some cases to determine what mode the card was in
> (at least in a portable manner looking only at the video card,
but the 'in some cases' actually is something *I* haven't seen yet. The
problem is that it DOES work under XFREE.
my question was not about not being able to restore the correct VC stuff but
the question was about 'a possible data corruption' -- we're talking about
what ? I switch a console and the harddrive is trashed ? I fail to see any
connection between incorrect restoration of a VC and data corruption at all.
Probably because I don't understand it or so.
Stephen Lee
In article <E0xD8...@ccc.amdahl.com>,
Henry A Worth <ha...@eng.amdahl.com> wrote:
>
>One thing to note is that even for XFree86, which supports numerous OS's,
>only Linux has been such a @#!% recurrent pain to get semi-reliable
>mode restorations at even standard resolutions.
That's because the other OSes doesn't have something like SVGATextMode.
They restrict you to VGA outside of X. I've always been interested in the
right way of handling this, so if you know of an OS with a good API,
please let me know.
Stephen