Sounds right.. most all cards are at least VESA1.0 compliant right? And I'm sure it isnt hard to achieve 640x480x256 colors with a VESA 1 driver. Something along the lines of SVGALIB maybe but svgalib isnt supported by much. The problem I think is companies trying to use X for the install just because it is easier to develop. QNX has a way of working with the frame buffer (Same as the X11 driver for the frame buffer maybe?) in which it enables a "flat" graphics driver almost ensuring compaidbility with all cards. I doubt that XFREE86 will be updated enough fast enough anywhere in the near future to keep up with the latest and greatest. I would really like to see a distro like corel or caldera or suse or redhat that used AcceleratedX, and another that used laptop acceleratedX. I know Xi graphics has a distro, although i havent used it i have doubts it is as complete as their compeditiors in terms of software. Price it at $199 or even $299 ..id pay for it if it had what i wanted.
nate On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Andy Thomas wrote: andyth >My guess is that the windows install probably uses the same andyth >lowest-common-denominator graphics mode (it looks like it to me) regardless andyth >of video hardware and the Linux X-based setup is using different modes andyth >during setup, dependent upon which video card it thinks it detects. The andyth >Windows-based setup doesn't go into card-specific graphic modes until andyth >installation is done. If this is the case then the x-based setup routines andyth >should be written for a standard 640x480x16 mode, regardless of which video andyth >hardware is detected during setup, no?... andyth > andyth > andyth >a shot in the dark andyth >Andy andyth > andyth > andyth >---------- andyth >> From: Bart Szyszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> andyth >> To: Evan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brigette Heffner andyth ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> andyth >> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org andyth >> Subject: Re: Why andyth >> Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 7:11 PM andyth >> andyth >> > LinuxPPC uses the same installer Redhat uses, recently they made a X andyth >> > based installer but it was quite broken to begin with and fails far andyth >> > to often. (X based installers will always be unreliable IMO just andyth >> > because of the wildly differing video hardware) andyth >> andyth >> Now what makes Windows so incapable of having these same problems? andyth >> I've never heard of anyone having trouble running the Win95 installer andyth >> on a system that just had DOS because of video hardware. andyth >> andyth >> -- andyth >> Bart Szyszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:4982727 andyth >> B Grafyx http://www.bgrafyx.com andyth >> Join AllAdvantage.com and get paid to surf the Web! andyth >> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=ARD582 andyth >> andyth >> andyth >> -- andyth >> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < andyth >/dev/null andyth >> andyth > andyth > andyth >-- andyth >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null andyth > ----------------------------------------[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/ Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/ Everett, WA 425-348-7336 http://www.linuxpowered.net/ Powered By: http://comedy.aphroland.org/ Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMP http://yahoo.aphroland.org/ -----------------------------------------[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]-- 3:49pm up 108 days, 3:32, 3 users, load average: 1.48, 1.52, 1.50
