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

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? I take that back. Your fux0red quoting threw me o

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 techlists
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? Wayne Caleb Shay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote .. > On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 07:26, [EMA

Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer

2002-01-07 Thread dman
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:21:03PM -0500, David B Harris wrote: | 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

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 > inc

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 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 it? Is their a perfo

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 i

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 are the a