"Michael P. Soulier" wrote:
>On 12/02/12 Claudius Hubig said:
>
>> Could you try without these options?
>
>That fixed the issue. I got those options from the Debian Wiki, specifically
>the Compiz page.
I took the freedom to add a corresponding paragraph to the
troubleshooting section of that pag
On 12/02/12 Claudius Hubig said:
> Could you try without these options?
That fixed the issue. I got those options from the Debian Wiki, specifically
the Compiz page.
Mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:15:03 -0600, hvw59601 wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:25:10 +0100, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>>
>
>> (...)
>>
>> I do have it.
>>
>> My "xorg.conf" settings for nvidia are as simply as telling xorg what
>> driver to load, no more no less:
>>
>> Section "D
Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:25:10 +0100, Claudius Hubig wrote:
(...)
I do have it.
My "xorg.conf" settings for nvidia are as simply as telling xorg what
driver to load, no more no less:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Configured Video Device"
Driver
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:25:10 +0100, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> "Michael P. Soulier" wrote:
>>(II) Module dri2: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
>>compiled for 1.7.7, module version = 1.1.0 ABI class: X.Org
>>Server Extension, version 2.0
>>(II) Loading extension DRI2
(...)
>>(II) LoadModule
"Michael P. Soulier" wrote:
>(II) Module dri2: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
>compiled for 1.7.7, module version = 1.1.0
>ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 2.0
>(II) Loading extension DRI2
>(II) LoadModule: "nvidia"
>(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia_drv.so
>(I
On 12/02/12 Claudius Hubig said:
> Most of them will silently fall back to software rendering, what
> appears to be still happening to the OP.
That's what always happens to me.
> Michael: What does your Xorg.log say and, if you have one, what is
> the content of the xorg.conf?
I'm not sure what
Camaleón wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:13:01 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
>> I don't think that's true. I've run these many times in the past and
>> they've run purely on my cpu, before direct rendering was enabled.
>
>Then the applications you run didn't require 3D hardware acceleration or
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:13:01 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 12/02/12 Camaleón said:
>
>> Your 3D has to be enabled, otherwise you couldn't run opengl games at
>> all.
>
> I don't think that's true. I've run these many times in the past and
> they've run purely on my cpu, before direct ren
On 12/02/12 Camaleón said:
> Your 3D has to be enabled, otherwise you couldn't run opengl games at all.
I don't think that's true. I've run these many times in the past and they've
run purely on my cpu, before direct rendering was enabled.
Mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:26:05 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> I set up direct rendering with my Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 using the
> nvidia-glx-legacy-173xx package. glxinfo is happy, compiz works, etc.
>
> But, any gl screensavers, or opengl games, are horribly slow and chewing
> all my CPU, sug
Hi,
I set up direct rendering with my Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 using the
nvidia-glx-legacy-173xx package. glxinfo is happy, compiz works, etc.
But, any gl screensavers, or opengl games, are horribly slow and chewing all
my CPU, suggesting that 3d accel is not working.
Any pointers on solving this?
12 matches
Mail list logo