On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 01:46:17PM +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 12:31:56PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > ATi have not released binary drivers for amd64. If you want to use
> > your graphics card under Linux, you will have to run a 32-bit kernel
> > and a 32-bit system. Needless to say, this has made a number of people
> > (including myself) somewhat angry.
>
> The XFree86 ati drivers in the gcc-3.4 tree seems to be rock solid,
> although you will only get 2D support.
Yes, this is what I'm using. As you say, though, only 2D support.
The original poster was asking whether there was an alternative to the
XFree86 "ati" driver.
> > I suspect that they won't release 64-bit drivers for Linux until
> > 64-bit Windows ships.
>
> That makes no sense since they're shipping 64-bit AMD64 drivers for
> 64-bit Windows XP:
>
> http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4424.html
>
> Considering that 64-bit Linux on AMD64 probably is an order of magnitude
> more popular than 64-bit Windows, I wouldn't hold my breath.
That's still the Windows XP/64 beta programme. Originally, ATi were
only going to ship the 64-bit Windows drivers after XP/64 went gold.
Eventually, they were persuaded (how?) that they should release
drivers for the XP/64 beta, which are the ones you link to.
What I can't understand is how the company can be so unbelievably
uncommunicative about something so fundamental.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 4: Future Perfect ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature