Re: Graphical install idea
Hartmut Koptein <koptein@et-inf.fho-emden.de> writes:
> Why do you need more than 16-color VGA for an installation boot disk?
> It will look just fine. Don't confuse install-time with what's
> available after installation.
Because i have it allready in the kernel, and not only VGA. Please don't think of restricting
the kernel. You start the kernel and you have all kind of x-res/y-res/colors. You
can then say: "ok, lets take only 640x480x16" for the setup. But you don't need
an extra console-server for VGA.
Okay, so how do you plan to fit 20 different kinds of extra drivers on
the i386 boot disk? It's not going to fit. I'm not sure if a
16-color VGA driver will fit. If you want to install with your
SuperFoo video card, then compile a boot disk that has that driver.
But ordinary people will never notice the difference.
> Not all cards are vesa 2.0 compatible. So what we need is something like this:
>
> All mainstream graphics cards are VGA compatible. Why should someone
^^^
VGA = true, but not vesa 2.0 (or was it vesa 2.1?). All newer cards are,
but for an example the older s3 cards not.
Why do you keep bringing up VESA? I don't *care* about VESA. I am
going to write a 16-color 640x480 VGA driver. This will work *with
almost any color graphics card made in the last 10 years*. It will
work your older S3 card. It will work with my Matrox Millenium II.
It will *work*, period.
> Why do you need more than 16-color VGA for an installation boot disk?
> need a 1600x1200 with 32-bit color mode to install? It's what I run
I don't need anything. But it is there. Without any changes! Lets say it the other
way around: you make it complicated -- not all linux users uses vesafb.
Would you rather have an extra install floppy than install from a
16-color mode?
Reply to: