[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Xfree downgrade



On Wed, 2001-11-14 at 11:36, Arlen Carlson wrote:
> Hmm!  I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the reverse situation...In general
> cards that work under 3.x will work under 4.x, but not the other way around. 
> As an example, I believe there are some newer Nvidia-based cards that require
> 4.x, and will not work under 3.x.

Well prepare to be surprised.  The laptop in question, which the poster
mentions, is some years old and uses a fairly unusual Cirrus Logic
LCD-only graphics card.  This is all quite well documented in the
XFree86 package.

Support using the XFree86 3.3.6 XF86_SVGA xserver is noticeably better
than with the XFree86 4.x.x xservers.  I think it highly unlikely that
this model will ever be supported by v4 unless someone very altruistic
finds a way of re-supporting all these sorts of old cards.

There are actually quite a few old cards which are not well-supported by
XFree86 4.x, and that seems pretty reasonable too, when you take the
word 'old' into the equation.

I had one of these laptops (still do, but it isn't my main system any
longer).  It should operate fine with XFree86 4.x, but using the
xserver-svga package (which is version 3.3.6) from unstable worked fine
for me (currently 3.3.6-39).  Debian supports concurrent or mixed
installation of 3.3.6 and 4.x, and I expect will continue to do for some
time for exactly this reason.

The X protocol hasn't changed so much that the XServer is incompatible
with the X clients - you just lose some of the snazzier functionality
that the v4 XServer implements, such as truetype font support.  OTOH TT
fonts are available with a font-server anyway.

Hope this is some help,
					Andrew.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/        PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)916-7201    MOB: +64(21)635-694    OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267



Reply to: