Thinkpad 240: Of Xfree4.0 and LCD Vertical Hold...
I have a Thinkpad 240 running Debian 3.0 that just suffered a
rather interesting failure. The vertical hold on the LCD appears to have
given way. Yes, that means that image is rolling from top to bottom or
bottom to top (moving too fast to tell), just like an old TV with a
vertical hold that is out of adjustment.
At first this only happened occasionally in X, when I had Mozilla
or XEmacs maximized. If I switched to another virtual desktop (using fvwm
with the pager) that only had a few xterms on it (black backgrounds) then
it would settle back down. Though after a while any X display would roll,
and now even in console (text) mode it rolls (no SVGA or frame buffer
being used). Additionally, I never dropped or abused this laptop, just
three years of normal wear and tear being carried to/from work.
Given all of this, I assume it is a hardware failure, and as the
laptop is out of warrenty, it is appears it is time for a new one. So, I
am not so much interested in fixing it, as I am in understanding what
happened. Specifically since this all started happening about a two or
three weeks after I upgrade from potato to woody, namely went to XF4. I
had some problems getting XF4 setup, having to find the right acceleration
options to disable to keep the NeoMagic 128XD chipset from locking up.
The man pages had the options, and once enabled after a cold boot, X was
rock solid.
Basically, is there any way the XF4 could have killed my LCD? I
know that you can kill CRTs with X, but usually you have to try pretty
hard, and most current CRTs have over-frequency protections. Is something
similar true for LCDs? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." |
| --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ryan Kirkpatrick | Boulder, Colorado | http://www.rkirkpat.net/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: