Re: What part of X causes major display problems?
It seems that old bits of memory have been put onto the screen (as I am
probably the last person to realise), when the screen is in pixel-lines. The
two examples of this I have are the xf86cfg graphics going into the
pixel-lines after using it without adding the "-textmode". The other, more
recent example is a banner of repititions of the win95 startup logo in
pixel-lines (yuck). This one happens if I just reboot after being in DOS7.0,
even though the win95 logo doesn't come up in DOS (I don't have the actual
logo file, but a backup of it in io.sys).
But even after all this time playing with XF86Config-4, I _still_ haven't
been able to get X working. I still only get pixel-lines, black with random
white pixels, or an error message about no screens found. I have tried doing
about all I could think of. If this continues much longer, I think I'll try
to downgrade.
But one thing that is _really_ getting to me is the difference between the
logfiles.
As I had previously wrote:
> It's somewhat interesting to notice a difference between the logfiles when
> testing the configurations from each method. In the logfile from testing
the
> "X -configure" is...
>
> (==) CHIPS(0): Min pixel clock is 11.000MHz
> (--) CHIPS(0): Max pixel clock is 56.000MHz
>
> ... and from the "xf86cfg -textmode" method...
>
> (==) CHIPS(0): Min pixel clock is 5.500MHz
> (--) CHIPS(0): Max pixel clock is 28.000MHz
>
> The lines preceded by (==) are default values and the (--) lines are
probed
> values. This is interesting, I would have thought that the values would be
> the same.
What sort of effect could this have? I have been spending my time with
XF86Config-4, is there some other file that I should try changing?
Thanks for any help,
Seneca
seneca@slemish.com
Reply to: