Re: What part of X causes major display problems?
ben <benfoley@rcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 03:38 pm, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
>
> > > > (EE) Error from xf86HandleConfigFile()
> > > >
> > > > Fatal server error:
> > > > no screens found
>
> this is basically telling you that none of the values that might run can.
Yes, I had this Fatal server error when I installed X3. My solution was
adding a modeline, and it worked.
> > > >
> > > > The file that caused this problem is my X3 config file that worked
> > > > properly with X3.
>
> what kind of output were you getting from x3? greater that 640x480? at
what
> kind of depth?
My X3 output was 640x480, with virtual 800x600. I think my computer can do
higher resolution, I don't have any unused monitors that do anything higher.
The colour depth was 16 bits, but I could probably do higher at the cost of
speed.
> > I fixed the syntax, and I started getting the pixel-lines with my old
> > XF86Config file. I have attached the output of diff after fixing the
> > syntax. There's not much difference between the the versions of
XF86Config.
>
> given that it did run x3, why not settle for that, since it sounds like
> pretty old and inefficient hardware? i guess the question is why are you
so
> determined to get the latest incarnation of x to work on the least capable
> system?
I am determined to get X4 to work on my machine because...
a) it is there. If X4 wasn't there, I wouldn't try to get it to work.
b) I wanted to see if it would use .xsession without changing runlevel.
In X3, the only way on my system to get X to use .xsession was to change to
runlevel 5. I prefer runlevel 2. I knew X read the file, because if I put
something bad into it, X wouldn't run.
> > I have decided that I _really_ hate the people who send
> > their systems out with insufficient documentation.
>
> so you've google-searched for all the info that might be there pertaining
to
> the hardware? which raises the next question, what are you working with,
After all my years with the machine, I learned what it could and could not
do. I mightn't have been explicitly told everything, but I knew its basics
and I have checked for some information about my system (some from internet,
some from physical checks (and measurement) of the machine, and some from
the manual).
> trs80's, at&t xt's or what? how old is the machinery and what
manufacturers
> are involved? it kinda sounds like some part of your hardware can't take
the
My hardware isn't too old... it's only 7 years old (I think (and that's the
newest stuff I'm allowed to customise)). Anyway, all that I have been able
to find out about the video setup is that it has a Chips and Technologies
65545 video chip.
> pounding it's getting from x4. are you still getting log messages about
> 'left-alt' and 'meta' keys?
I stopped getting the log messages about "left-alt" and "meta" after
commenting out the problem line.
Thanks for any help,
Seneca
seneca@slemish.com
Reply to: