Re: Framebuffer or....not to Framebuffer
dman declaimed:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 09:26:21AM -0600, techlists@techgod.net wrote:
> | I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia
> | drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the
> | 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So,
> | should I use it? Is their a performance increase or decrease when
> | using the framebuffer. What are the advantages/dis-advantages to
> | using the framebuffer?
>
> I suggest you try out the framebuffer and see what you think. I'm
> using the framebuffer and I like it (SiS6326 and ATI Rage Mobility
> P/M). The best part about the framebuffer is 1) no dealing with X
> modelines (also I can fit a massive amount of characters in the
> console now). The worst part is that it is slower than going straight
> to the hardware. It might not be so bad for you, though, since you
> can use a framebuffer implementation that is specifically for your
> card. Those are supposed to be accelerated. I can only use the VESA
> framebuffer (unaccelerated) on my hardware.
>
> -D
I just got the matroxfb stuff working on my G400, very nice. I append
"video=matrox:vesa:261" in LILO to get a great looking console. Next
step is to hook up the 2nd head. Heh!
Read the Framebuffer HOWTO and the docs in <kernel>/Documetnation/fb
Paul
--
Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11
paul@mackinney.net | http://www.copvcia.com/
Reply to: