ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]