On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
> > Best regards,
> > Petr Vandrovec
> > [EMAIL
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
> > Best regards,
> > Petr Vandrovec
> > [EMAIL
> BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
> Best regards,
> Petr Vandrovec
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
does the Matrox driver work with it ? My G400 works very
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, XF4.0.1e is also very unhappy on this hardware.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
does the Matrox driver work with it ? My G400 works very well
Hi,
if there are unhappy owners of Matrox G450, I have gift for them.
Patch below is for 2.4.0-test11, and works on my dualhead G450,
16MB, DDR.
Because of there are no specs for this piece of hardware, currently:
(1) BIOS have to initialize hardware. Although chip presents
itself as
Hi,
if there are unhappy owners of Matrox G450, I have gift for them.
Patch below is for 2.4.0-test11, and works on my dualhead G450,
16MB, DDR.
Because of there are no specs for this piece of hardware, currently:
(1) BIOS have to initialize hardware. Although chip presents
itself as
8 matches
Mail list logo
