"MikeD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The DL and burning went smoothly. I chose the 'Recommended' install for > my first attempt at a beta release install and that went by without a > hitch. Nice job. It wasn't until I logged in as a user that the nasty > nit presented itself. X would not fire up! The 'diagnostic' that > popped up was nice. It offered to help me diagnose the problem. > Everything hardware wise seemed to be recognized correctly. Then > looking over the log file I noticed that all the messages were from > version 3.x of Xfree86! > > I found that very disappointing, that the 'Recommended' install from a > 'SOTA' Linux install chose Xfree86 3.x instead of 4! I find this > especially strange considering the 'up to date' levels of most of the > other apps I have seen ... and ... since Xfree86 version 4 =is= on the > CD. Is there a good reason why the default is the older version of > Xfree??
the reason was that for XFree3, you could have Utah GLX (acceleration) (info from your report.bug) but since XFree3 can cause various pbs, it now defaults to XFree4. thanks (sorry for the response time)
