On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:50:59 -0400 "Walter Dnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the modelines you could ever need at the two sites... > http://xtiming.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/xtiming.pl > http://koala.ilog.fr/cgi-bin/nph-colas-modelines > > Both of the above sites allow you to specifiy width/height ratio. > The second site allows you to crank out every possible mode with the > given ratio. I loaded them all up. X was unhappy with the largest > modes, because they were just too massive. > Too bad neither work 100%. Neither will produce - # Modelines for 1600SW MultiLink ModeLine "512x384" 19.392 512 528 592 640 384 385 388 404 ModeLine "512x384" 21.978 512 528 592 640 384 385 388 494 ModeLine "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 108 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1025 1028 1066 +hsync +vsync ModeLine "1600x1024" 103.125 1600 1600 1656 1664 1024 1024 1029 1030 HSkew 7 +Hsync +Vsync > What it did allow, and what I've managed to run is stuff between > 1856x1392 and 320x200. Including the standard resolutions, "xrandr -q" > reports ***215*** available video modes!!! This is on a 6-year ATI Rage > 3D Pro with 8 megs of RAM (only enough RAM for 8-bit-mode at the higher > resolutions). It's *NOT* a Rage128, it's actually a Mach64. Given that > this can be done in X, why should the driver be cluttered up with the > code for this? > Why should the driver disallow valid modes? Both ATI and Nvidia drivers do so - ATI - won't do 1600x1024, monitor SGI FP1600SW Nvidia - won't do 1280x768, monitor Viewsonic N1700W And it's not just Linux. These rejections are for WinXX as well. Funny thing - Nvidia works fine (except the one 6600 card I have) at 1600x1024, and ATI works fine at 1280x768 (but the chip on the 9250 died - a full 4 months of life). Bob - -- [email protected] mailing list
