On 2007-02-23, Hamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was bying ATI cards because the open-source driver supported
>> DRI (it was a bit flakey, but it mostly "just worked"). But,
>> that ended with the 92xx series. My experience (and the
>> general consensus, AFAICT) is that the NVidia closed-source
>> drivers are far less problematic than the ATI ones.
>>
>> I've got a 3 year old ATI card that ATI doesn't support at all
>> anymore with Linux drivers. I've got a 6 year old NVidia card
>> that still works perfectly and all I had to do is "emerge
>> nvidia-drivers"
>>
>> So I think NVidia is the way to go in general.
>>
>> [The problem is that you don't get much of a choice with
>> laptops. My IBM ThinkPad was too good a deal to pass up even
>> though it came with an ATI M300.]
>>
>
> If you have anything up to X600 (Maybe even X700) graphics
> (basically 9600 on PCIe) then the open source drivers should
> work fine...
I know the OS driver is supposed to work -- and it did work for
a while -- at leastit worked in in a manner: the frame rates
weren't very good and there were a lot of noticable rendering
glitches.
Then one day after an "emerge update", the open source
driver no longer worked: any time an OpenGL program ran, the X
server crashed. I futzed around with the open-source DRI
driver for a while, but was unable to get it to work again --
so I gave up and switched to ATI's driver (which ATI has now
abandonded).
Once I get the ATI drivers to work, they seem to work well (at
least for me) with much higher frames rates than the
open-source driver and no noticable rendering problems.
> Mine is an X1400 sadly, so I don't even get LCD native
> resolution without the damned ATI drivers (Because it's flakey
> as hell with their DRI, and suspend to RAM doesn't work...
> Still... So why even bother).
Next time I'm picking NVidia if I can...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want to kill
at everyone here with a cute
visi.com colorful Hydrogen Bomb!!
--
[email protected] mailing list
