> > I'm using the 1600SW with the #9 TTR-IV card. I didn't realize it > > wasn't accellerated, but then again, as long I can switch from an > > xterm to an XEmacs window, what kind of acceleration do I need :) > > Now, I'm not sure it's *not* acclerated. Maybe I have something > configured wrong. I'll have to check into it. Your reasons for not > being sure are the basically the same as mine. I've never needed. > Now I'm curious enough and have a possible use for it, so I'm going > to check into it.
In that case, I'll settle any uncertainties: the #9 is -not- accelerated. The only other card that drives the 1600sw, the Oxygen VX1-1600sw, is *kind* of accelerated, but my do-or-die test (tuxracer) still sucks bigtime. Alas, the interface for the 1600sw is proprietary... or, rather, a standard (open LVDS, if anyone cares) that never went anywhere, which is pretty much the same thing. So we 1600sw owners have an *amazing* screen that just won't do a whole lot of good for gaming or other acceleration-required stuff. *sigh* (Note: I believe there -may- be some other cards that actually support the interface, *BUT*: - the 1600sw has a funky resolution of 1600x1024 that most digital video cards don't support, and - even if it were supported by the hardware, XFree86 would still have to know about it. Non-trivial.) It's still the nicest LCD panel I've ever seen; if there were cards that were supported by Linux that drove those new Apple displays, I might be tempted, though. Well, that, and if RH has another IPO. :( -Ken ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
