Linux-Hardware Digest #782, Volume #9 Fri, 19 Mar 99 21:14:23 EST
Contents:
Re: AWE64 (Daniele Bernardini)
Re: Multi-channel soundcard for Linux (Mike Rivers)
Re: Turtle Beach Systems Montego II PCI Audio Card and sndconfig... (Jerry Normandin)
"Select the application, and then the platform" (westprog)
Re: Is Windows for idiots? (Re: X munges the graphics card?) (Steve)
Re: "Select the application, and then the platform" (Ed Bruce)
Re: "Select the application, and then the platform" ("Tom Emerson")
Re: "Select the application, and then the platform" (jedi)
Dual Pentium II support. (Andrea Borsic)
Re: Is Windows for idiots? (Re: X munges the graphics card?) (Patrik Magnusson)
laptops w/linux supported HW features (BennyMGothard)
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? (John Burton)
Re: mesa3d and riva tnt (Jeff Tacy)
Unkown monitor and RH 5.2 (Ben M)
Re: Sound Blaster Live (Vedran Vrbanc)
Re: HP Laserjet 1100 Problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ghostscript and Epson Stylus Color 600 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniele Bernardini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: AWE64
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:47:59 GMT
A Nourai wrote:
>
> these are the steps ive taken to get my awe64 working.
>
> compiled kernel with correct options
> (ie done what the AWE64 mini howto says)
>
> used isapnp and commented out the right lines in /etc/isapnp.conf
>
> run /sbin/isapnp /etc/isapnp.conf or whatever the command is (it worked)
>
> loaded module
>
> all went well
>
> now i cat /dev/sndstat and what it SHOULD be is
>
> Sound Driver:3.5.4-960630 (Sat Oct 11 19:35:14 CEST 1997 root,
> Linux flora 2.0.29 #1 Sat Oct 11 19:12:56 CEST 1997 i586 unknown)
> Kernel: Linux flora 2.0.29 #1 Sat Oct 11 19:36:23 CEST 1997 i586
> Config options: 0
> Installed drivers:
> Type 1: OPL-2/OPL-3 FM
> Type 2: Sound Blaster
> Type 7: SB MPU-401
>
> Card config:
> Sound Blaster at 0x220 irq 5 drq 1,5
> SB MPU-401 at 0x330 irq 5 drq 0
> OPL-2/OPL-3 FM at 0x388 drq 0
>
> Audio devices:
> 0: Sound Blaster 16 (4.13)
>
> Synth devices:
> 0: Yamaha OPL-3
> ***1: AWE32 Driver v0.3.3e (DRAM 2048k)
>
> Midi devices:
> 0: Sound Blaster 16
>
> Timers:
> 0: System clockMixers:0: Sound Blaster
> ***1: AWE32 Equalizer
>
> what i get is everything but the lines marked with ***
> anyone know why?
I don't know way, but you have to add some lines to your
isapnp.conf. What you probably have for the wavetable is
(CONFIGURE CTL00e4/249326169 (LD 2
# ANSI string -->WaveTable<--
# Multiple choice time, choose one only !
# Start dependent functions: priority preferred
# Logical device decodes 16 bit IO address lines
# Minimum IO base address 0x0620
# Maximum IO base address 0x0620
# IO base alignment 1 bytes
# Number of IO addresses required: 4
(IO 0 (SIZE 4) (BASE 0x0620))
# Start dependent functions: priority acceptable
# Logical device decodes 16 bit IO address lines
# Minimum IO base address 0x0620
# Maximum IO base address 0x0680
# IO base alignment 32 bytes
# Number of IO addresses required: 4
# (IO 0 (SIZE 4) (BASE 0x0620))
# End dependent functions
# Vendor defined tag: 75 01 69 46 35 55
(NAME "CTL00e4/249326169[2]{WaveTable }")
(ACT Y)
))
you need to add under the line
(IO 0 (SIZE 4) (BASE 0x0620))
the following two lines
(IO 1 (BASE 0x0A20))
(IO 2 (BASE 0x0E20))
then everything should be fine.
I found this info in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/sound/AWE32
I am running kernel 2.2.3, I don't know if it works
also with older drivers... good luck
regards,
Daniele
--
********************************************************************
Daniele Bernardini
Sektion Theoretische Physik, LMU Muenchen
Theresienstr. 37, 80805 Muenchen DEUTSCHLAND
Tel: +49 (89) 23944378
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ls-wess.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~dani/
********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Rivers)
Crossposted-To: comp.music.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.music,rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Multi-channel soundcard for Linux
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:59:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I need recommendations for a pro-quality soundcard with 8+ outputs and
> S/PDIF I/O that has drivers for Linux.
I think Sonorus has Linux drivers for their StudI/O card. It's got two
ADAT lightpipe ports, and you can get converters between that format and
S/PDIF. Poke around at http://www.sonorus.com.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really [EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Jerry Normandin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Turtle Beach Systems Montego II PCI Audio Card and sndconfig...
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:00:13 -0500
OSS is working on a driver. They just got the specs. Check with them.
William O'Neal wrote:
>
> i have the above sound card and have been having some trouble
> configuring it. according to the redhat faq it's "officially"
> not-supported but i was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting it
> up and working.
>
> when i run sndconfig i get the following error:
>
> The follorwin error occured running the modprobe program:
>
> /lib/modules/preferred/misc/m
> snd_classic.o: init_module:
> Device or resource busy
>
> thanks,
>
> wil
>
> --
>
> MulchMagazine (www.mulchmag.com)
>
> "Cause the world doesn't need any more humble Negroes."
------------------------------
From: westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: "Select the application, and then the platform"
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:49:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve) wrote:
> I agree with most of what you have said Richard.
>
> In a nutshell my belief has always been,
>
> "Select the application, and then the platform"
This is an obvious rule that tends to be forgotten in "X is better than Y"
discussions.
> If you need an application to control robotics that manufacturer
> widgets and the best version is available for Solaris, then that is
> the way you must go.
There are of course reasons why applications are available on one platform
rather than another. (I suspect that most process control is done on other
platfroms than Solaris).
> Scripting and configuration is an area where nix's have a huge
> advantage and don't get me wrong vi and Emacs as well as slrn and the
> others I mentioned are fine programs but the average user is not going
> to be interested in them after using Outlook or Agent etc, UNLESS they
> have very specific needs that those programs can address.
> By going back to the 70's I meant a green screen cli interface.
> It was a stupid comment on my part anyhow :(
I find Solaris very reminiscent of the '70s.
> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 02:43:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
> wrote:
>
> >Here in comp.os.linux.setup, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake unto us, saying:
> >
> >>It doesn't matter a hill of beans how technically superior your OS is
> >>if there are no applications for it that the general public want to
> >>use.
> >
> >Sorry, that's not always correct.
> >
> >It's all context-dependent, since everyone's requirements are usually
> >different, and anyone saying that one OS or another is best for all
> >situations is probably selling something.
> >
> >>Vi, And EMacs and ppp-on, ppp-off, and slrn and tin an trn and tetris
> >>and ispell and on and on and on don't cut it when you have a plethora
> >>of Windows applications that blow the doors off the Linux crap...
> >
> >Perhaps true in some instances, but if you're in a situation where you
> >need to create things which are heavily scripted, which need to be able
> >to interoperate with many other environments, or which need to be rock-
> >solid stable, then Windows is hardly an optimal solution, either.
> >
> >IMhO, slrn beats any Windows newsreader I've used. But my requirements
> >are probably different from yours.
> >
> >Besides, most of the applications you're likely to put foreward as good
> >reasons to use Windows would also work just as well under Linux if the
> >ISVs would write native Linux versions.
This presupposes that writing a GUI application with a lot of
user-interaction is as easy for *nix as it is for Windows. I doubt whether
that is the case. The circumstantial evidence - the look and feel of *nix
applications - argues that producing user-oriented software is more difficult
on *nix.
> >>Users are NOT interested in going back to the 1970's....
> >What does that have to do with Linux?
One of the advantages of *nix is that a Unix programmer put in cryogenic
suspension in 1978 could still earn a living in 1999. It is also a
disadvantage, depending on how you look at it. My old Windows programming
books are not much use now - my old Unix books are still valid.
J.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Is Windows for idiots? (Re: X munges the graphics card?)
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:52:43 GMT
Very well put Steffen!
I guess I let my highly vertical app nature intrude in a somewhat
general discussion.
Allow me to explain.
I do digital audio and the classic question in this field (much like
Linux) is what should I purchase, a Mac or a PC.
Since most DAW's are not used for balancing ones family budget, the
classic answer is, choose your recording software first and then
choose the platform and there are very good arguments for both
platforms.
I was trying to apply the same logic to the Linux/Win debate, but
applying it only for highly vertical applications like robotics or
file/web server type stuff.
As you point out this theory kind of fails when confronted with
average users who are going to run multitudes of different apps.
Steve
On 16 Mar 1999 12:27:31 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steffen Kluge)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In a nutshell my belief has always been,
>>"Select the application, and then the platform"
>
>This is rather simplistic, I'm afraid. But otherwise it wouldn't
>fit in a nutshell, I guess ;-)
>
>Most users frequently run a number of applications, not all of
>which may be equally well supported on any given platform. Thus
>you have to compromise. Then there are those applications they
>don't run frequently but still don't want to miss entirely.
>This can give one platform the edge over another. BTW it is not
>so much the applications that need to be supported, it is the
>specific problems that need to be solvable. If you *want* the
>application "Client for Microsoft networking" then you don't
>have much choice - if all you want is a solution to your
>connectivity problem your choices are much wider.
>
>A very important consideration (for many users) is the stability
>and overall performance of the platform. How good does it let
>the applications be?
>
>Rarely, this optimisation problem can be solved by pointing to a
>single platform (I could for me, though :-). This is why lilo
>supports multi-OS booting.
>
>>Scripting and configuration is an area where nix's have a huge
>>advantage and don't get me wrong vi and Emacs as well as slrn and the
>>others I mentioned are fine programs but the average user is not going
>>to be interested in them after using Outlook or Agent etc, UNLESS they
>>have very specific needs that those programs can address.
>
>Apparently neither Unix nor Windows nor MacOS address the whole
>spectrum of computer literacy among users. I dare to assert that
>Unix covers a wider range though, with Windows better at times
>for the lower range of this spectrum but brutally confined
>there. Unix may be frustrating to the beginner but this
>frustration quickly gives way to appreciation as enlightenment
>sets in. Windows seems to be the other way around. It may be
>easy to beginners (something I'd debate in some cases) but gets
>increasingly frustrating the more you know (or want to know)
>about computing. This doesn't imply that users *have* to strive
>to improve their computer literacy. Staying a "Microsoft user"
>is a perfectly acceptable choice. I just don't like people who
>made this choice lecturing about how bad the other alternatives
>are.
>
>>By going back to the 70's I meant a green screen cli interface.
>
>Well green is really way backward, although it is supposedly
>good for the eyes. Towards the end of the century people much
>prefer terminal windows with black-on-white or
>something-on-transparent characters. ;-)
>
>Cheers
>Steffen.
>
>--
>Steffen Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Fujitsu Australia Ltd
>Keywords: photography, Mozart, UNIX, Islay Malt, dark skies
------------------------------
From: Ed Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Select the application, and then the platform"
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:55:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
> a. Lack of Unix documentation on X programming. Just about every book at
> the store detailing Unix development emphasises the Web or other text based
> programming. X, is, afterall, something of a Unix afterthought, and not
> really what Unix is all about. On the other hand, Windows GUI documentation
Well I've used the same X books since about 1990 (I've added to them as
different versions of X where released). They worked under X on Suns,
DECs, and SGIs over the years. I haven't tried using them with Linux
yet, but I believe they will still give me the correct answers.
> b. Lack of a standardized widget library. Like, every X application has
> its own open file dialog. Yikes. Windows programmers quit that crap with
> Windows 3.1! Windows has a set of core widgets that ship with, and it
> seems like X has ten different widget sets, none of which really stacks up
> completely against Windows. This leads to c.
I guess you've never heard of MOTIF. I worked in the bad ol days of
Xlib. We then moved onto Xt and Xw. It has been quite a few years since
I hit X that low, I have since used nice GUI builders. Most based on
MOTIF, one that wasn't, but it provided a nice standard set of widgets.
Funny thing I was always required to follow the MOTIF standard for
dialogs and used the core widgets for say an open file dialog.
> d. Really shitty printer support. X does not seem to have the same
> concept of device independent drawing surfaces characterized by the
Well X isn't an OS. It can be more difficult to setup a printer under
Unix. But I've used some tools that make it easier. Remember X is the
basis for the graphics. You then layer a window manager of your choice
on it.
> e. Font support. X does not have anything like true type fonts. I've
> yet to see an X application on my Linux box that does anything that I take
> for granted on Windows.
Strange I just installed True Type fonts on my Linux box and I am using
them with Netscape and xterm.
later,
Ed
------------------------------
From: "Tom Emerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Select the application, and then the platform"
Date: 19 Mar 1999 14:01:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article <7colnn$p5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.hardware didst Todd Bandrowsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eloquently scribe:
> :>I guess you've never heard of MOTIF. Funny thing I was always required
to
> : follow the MOTIF >standard for dialogs and used the core widgets for
say an
> : open file dialog.
>
> : If MOTIF is so prevalent on Unix, then why do all X applications look
> : different? Why do I have a bunch of different X apps on my Linux box
that
> : all have different styles of FILE | OPEN. Heck. skip that even. Why
does
> : every one have completely different menus?
>
> Motif is the widget set.
> It's the application writer who decides what menus will hold what options
> and where they're going to be.
>
> The only thing Motif (or any other widget set) disctates is what the
buttons
> will look like, and how they react to being pressed...
I fear this is going way wide of the topic's relevance in the
...linux.hardware group I'm reading this in [not to mention the advocacy
groups], but this last comment seems to explain a problem I'm having with X
at the moment: One application I'm running (freeciv, to be exact) has
"menus" that are coded as macintosh-style menus, i.e., click/hold on the
menu button to bring up the menu, drag down to the menu item you're
interested in, then release to select. This is all fine and dandy when it
works, but on occaision, "something" goes awry and I end up with a case
where "dragging" doesn't select anything -- restarting the app doesn't work
either, I have to COMPLETELY exit X and restart it.
Is this a case where the "widget" of a menu is set to react this way
[click/hold, drag, release] or of the person writing the app coding to
react to "events" in this manner? If it is the "widget" that is reacting
this way, what can I do to get a more PC-like menu that is
click-and-release to enable the menu, then move & click/release to select
an item [clicking away from the menu entirely to dismiss, rather than
releasing "off-menu" to dismiss]
I know this isn't controlled by the "window manager", because I've also run
the client on a win95 machine using a commercial "X" server for 95 -- this
ends up being REALLY strange because I'm not actually running a "window
manager" on this server, just the freeciv client... [which means I cannot
move/resize windows...]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Select the application, and then the platform"
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:28:06 -0800
On 19 Mar 1999 20:26:43 GMT, Todd Bandrowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I guess you've never heard of MOTIF. Funny thing I was always required to
>follow the MOTIF >standard for dialogs and used the core widgets for say an
>open file dialog.
>
>If MOTIF is so prevalent on Unix, then why do all X applications look
>different? Why do I have a bunch of different X apps on my Linux box that
>all have different styles of FILE | OPEN. Heck. skip that even. Why does
>every one have completely different menus?
Human Free Will.
[deletia]
--
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die |||
while you discuss this a invasion in committe." / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Andrea Borsic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dual Pentium II support.
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:48:38 GMT
Hi,
I'm looking to buy a fast machine for scientific calculation pourposes.
For some constraints I'm looking to an Intel platform, so I cannot go
Alpha.
The idea is to buy a dual pentium II machine ( Dell Workstaion series
210 ).
The problem is this: will Linux support this machine?
What matherboard chipset/BIOS is supported for SMP?
Is there any standard for SMP motherboards?
Any information about SMP motherboards/BIOSes is welcome.
Thanks very much.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrik Magnusson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Is Windows for idiots? (Re: X munges the graphics card?)
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:48:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve) writes:
|> Amen...A word that is mentioned quite infrequently in this group,
|> productivity.
|>
|>
|> It doesn't matter a hill of beans how technically superior your OS is
|> if there are no applications for it that the general public want to
|> use.
Recent studies show that, the average office-worker loose half a day
per week on "computer difficulties". These included:
* computers/applications crashing
* word-documents being bloated beyond usefulness
* macro-viruses
* paperempty on printers (from using word- instead of text-processors)
* security concearns (most notably NetBus-concearns)
But whatever the reason, half a day per work-week is a huge hill of beans.
|> Vi, And EMacs and ppp-on, ppp-off, and slrn and tin an trn and tetris
|> and ispell and on and on and on don't cut it when you have a plethora
|> of Windows applications that blow the doors off the Linux crap...
|> Users are NOT interested in going back to the 1970's....
Well, I just heard of this thing called X, supposedly it's
this graphical thing for Unix, rumour has it there's even some
applications for it. Stuck in the 70's as I am, I don't think
it will ever be of much use to me, but you might want to check it out.
/Patrik, ranting student.
------------------------------
From: BennyMGothard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: laptops w/linux supported HW features
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:22:40 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone know of linux supported laptops that have any or all of the
features below?:
1) simultaneous lcd and video out (1024x768 24bit color)?
2) 4 comm ports or ethernet port as standard without use of pcmcia
slot & with 2 additional unused pcmcia slots?
--
thanks benny m gothard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Benny M Gothard 303 706 7618
Senior Scientist-Robotics (secretary 706-7607)
SAIC-Advanced Tech Group- fax 799 9677,9644
CIS-Center for Intelligent Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
41 Inverness Drive East web:
http://www.cis.saic.com
Englewood Co 80112
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: John Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing?
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:48:54 GMT
wizard wrote:
>
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 22:49:49 GMT, John Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> how about an entire movie? Titanic was done using linux on alphas.
> > >> It put out terabytes of data. linux was used to colormatch the
> > >> digital images and put together the fames that made up the movie. I
> > >> wouldn't consider that usual usage. They needed computing power, they
> > >> got alphas
> > >
> > >They also had money! They were't *too* concerned between $4000 &
> > >$10,000...
> > >I agree..if you have the money, go for the Alpha... (the 21264 & 21364
> > >Alphas look pretty impressive...;-)
> >
> > It's not so much that they were price-insensitive; it's also that they
> > were *space*-sensitive.
> >
> > Adding a couple of extra boxes to make up for IA-32 CPUs not being as
> > fast may not be a big deal when the task is small. Fitting an extra
> > system in my apartment might be moderately annoying, but wouldn't cost
> > much.
> >
> > But when you start building a big "rendering farm," additional costs
> > start needing to be considered:
> > - The cost of the "real estate" required to house the boxes,
> > - The cost of getting those boxes dropped into place, plugged in, and
> > running.
>
> Funny thing is there are many vendors offering preassembled Alpha farms. Just
> drop the rack in place supply power and off you go. This is not the case with
> Intel systems, at least I have not seen many advertised. The market for
> performance machines is at time very sensitive to pricing considerations, since
> many"farms" are Alpha powered there must be a good reason. The only reason one
> could reasonable suggest is performance per dollar. Granted there may be
> application were an Intel system will accel but the market doesn't seem to
> support that theory.
>
I think *performace* is the key to the "farms" as opposed to
"price/performace ratio"... when you're looking at large clusters &
farms, you want each individual processing node to have good
performance... As I mentioned in a previous post, low-end Alphas are
competing agains high-end Intel...if you want individual node
performance *better* than the low-end Alpha, then forget about Intel...
particularly when your dual cpu 21264 systems have a SpecFP95 value
pushing a factor of 10 greater than the top dual cpu Intel system...
John
--
John Burton, Ph.D.
Senior Associate GATS, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11864 Canon Blvd - Suite 101
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) Newport News, VA 23606
(757) 873-5920 (voice) (757) 873-5920 (fax)
------------------------------
From: Jeff Tacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mesa3d and riva tnt
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:48:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tomasz Lukasiak wrote:
>
> has anyone had success with configuring their tnt card with mesa3d?
>
> tom
Nope, Nvidia will not release the technical information about their
cards that is needed to write a tnt support for mesa3d. I suspect that
it will not be supported for a few months at least, as Nvidia won't even
release the information under nda!
-Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ben M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Unkown monitor and RH 5.2
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:49:02 GMT
I've just put together a very cheap Linux box. I bought a barebones
AMD-K6-2 300mhz and gutted a couple old computers for their HD, CD, floppy,
etc. I also picked up an old EMC monitor that has no useful markings on
it. I don't know if it is VGA or SVGA let alone know the refresh rates,
etc. I will be using the monitor with an S3 2mb video card. I will be
using the box for internet access with Netscape and possibly also Star
Office. Are there any sources for info regarding this monitor/video card
setup?
Cheers,
Ben
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vedran Vrbanc)
Subject: Re: Sound Blaster Live
Date: 19 Mar 1999 13:49:12 GMT
In article <7chh4f$g19$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> creative labs announced some weeks ago they'll hire a programmer to develop
> drivers for linux. so we have to wait till the next millenium... :-(
no... just until july-august... so they said.
--
"The universe is like a safe
to which there is a combination --
but the combination is locked up in the safe."
-- Piter DeVries
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HP Laserjet 1100 Problems
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 01:22:56 GMT
In article <7ct0ca$iap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rainer Kiehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've got two problems with my Laserjet 1100, Linux Mandrake 5.3,
> ghostscript-4.03-1
> using th Laserjet 4/5/6 driver
>
> 1. Printig more then one page via ghostscript takes a lot of time. Every
> single page is treated as a singel printjob. This problem does not
> happen using dvilj, but there are lots of .ps documents out there...
>
> 2. postscript graphics are only printed with 300x300 dpi. Using 600x600
> results in pictures where the lines are displaced against each other.
>
> Has anyone solved these problems ?
>
> TIA Rainer
I don't know about your problems, but if I combine two lines of text from the
font wizard with an image, my hp 1100 won't print out. It will freeze! I
thought maybe it needed more memory but the Gateway guy says 2MB is a lot and
I should be fine printing anything combined on one page. So what's my
problem? I'm in the Gateway store now and he just turned me on to
dejanews.com to seek others with similar concerns.
Remy Chevalier
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ghostscript and Epson Stylus Color 600
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 01:24:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jonathan Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use StarOffice and Wordperfect for Linux, and thus far I have been
> saving my files in Postscript format, then using Ghostview or Kghostview
> (KDE) to view and print them. Is there a more direct way to print my
> files without using ghostview? (Can I use ghostscript directly from the
> word processors some how, in other words?) Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Jonathan Bowman
>
>
Am I missing something? Should it be this difficult to print from a
wordprocessor under Linux? I've got RH5.2 with KDE1.1 and using the demo
Applix that came with RH. I've used printtool to setup a printer, at least as
close as possible. I have a Cannon BJC-80 and that is not one of the choices,
so I chose the BJ-10e. Can you get other 'filters'(?) for more printers. I'm
assuming this is sort of like printer drivers under windows?
Anyways I can print ascii fine, but I can't get anything out of Applix or
other gui applications. I get beeps and garbage. I tried printing the file
to a .ps file and then using kghostview. That didn't do diddly. Again, am I
missing something?
Rick Pearce
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
