On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:33:29PM -0500, Jeremy W . Bean wrote:
> I can definitly understand why development isn't funded for Mach64; but I am
> amazed that someone hasn't picked this code up yet and attempted to hack
> something together that works decently well. I suppose the learning
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's basically already there but disabled because there have been problems
> with it. Someone posted a patch to this list or to the patch tracker which
> apparently fixes it for him. I'm not sure if it's the right fix but you might
> be desperate enough
Carl Busjahn wrote:
> Hey,
> I have mach64 (or technically rage pro! why'd he call it mach64??) in my
> desktop, and I will be getting a k6-2 550 tomarrow so I'll have a better
> test platform (with kernel.org messing up cyrix arr, and 3dnow so
> essential...). I've actually had the code working
I've been browsing the FAQ comments and mailing lists and it appears one of
the main problems in getting the DRI to run for newbies is the confusion
between which kernel modules to use. The ones from the kernel or the XFree86
ones?
Most people don't realize that the modules also get provided by X
Hey,
I have mach64 (or technically rage pro! why'd he call it mach64??) in my
desktop, and I will be getting a k6-2 550 tomarrow so I'll have a better
test platform (with kernel.org messing up cyrix arr, and 3dnow so
essential...). I've actually had the code working on this platform
twice, an
Manuel Teira wrote:
> Hello. Once again I try to get any answer about Mach64 DRI development.
> Is there any work in progress? Is the development for the Mach64 dead?
Having heard no sign of those who expressed an interest in pursuing
development themselves on this list, and the original author n
On Sunday 17 June 2001 09:58, you wrote:
> Hello. Once again I try to get any answer about Mach64 DRI development.
> Is there any work in progress? Is the development for the Mach64 dead?
>
> It's really sad, but I've been waiting for one year and no progress have
> been made or I haven't been tol
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
>
>
> Hello. Once again I try to get any answer about Mach64 DRI development.
> Is there any work in progress? Is the development for the Mach64 dead?
>
> It's really sad, but I've been waiting for one year and no progress have been
> made or I haven't bee
Hello. Once again I try to get any answer about Mach64 DRI development.
Is there any work in progress? Is the development for the Mach64 dead?
It's really sad, but I've been waiting for one year and no progress have been
made or I haven't been told about it. Has anybody merged the main trunk
