This bug is still a regression in 11.04 Natty as well as 11.10 Oneiric.
The current upstream bugreport is this one:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38934
Meanwhile a fix has been released:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2012-January/014257.html
And this fix made it
Bug is a regression in 11.04 Natty.
Waiting for upstream fix:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15370#c23
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu-X,
which is subscribed to xserver-xorg-video-intel in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212206
Titl
In response to #420:
Last time I installed the backclear.patch on ATI Mobility HD3400
hardware I noticed distorted and weird pixels when opening new windows.
They disappeared as soon as contents was painted into the window.
However it suggests what the source code comments say:
+- /*
+-
Anybody tried fglrx-installer (2:8.721-0ubuntu1) lucid:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/fglrx-installer/2:8.721-0ubuntu1
--
[M76] [ubuntu 9.04] [ubuntu 9.10] slow unminimizing with ati card and desktop
effects enabled
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/351186
You received this bug notifi
bug ix NOT fixed in Catalyst fglrx 10.1. (and also not in 9.12).
Catalyst 10.1 installation will fail on x86_64 in first place:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?p=109862#post109862
But a walkaround for broken library references is known:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?
One of the recent Karmic 9.10 xorg security patches have overridden:
http://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+archive/xserver-no-backfill
Don't know which one though and don't know how to force reverting and
modifying /etc/apt/apt.conf to stick with nobackfill version.
--
[M76] [ubuntu 9.04] [ubuntu
Looks like SiS X-Server crashed upon logout:
[ 1096.753217] (EE) SIS(0): Unable to map IO aperture. Invalid argument (22)
[ 1096.753255] (EE) SIS(0): **
[ 1096.753276] (EE) SIS(0): ERROR:
[ 1096.753299] (EE) SIS(0): Could not map
The external and internal display agree on a resolution, which both displays
support. The motivation behind this algorithm for Initial Mode Selection Keith
Packard explaines in this blog:
http://keithp.com/blogs/X_output_status_july_2008/
This explains your observation of the "wrong" initial mod
The original algorithm and motivation for Initial Mode Selection Keith Packard
explained in this blog:
http://keithp.com/blogs/X_output_status_july_2008/
I agree your solution is better.
--
[GM45] Bad resulution choice for mirror mode with two 16:10 displays
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/4371
9 matches
Mail list logo
