Re: X server insists on using big virtual desktop
From: Dances With Crows (danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows_at_usa.net)
Date: 14 Feb 2004 13:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:41:56 GMT, perl coder staggered into the Black
Sun and said:
[ Running XFree86 3.3.6 on Debian/stable, framebuffer X server, using
framebuffer console, and having problems with a virtual screen much
larger than the largest defined Mode ]
> J.O. Aho said:
> the console. In other words, 1024x768. And that's exactly the
> resolution it gives me. So that part is working right at least.
So, you're using "vga=0x317" or "vga=0x318" as a boot-time parameter?
>> Section "Screen"
>> Identifier "Screen0"
>> Device "Card0"
>> Monitor "Monitor0"
>> DefaultDepth 24
>> SubSection "Display"
>> Depth 24
>> Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480" "320x200"
>> this would be a better option IMHO.
> Unfortunately that doesn't work on the framebuffer X server, at least
> not without defining custom modelines (I already tried the default
> ones and they don't work... the server just exits reporting it didn't
> find any valid modes).
This is probably a result of you running X 3.3.6. This version of X is
really outdated--the current one is 4.3.0! If you're running a
framebuffer X server, the available modes are all supposed to be
standard VESA modes (60Hz vertical refresh, etcetera.) X 4.n is much
better at autodetecting/configuring modelines than 3.3.6 is.
Why are you running the framebuffer X server, anyway? If you upgrade
your X, you could use the "sis" X server, get a video refresh rate that
wouldn't kill your eyeballs, and probably solve this problem. You don't
have to give up your framebuffer console, either--you can run VESAfb on
tty1-6 and X (non-framebuffer) on tty7; I've done just that with several
different video cards and never had a problem. (nVidia TNT2, ATi
Rage128, ATi Mach64, Neomagic 256, Neomagic 128--no direct experience
with SiS cards, sorry.)
> Just for fun, I booted into an 800x600 16bpp console, and with the
> "Modes default" setting, it makes an even bigger virtual desktop (and
> again, vertically only!), like this:
> dimensions: 800x5242 pixels (271x1775 millimeters)
> I can't imagine anybody wanting an 800x5242 virtual desktop, so I
> think the X server is on crack or something!
Probably. X 3.n had a number of problems/poor design decisions that
affected lots of things badly.
> I tried using the SVGA X server instead (since it appears to support
> SiS chipset also), but it just froze up. Hard. Even Alt-SysReq
> didn't work this time! Somehow even my keyboard's custom mapping and
> macros got deleted in this crash!
The SVGA X server finally died a well-deserved death when X 4.0.0 was
> I think I'm gonna stick with the framebuffer X server for now! :-)
Really? Once you try accelerated X, you never go back. Framebuffer's
limited to 60Hz, and it's incredibly slow if you do anything but the
simplest graphics operations.
> the framebuffer X server, I'm gonna have to start manually making my
> own modelines with the help of fbset and a calculator. :-(
Don't go there. It's not worth it. Upgrade your X instead; you'll
really like it unless all you do is open 10 xterms in your X session.
-- Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong http://www.brainbench.com / Hire me! -----------------------------/ http://crow202.dyndns.org/~mhgraham/resume