dman declaimed: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 09:26:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | I have an nVidia GeForce 2 MX 400. I have compiled the nVidia > | drivers and it works fine. When I had originally compiled the > | 2.4.17 kernel, I had enabled the nVidia framebuffer in it. So, > | should I use it? Is their a performance increase or decrease when > | using the framebuffer. What are the advantages/dis-advantages to > | using the framebuffer? > > I suggest you try out the framebuffer and see what you think. I'm > using the framebuffer and I like it (SiS6326 and ATI Rage Mobility > P/M). The best part about the framebuffer is 1) no dealing with X > modelines (also I can fit a massive amount of characters in the > console now). The worst part is that it is slower than going straight > to the hardware. It might not be so bad for you, though, since you > can use a framebuffer implementation that is specifically for your > card. Those are supposed to be accelerated. I can only use the VESA > framebuffer (unaccelerated) on my hardware. > > -D
I just got the matroxfb stuff working on my G400, very nice. I append "video=matrox:vesa:261" in LILO to get a great looking console. Next step is to hook up the 2nd head. Heh! Read the Framebuffer HOWTO and the docs in <kernel>/Documetnation/fb Paul -- Paul Mackinney | Another look at Sept 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.copvcia.com/
