From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262050AbTLUSWj (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:22:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261879AbTLUSWj (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:22:39 -0500 Received: from mother.ds.pg.gda.pl ([153.19.213.213]:53327 "HELO mother.ds.pg.gda.pl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262050AbTLUSWi (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:22:38 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:22:39 +0100 From: Tomasz Torcz To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6-test11 framebuffer Matrox Message-ID: <20031221182239.GA12760@irc.pl> Mail-Followup-To: Tomasz Torcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200312190314.13138.schwientek@web.de> <3FE2B717.7020502@convergence.de> <20031219213734.GA27975@irc.pl> <3FE3FC11.70009@wmich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FE3FC11.70009@wmich.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:36:49AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: > But, what's really the point in using X with matroxfb? You lose half > your memory off the bat that X cannot access and you get no added > performance or anything. It really does not seem worth it. Use 32 MiB of videoram is more than enough. And the point is: comfortable work in console (bigger resolution -> more information on screen), sometimes even with small fbtv window in corner. And ability to run browsers like mozilla in X, when it's needed. And ability to watch movies with mplayer in both. I don't understand why matroxfb has regressed in 2.6 compared to 2.4. -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. zdzichu@irc.-nie.spam-.pl Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev |> Playing: Electric Rudeboyz - Beton ...