On Jan 8, 12:50*pm, EOS <heelst...********.com> wrote:
> es33...******.com wrote:
> > Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. *The
> > specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> > etc. *I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> > OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>
> > XP? No problem.
> > Win 2K3? No problem.
>
> > Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. *Wait a second, how come my screen
> > choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> > know the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> > research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> > Linux won't support this.
>
> go away, please
> i810 works on linux even out of the box.... proof?http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori.../Yast-Xorg.png
> --
> EOSwww.photo-memories.be
> Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3

Note that I didn't say Linux didn't support the i810, only that it
doesn't offer resolutions greater than 800x600 following a default
install.

"es330td******.com" <es330td******.com> writes:

>On Jan 8, 12:50=A0pm, EOS <heelst...********.com> wrote:
>> es33...******.com wrote:
>> > Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. =A0The=

>> > specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
>> > etc. =A0I decided that I would use them to try out several different
>> > OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>>
>> > XP? No problem.
>> > Win 2K3? No problem.
>>
>> > Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. =A0Wait a second, how come my screen
>> > choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
>> > know the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
>> > research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
>> > Linux won't support this.
>>
>> go away, please
>> i810 works on linux even out of the box.... proof?http://users.telenet.be/=
>photo-memories/img/YaST/Yast-Xorg.png
>> --
>> EOSwww.photo-memories.be
>> Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3

>Note that I didn't say Linux didn't support the i810, only that it
>doesn't offer resolutions greater than 800x600 following a default
>install.

Yes, it does. Sorry to rain on your complaint. Now it may be that your
particular distro and your particular installation set it to 800x600, but
mine did not. I use 1280x1024 on an i810. Sorry.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:45:37 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

> On Jan 8, 12:50Â*pm, EOS <heelst...********.com> wrote:
>> es33...******.com wrote:
>> > Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. Â*The
>> > specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
>> > etc. Â*I decided that I would use them to try out several different
>> > OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>>
>> > XP? No problem.
>> > Win 2K3? No problem.
>>
>> > Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Â*Wait a second, how come my screen
>> > choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
>> > know the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
>> > research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
>> > Linux won't support this.
>>
>> go away, please
>> i810 works on linux even out of the box.... proof?http://users.telenet.be/photo-memori.../Yast-Xorg.png
>> --
>> EOSwww.photo-memories.be
>> Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3
>
> Note that I didn't say Linux didn't support the i810, only that it
> doesn't offer resolutions greater than 800x600 following a default
> install.

And all you have to do is: start synaptic, search for intel, and install
xserver-xorg-video-intel. Hardly any more challenging that tracking down a
driver CD for MS and doing whatever it takes to install a driver for a
video card which is not natively supported.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:43:11 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:

>> The fact that you claim to be such an expert, but are using Google Groups
>> to post to Usenet damages your credibility in my eyes from the beginning.

> I'm posting this from work where I don't have USENET access. At home
> I use Forte Agent. I don't know if you have a critical opinion about
> that one as well but Google groups is not my client of choice.

Really? Every single post you've made in this thread has been from Google
Gropes, covering multiple days and times, and always using Windoze. So,
you only post from work, eh?

What does your employer think about that? Let's see a post from home, big
guy.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

es330td******.com wrote:

> Note that I didn't say Linux didn't support the i810, only that it
> doesn't offer resolutions greater than 800x600 following a default
> install.

note to your'self, do not try to be a "linux" expert
if you're not caple to install a rpm................

and i think that windows XP installs always in 800x600,
the first startup of the users he recognized a card of adjust the resoltie.
--
EOS
www.photo-memories.be
Running KDE 3.5.8 / openSUSE 10.3

"es330td******.com" <es330td******.com> wrote in news:b3fbf8af-7c3c-4f46-
a753-dce632db9414@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> I'm posting this from work where I don't have USENET access.

Give your time at work to your employer, as it should be. Quit stealing his
time. The fact that he won't allow you to access Usenet should tell you
something, right?

es330td******.com wrote:
> Recently I was given 15 circa 2001 Compaq iPaq desktop computers. The
> specs are PIII/733, 256MB, 10GB, CD or DVD. Integrated 10BaseT, video,
> etc. I decided that I would use them to try out several different
> OSes so I could compare them side by side.
>
> XP? No problem.
> Win 2K3? No problem.
>
> Ubuntu 7.1? Install went smoothly. Wait a second, how come my screen
> choices only go as high as 800x600? XP is running at 1024x768 so I
> *know* the card supports that resolution. I start doing a little
> research and find out that I have the i810 chipset and out of the box
> Linux won't support this. Hmm, why not? Windows does. I go find the
> necessary files to add the driver to my OS. I open up nano and
> edit .config files as instructed. No joy. Even after a reboot I
> still can't go higher than 800x600. F*ck it.
>
> A couple weeks later read about Fedora 8. I think "Maybe, being more
> polished RH will support the i810." I go through the install. Nope,
> I still can't go higher than 800x600. I open up google and search for
> i810 Fedora and find the name of an RPM I'm supposed to install. I
> get it and open it and it tells me a dependency failed. Ok, I go get
> that rpm and that one tells me a dependency failed. I go get that
> one, and I when I run it it tells me that a dependency failed. I go
> try to find that one (libcrypto.so.7) and it doesn't exist!
> http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/se...libcrypto.so.7
> (Okay, I know where to get it but a search engine should be a little
> smarter.)
>
> At least gentoo knows how to get additional dependencies. I'll pop in
> my 2007 Live CD tonight.
>
> I've been using Linux since Slackware .99b14 (you haven't lived until
> you download 26 1.44 MB floppy images at 2400 baud) so I am far from
> incompetent, I just wanted to see how ready for prime time various
> distros of Linux are at this point. I realize I may be being a little
> critical but my goal was to see how far I could get before I ran into
> major hurdles. I am sad to say "not very long." "People" expect
> their computers to just work. This clearly doesn't.
>
> I have yet to go the BSD route on one. We'll see how these go.

I know of others having problems with the i810-based cards in Ubuntu,
based on some things I've noticed in the Ubuntu support channel. I'm
not sure why it works for some and not others. You might find more
support from http://intellinuxgraphics.com/

I expect that hordes of people have posted essentially "not true" and
some will probably label you a troll. You could disagree with them, but
it's pointless.

Linux and Ubuntu have a ways to go, but in general once configured work
pretty well. The experience can vary vastly, depending on the stability
of the hardware drivers.

For instance, on my machine with the "restricted driver manager" I
wanted to try installing an nvidia driver rather than the nv for my
GeForce-based cards, so that I could get acceleration. I found that it
worked fine at first, but as soon as I rebooted the machine, and X
started up the screen was black, and I had to reset the machine. I
later found that the problem was that Ubuntu's restricted driver manager
was using a newer video driver, that the official nvidia installer
wouldn't even allow me to use. It seems that the nv driver initializes
some state, and the newer nvidia driver would work until rebooted, and
that state was gone. It was very frustrating to diagnose, and
unfortunately the same problem has happened to others.

Another bug was that Xorg wouldn't startup without a monitor attached to
both video cards. I assume that's a DDC or EDID -related problem.

I've also run into problems with the UVC drivers with my webcam, and I
needed to build a more recent driver myself, and replace the Ubuntu
kernel module. This is the kind of thing that drives some people away
from Linux.

Often times Linux users will blame the hardware as well, even when it's
fine with other systems. The Linux kernel has bugs, just like almost
any software with its size, features, and complexity. So, while the
kernel is usually pretty stable, and most problems are in the
applications, sometimes the kernel does have a bug.

I'm very thankful for GNU, Linux, and other free software, because it's
so useful, and considering it's free, it's not that bad.


George

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:30:16 -0600, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:43:11 -0800, es330td******.com wrote:
>
>>> The fact that you claim to be such an expert, but are using Google Groups
>>> to post to Usenet damages your credibility in my eyes from the beginning.
>
Where exactly did I claim to be an expert? I think I said I first
used Linux in the late '93/early '94 period but that no more makes me
an expert than having a driver's license makes me a race car driver or
changing my oil makes me a mechanic.

>> I'm posting this from work where I don't have USENET access. At home
>> I use Forte Agent. I don't know if you have a critical opinion about
>> that one as well but Google groups is not my client of choice.
>
>Really? Every single post you've made in this thread has been from Google
>Gropes, covering multiple days and times, and always using Windoze. So,
>you only post from work, eh?

I didn't say that I ONLY post from work, only that was posted from
work. This one isn't.

>
>What does your employer think about that? Let's see a post from home, big
>guy.

Done.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:05 -0500, Matthew Speed wrote:

>>>> The fact that you claim to be such an expert, but are using Google Groups
>>>> to post to Usenet damages your credibility in my eyes from the beginning.

> Where exactly did I claim to be an expert? I think I said I first
> used Linux in the late '93/early '94 period but that no more makes me
> an expert than having a driver's license makes me a race car driver or
> changing my oil makes me a mechanic.

You posted this to me, but I didn't say the above paragraph. Take a look
at who you're attributing to.

>>> I'm posting this from work where I don't have USENET access. At home
>>> I use Forte Agent. I don't know if you have a critical opinion about
>>> that one as well but Google groups is not my client of choice.

>>Really? Every single post you've made in this thread has been from Google
>>Gropes, covering multiple days and times, and always using Windoze. So,
>>you only post from work, eh?

> I didn't say that I ONLY post from work, only that was posted from
> work. This one isn't.

Yeah, OK. Still from Windoze, though.

>>What does your employer think about that? Let's see a post from home,
>>big guy.

> Done.

Right. Still don't see much sign of you actually using Linux, though.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".