On Monday 29 November 2004 11:46, Sid Boyce wrote:
Tim Nicholson wrote:
Having put 9.2 on a number of different systems now I have come across a common install 'difficulty' when it comes to getting sensible screen geometry refresh rates etc. On 1 occasion, after the initial boot screen the installer switched to an unsupported resolution so I couldn't see what was going on, and on another, the default screen was also unsupported so that when the system switched into 'use' mode at the end of the install I had a blank screen. (Both systems installed 9.0 flawlessly).
9.0 was good.
Having sorted out those issues, I then found adjusting the screen geometry an nightmare. Adjusting the size interacted with adjusting the position, and the final result, as shown using the Sax 'test' button, bore no relation to the results on a reboot. (Yes I did save them).
Definitely a far worse experience than either 8.2 or 9.0!
I reckon 9.2 should have been codenamed "Chamelion".
This does seem a mixed bag - apart from the (still unresolved, but work-roundable) Epson scanner issues I've so far put 9.2 on two desktops with no funny business at all. One of the easiest installs ever, in fact. Haven't taken the plunge at home yet, but probably will soon. For the record, the Matrox G550 and ageing nVidia card whose name I can't remember on those two machines setup with total ease. Sax seems fine here. Funny business. I suppose as ever trying to cope with all the hardware for i386 out there is difficult to get right. Cheers Fergus
The only trouble I had with video was with xorg.conf after I installed the nvidia driver on this XP3000+. I had to generate a new config manually to get it working with nvidia - since having no luck with sax2 some years ago, I don't use it. Video cards deployed here are FX5200, Radeon 9600 Mobility and Trident Cyber 9388. More basic, we've seen it not install on a new HD until XP was partially installed, wipe XP and you were back with the same problem, starting XP install, killing it and 9.2 installed fine, then XP wiped and it's OK. On the upgrade side, on my 64-bit AMD laptop (ATA100 HD), several tries before it finally installed - no idea why. On the AMD 3000+, eventually I had to do a new install without reformatting the 9.1 partitions - there has been some suggestion that may be ACPI turned on in the Bios may have been responsible, it had point balnk refused to install on my 120G ATA100 drive, but was OK on ATA133's. On the P-II/333 laptop, a clean install went through no problems, it detected and configured my LCD screen correctly after a non-graphical install because it only had 64M of storage. It's certainly been the toughest Linux install I've encountered and I've been using Linux since Linus first put it up for ftp some 13 years ago. Now running 2 SuSE 9.2 x86, 1 SuSE 9.2 x86_64, 1 mandrake 10.1 and 1 gentoo-2004.3 box. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====
-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk