Slashdot Mirror
Configuring Monitors in X
Another Anonymous Coward submitted this question: "
Everyone that I know, myself included, has had some trouble getting X11 configured under Linux. If your monitor doesn't happen to "work with X" right off the bat, it seems that you're out of luck. Why is it that I can plug my generic 17" monitor into any old Windows box and get 1024x768, but it won't work at ALL with my Linux box yet I can plug in my Sony Trinitron 15" and it works just fine? We're using the latest version of X, of course. Even Windows 3.1 didn't have the sort of monitor problems that plague X. I see this as being one of the biggest installation headaches for beginners *and* advanced users of the Linux OS." Ah yes: Modelines. I know there are programs that help with this. Which ones do you all suggest?
Actually, I could have sworn we had done an Ask Slashdot on this, but as time passes improvements are made, so I don't mind doing another article on the subject. Just via a quick search on the web, I've found:
- Modeline
- and kvideogen (I'd bet there is a Gnome version of this as well)
- This page that has a simple, web based, Modeline calculator.
So if anyone has tried the above resources, we'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how they work. If you know of other Modeline resources, please post links. I don't see why X11 has to have the reputation as "difficult to configure" when the tools to do such are out there.
Just a thought: Would including Modeline functionality in configurators like Linuxconf be a good idea?
Red Hat includes a text-mode tool called Xconfigurator, which walks you through several steps to create an X config file. It automatically probes for your video card, and lets you choose from a long list of monitors. You can choose what video modes and color depths you want (or let it probe for those too), and it writes an XF86Config file. If you don't have the program, you can download it as an i386 RPM or source RPM.
I've done more than my share of pencil and paper work in order to configure X11 (even before the days of XFree86). What still puzzles me is that for Windows you get some .inf files with your monitor that contains everything there is to know about it (at least I assume that's what these files are for, I acutally never opened one).
Would it be possible to just use these .inf files and extract just the information XFree86 needs to configure the monitor?
I'm sure someone will tell me now how understanding how modelines work is good for the soul, kind of like self-flagellation, and I should spend 3 or 4 hours doing that, instead of my job. Let me issue a preemptive "bite me" to anyone inclined to recommend that.
Corel Linux's installer seems to probe your monitor the same way that Windows does. I was quite impressed when I was beta testing it and went to /etc/devices, the exact modelines for my monitor were right there, one for each of it's four favorite modes. Too bad I didn't save that when I switched back, I could have this baby running at 85Hz!
Wow! I had no idea that so many people have problems getting X to work. I always thought that I would have more trouble than most with my new and unsupported video card! I use an ATl All-inWonder 128 thingy, and I can get 1280x1024 using xf86config (and I did it wilest being a newbie)! I guess that I'm lucky to have a Trinitron... I'm not trying to brag, but... I didn't know that getting X to work was so hard!
Try XFree86Setup, it is included in Debian, RH.
What I find most interresting, is that XFree86 3.9.x dosen't need modelines, thow you can have them. I had to create some modelines to get my 21 inch monitor to work, without them, it tried to use a slightly higher resolution than the configuration file told it to, and it looked all weird, but i finaly got it to work, after lots of battaling with it.
Almost all (even generic) monitors come with some sort manual which mentions the horizontal and vertical frequency ability range. Using Xfree86setup, you just have to fill in this range and off you go! All refresh rates and other capabilities are determined automaticly by this (and your video card, of course). Never had any problem setting up X, even on obsolete monitors.
I was very impressed with sndconfig - it got my sound card working perfectly , instantly.
Why does the red hat installation not mention it at all? They could at least mention it, and say "it doesn't work for every card but would you like to try to configure your sound card now?"
I was fortunate enough to remember the sndconfig command from a slashdot forum discussion a long time ago. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known about it at all.
Juln
As always, things like this swing both ways. I don't complain too much about the X configuration and the modelines. In fact, my biggest problem with X has traditionally been to get the keyboard correctly installed and not the monitor. I like X and I like modelines, they make my monitor go 110Hz instead of 90Hz which the Windows drivers refuse to cross.
The first few sentences seem like he's being facetious, but I think this person was just making an earnest statement.
Juln
People would post dozens of times every day how well Linux runs on systems that neither Win95 nor Win98 support properly, if it wasn't so commonplace and boring. I just switched to Linux as a desktop OS on my laptop ("designed for Windows 98" - the sticker is now on my toilet seat) because I hated the way it ran out of memory (64MB physical, 80MB virtual) whenever I opened 2 different web browsers simultaneously and that it crashed regularly for no apparent reasons (the reason why I waited so long to switch was that my Philips USB webcam and my crappy Neomagic audio wasn't properly supported and both work fine now - better than on Win98 with so-called official vendor support).
Yes, I'm paranoid and self-righteous and impolite, but I'm still right. :-/
I've done plenty of setups and I haven't run into any problems yet. I use RH which has the xconfig setup thingy during installation, however I choose the default values and I DON'T choose the init 5 runlevel. Just boot into multiuser text mode and start playing around the the X settings. As for modelines, surely there must be a config for you in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc/Monitors ? Just take the generic (S)VGA modelines and run xvidtune to adjust your screen.
my new spiffy toshiba has a button that you can press and it tells you the current frequency range and recommended timing, and you can look at the info for other resoulutions, all on a handy on screen display!
Juln
one advantage having such a low resolution is that the porn would be blew up at such an amazingly large size....mmmmmmm
I tried first looking at my monitor documentation and figuring out the capabilities and adjusting the configuration file accordingly. In the end it didn't work too well and I just ended up choosing the preconfigured option of "High Freguency SVGA 1024x768 @70hz" /w h 31.5-57 v 50-70. Didn't need to know much else about the monitor brand or type etc. Works great and seems to be one of the settings my monitor is actually calibrated for(It could do higher but not calibrated and that wouldn't look so nice).
Don't want to be a sore head, but I usered XF*^Setup and got 1024x768 in my old 14" Hi-micro. So use that it comes with RH and Debian....
No X utility gets it right. I prefer xf86config, because it has an option to set the virtual desktop larger than the physical, and it gets it right. It just doesn't deal with refreshes rate, though, and I guess it won't ever.
The only one that ever got it right was the utility Number9 included with their 330/332/772 series video cards. Hit all the bases, refresh rate, resolution, bit depth, virtual screen, in one handy interface. It was Win31. It's wonderful hardware for business use. Stability beats anything out there today.
Gawd, there were some great interfaces for DOS and early WinDoze. At least KDE is picking up some of them. If they could only fix KMail. Why does it recover messages deleted days ago when I restart it?
Whats so hard about entering your horizontal and vertical frequencies? xf86config does everything else.
I am very naive on this issue here - I assumed that VESA DDC eliminated configuration of refresh rates by informing the system of this info at boot up? Windows '98 seems to know exactly what the "optimal" refresh rates are for any monitor/video board combination manufactured after 1996(and some older ones)
...
Is this a case of Linux distros just not shipping with support for this? It seems if it were as simple as a querying the BIOS somehow at bootup, we would have this issue licked.
Excerpt from Windows registry for Vision Graphic 19" monitor:
.
.
.
MaxResolution 1600x1200
MonitorRanges 30-95,50-150,+,+
EDID 00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 28 ae c7
DPMS 1
.
.
.
The only missing component is knowing the limitations of the video board and how to set it.
I like SuSE's SAX quite a lot, because I could never get a good XF86Config with other tools. I just use autoprobe for my video card and then select a monitor and it works automagically. :)
I've got a Toshiba Portege 3010. It has a port expander that allows me to plug in a second monitor. There's a button labeled 'Fn' that pressed with 'F5' switches the display to either monitor or both.
I was wondering if there is a way to use this to create a dual-headed display?
http://www.inria.fr/cgi-bin/nph-col as-modelines
Get your monitor manual and look up the parameters (max hor/vert refresh rate, etc). I was able to get 1536x1152 @ 95Hz for my Iiyama, veeery nice...
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
I have only set up X under Redhat, and so with the advantage of xf86config.
I have installed it on about half a dozen systems, with quite different monitors (from a very bad 15 inch to at quite nice 20 inch trinitron.)
I have never had a problem, BUT I have ALLWAYS LOOKED UP THE SPECS for the monitor and entered the CORRECT values for both V and H refresh.
Perhaps the key here is to RTFM.
-Peter
PS: This is intended as a serious post. Just because I use the phrase RTFM does not make it a troll!!
Why not use CDDB as a model for this sort of thing. Keep the monitor specific parameters on line somewhere, and make a generic setup utility that fits on a 640X480 screen which all monitors do. Then pull down the virtual .inf file from the site, compare to a similar site for video, (same site) and then compare them, and present the user with the choices. Why not build on the windows looking interface? Would be a good thing for Andover.net or CNET to provide to the consumer community. John Westerdale
I've configured at least 50 different boxes (albiet with RedHat) Heck the system I'm on has a fixed frequency monitor off of an old Sun IPX. If you're sure that things are hopeless, go get an OLD CHEAP S3 video card and try it there. If you can get close, use xvidtune to fine tune your settings and get the modelines from it. Better yet, find who will give you a fixed frequency for free and enjoy a 19-21 freeby monitor.
This approach could be used for storing various (moderated) user feedback about the monitors, along with success/failure stories about what it works well with...
Also, once we have XF86 4, we could do similar with the driver source (even having precompiled binary drivers for each processor type -- since the loading mechanism is independant of the OS...)
John
John_Chalisque
Personally, I've never had any trouble getting a system working with X (although the monitor may not have been configured as optimally as I'd have liked). But I did think to myself while looking up scan rates that there has got to be a better way. And I think the volume of posters that agree with this issue would underscore the fact this is a real problem, not some phantom issue being raised to suggest "X is inferior to Win 3.11."
My suggestion to people that think like this: Get off your high horse! The original poster was making an honest observation about the quality of X configuration. If we attack posts where people come forward and ask "Why does it have to be this way?", others will be afraid to come forward and point out areas where we can improve. We need to be strong enough to recognize that Linux and its associated applications and tools are not the end-all be-all they can be, and be willing to take this as constructive criticism that points out where we need to start working on improvements.
Nope. It's the same screen (same video card, same video memory, etc). No way to split it so that you get different things to the monitor and LCD. You'd need a second video card for that.
It is strange that the Xfree86 manual is that bad at describing how modelines works. It even uses the word "magic"! In fact, the SVGATextMode docs are quite good at describing, by example, how they work. The description is in the file creating_textmodes_from_scratch.HOWTO in the SVGATextMode dist.
In fact, modelines aren't as hard as people likes to say. I'l try to explain them roughtly (Please read the SVGATextMode doc before creating any modelines, though, while I won't cover all aspects):
A modeline consists of five parts - name, dot pitch, horizontal values, vertical values and optional parameters. The name is a name to assign the modeline to be able to refere to it later on (In the screen section, for instance). The dot pitch is the number of pixels to draw each second, in Mhz (Note that you should check the abilities of your graphics card before setting this value). Each of the vertical and horizontal part has the same format. They consists of bfour values each - the size of the visible area, the sync start and end and the size of the total area.
A monitor needs some extra "black" space at the end of each line and at the end of the screen. The visible area, plus this "margin" forms the total area. For most monitors, the unviewable area should be about 25% of the visible area horizontally, and about 5% of the visible area vertically.
The sync is a signal sent after each completed line, and after each completed screen, in order for the monitor to start drawing pixels at the same moment as the graphics card starts sending pixels.
Note that the start and end of the sync is stated in pixels, not microseconds (Remember that we know the number of pixels per second). This may crate the somewhat obscure situation of sync start and ends being fragments of pixels (i.g. 800.25).
For most monitors, this signal is to be emitted just after the visible area. The vertical sync should be just a few lines for most monitors. The horizontal sync should be about 2 microseconds in with, or for really low-frequency monitors, somewhat longer (3ms).
The start of the syncs is what centers your visible area on the monitor. You may experiment with adding or subtracting some microseconds to them after calculating them, to center the image nicely.
Note that the start of the sync may _never_ be before the end of the visible are as well as the end of it may _never_ end after the end of the total area!
As a last not, there is one parameter to add at the end of the modeline that I'l describe: DoubleScan. It forces the graphics card to draw each line twice. This will reduce the the resolution to the half vertically. This is to any use mostly when you need some low resolution (For displaying MPEG videos, for instance) on a fixed sync monitor.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
This might be a little offtopic, but...
I installed Red Hat 5.2 as a clueless newbie, but was pleased to find that the video probing went quite well, letting me see a rather pretty display of 1024x768 on my 17". Clueless newbie that I was, however, in a few days I was so confused and thought I'd gunked up so much that I formatted the partition and installed Red Hat 6.
6, however, DID NOT support my video. I ended up reinstalling 5.2 and then installing 6 on top of it.
Now I've learned my lesson--just use the XF86Config file from 5.2 instead of a whole new installation--but this puzzles me. Why would an earlier version support something that a later version didn't?
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
In my experience with the various distros, I noticed that Corel gave me a refresh rate of 60hz with the 1024x768x16bit mode it chose for me.
Caldera, OTOH, gave me a much more solid 80hz, since it actually knew what my (Philips) monitor was capable of.
RedHat (Ok, Mandrake) gave me 75hz, since it didn't know my monitor, but I gave it the ranges for refresh and it decided that was good enough.
Illegitimi non carborundum
1. Use xf86config
2. Know your monitor specs and specify them correctly when the xf86config program asks
When I say monitor specs I mean - the ranges in khz (horizontal scan rate?) and hz. (vertical refresh rate) xf86config will ask questions like: I have a monitor that can do 1024x768 @ 70Hz, if this is what it can do in Windows then use it.
I think most of the problems experienced by Linux users are probably from trying to get 1152x864 and other Sun (or "non-standard") modes to work on monitors that were not designed for that.
I wrote my own modeline a long time ago to get 1152x864 on my ADI Microscan 4v - but I wouldn't recommend it now, especially as my Microscan now plays up a fair bit.
Anyone know the rates for an Impression 3? It doesn't say on their web site. I tried mailing and they said "This monitor is more than 5 years old, I can find the spec. you are looking for. But I know monitor is equivalent to an IBM 8514 model under the Win95/98 monitor list. You can try using that driver or a standard vga driver."
Doesn't exactly help, does it?
I like this idea. I like the fact that it works in a contributory way. This way, even people who are not necessarily programmers can get in on making some contribution to Free Software.
Windows uses the lowest common denominator. Many people run Windows at 60Hz refresh, although their monitor is capable of a higher refresh. X, attempts to extract optimal performance from the hardware that you have. But you have to work for it. Then there's the whole manufacturer and who they make an effort to support issue. This is not X's fault. Email manufacturers and tell them you want to see support for your platform in their product. I know this requires effort on your part too. Boohoo. The moral of this story is, if you're lazy and would rather settle for less, run Windows (please!). If you expect more from your system, your system should of course expect a bit more from you.
And it is totally impossible to use for configuring fixed sync monitors.
What I really would like is an extended Monitor database (There is one in the XF86Config dist, but it's too small), so that I would just type in the name of my monitor and be done.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this before..
:)
I have a Diamond V770 Ultra (TNT2-Ultra) with
32megs of RAM. I also have a "21 monitor which
claims to have a max resolution of 1600x1200.
BUT..
In Win98 I run at a res of 2048x1536.
Yep. Thats right.. 2048x1536. Thats the MAX
my video card will go, and my monitor can handle
it.. and I do notice a big difference between
that res and the common 1600x1200.
My monitor is a Hitachi CM751U.. Its specs are:
Horizontal - 31-95 kHz
Vertical - 50-160 Hz
Video Clock Frequency - 200 Mhz (typical)
Resolution - Horizontal - Up to 1,600 dots
Vertical - Up to 1,280 dots
My question is though.. I always see the MAX
resolutions for Xfree86 at 1600x1200. Can't
it go higher? I'd love to have the same
resolution in Xwindows. I thought perhaps maybe
the Xconfigurations tools out there just maxed
out at 1600x1200, but perhaps by manual configuration a higher resolution might be gained.
I really HATE modelines though and would rather
not try to figure it out myself.
So.. Is higher then 1600x1200 even POSSIBLE in Xwindows or Xfree86? And if so.. HOW?
Thanks,
-Matthew
Technetos, Inc.
From my experience, LCDs don't work too well with X. They are a pain due to their phase settings and limited resolution...
what's the deal with the settings on lcds? i've got the v/h rates and stuff correct and it's still not working too well... I can't see a way to replicate the modelines to get the same optimal display rate and resolution as in windows.
Are there any programs that run in Windows that grabs the modelines and present it in xf86config form?
I had the fortunate problem of trying to figure out the modelines for a 24" monitor that is capable of doing 1920x1200. I looked for weeks trying to figure it out. Finally, I found this guy's perl script that would convert, Matrox's mga.mon file to a bunch of modelines. mga.mon
/^\[\*/ ) {
/([0-9]+X[0-9]+)[^0-9]/i; _ sync_pol=$v_disp=""; e _enable="";
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
/([0-9]+)/;
a trox/MGA/WINNT/mga.mon
has a lot of monitor's including my 24" sony. I went searching on the web for this perl script, and now I can't find it. So I can't give the guy who wrote it credit, but here it is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
open(MGA, 'mga.mon');
while () {
if (
$_ =~ s/\r//; # chop ^Ms
($name = $_) =~ s/^\[\*([^\]]*)\].*/\1/;
print "# ".$name;
($mode = $1) =~ s/X/x/;
print "Modeline \"$mode\" ";
$pixel_clk=$h_disp=$h_fporch=$h_sync=$h_bporch=$h
$v_fporch=$v_sync=$v_bporch=$v_sync_pol=$interlac
do {
$_=;
chop;
$_ =~ s/\r//; # chop ^Ms
$go="";
if (/^PIXEL_CLK/) {
($pixel_clk = $_) =~ s/PIXEL_CLK\s*=\s*//;
print !$pixel_clk;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^H_DISP/) {
$h_disp = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^H_FPORCH/) {
$h_fporch = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^H_SYNC_POL/) {
$h_sync_pol = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^H_SYNC/) {
$h_sync = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^H_BPORCH/) {
$h_bporch = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^V_DISP/) {
$v_disp = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^V_FPORCH/) {
$v_fporch = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^V_SYNC_POL/) {
$v_sync_pol = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^V_SYNC/) {
$v_sync = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^V_BPORCH/) {
$v_bporch = $1;
$go="yes";
} elsif (/^INTERLACE_ENABLE/) {
$interlace_enable = $1;
$go="yes";
}
} while ( $go );
print $pixel_clk / 1000 . " ";
print "$h_disp ";
$h_disp += $h_fporch;
print "$h_disp ";
$h_disp += $h_sync;
print "$h_disp ";
$h_disp += $h_bporch;
print "$h_disp ";
print "$v_disp ";
$v_disp += $v_fporch;
print "$v_disp ";
$v_disp += $v_sync;
print "$v_disp ";
$v_disp += $v_bporch;
print "$v_disp ";
print $h_sync_pol == 0 ? "+HSync " : "-HSync ";
print $v_sync_pol == 0 ? "+VSync\n" : "-VSync\n";
}
}
close(MGA);
Anyway, you can find a copy of mga.mon, bundled
with most matrox stuff. I don't remember where I found mine but I just looked on ftpsearch and
found a copy (not sure how recent or complete it is)...
ftp://ftp.univ-st-etienne.fr/pub/driver/Video/M
It seems we have two schools of thought on this.
1) Get your monitor specs, plug 'em in and go with XF86Setup (or Xconfigurator)
2) We need some kind of auto-configure program that does it all for you.
This is the perfect example of the two opposing views for Linux. Do we keep it as it has been, not the most user friendly system in the world (actually requiring computer know-how to use the computer) but very configurable and powerful, or do we make it easy for anyone (Like a Mac) but not as configurable or powerful?
It seems everytime a graphical interface or "program-to-make-linux-easier" comes out, it detracts from the "power" or the stability of linux. I've seen many graphical configuration tools and they all have some kind of tradeoff.
My fear is that when we finally make it easier for the lowest common denominator to use, with it goes it's power and the whole reason we switched from Microsoft to begin with.
Should we even do this? Do we really want to change things to make it easier for EVERYONE (read: computer illerate)?
Finkployd
YaST2 the new installer from the SuSE autoprobes your graphiccard and the monitor! (Monitorprobing works only with newer monitors)
;-)
But you can't use YaST2 only for the X-Configuration. Only for X you can use SuSEs SAX. It autoprobes the graphiccard, mouse and you only need to choose the moitor. (Dont know if the new version can probe monitors too?)
Sax is a fine rocksolid oll. I like it very much. But with new graphical installation in all the new Distributions like SuSE(the best!) RH and Caldera you dont need it. Very bad isn't it
Mike
Strange, I have the same problem, but the other way around: My (old, admittedly) monitor works perfectly in X, but not in Windows. The reason being that to run 800x600 and higher it requires an interlaced video mode, and there are no windows drivers which will give me that. With XF86Setup, I just enter "30-38 kHz, 50-100 Hz" and it just works, giving me 1024x768 in 16-bit color. In Windows, on the other hand, I can at most get a distorted 800x600, at the very edge of the monitor's capabilities.
The only way I can think of to get 1024x768 in Windows is to switch in my trusty old Trident 8900C, which is only capable of interlaced video in high resolutions, but then I can't get an acceptable colordepth... And that's one of the reasons I never run Windows on my box, except for emergencies (maybe once a year or so).
There's no need to be bitter about it. You can always edit XF86Config after the installation to "optimize" the modelines. I don't want to, though, and neither do most people. I see it as a big waste of time for me. I was setting up Linux on my Compaq with an Optiquest monitor, and had a great deal of trouble figuring out just what modelines would do what I wanted. And you know, all I wanted was the VESA standard modes! I scrounged around for any documentation, eventually found some, and labouriously calculated modelines that my monitor recognizes as VESA standard. I do not want to do this ever again.
If anyone wants my modelines, e-mail me. I'd be happy to share. They go up to 1600x1200/85 Hz.
Less than a week ago, we were trying to set up an IBM laptop with Linux to output to an LCD projector for our User Group meeting, and the only mode that worked was text. This was embarassing and threw a bucket of cold water on the affair. Despite a fair amount of expertise, we couldn't get it working. Next time, I'll bring my VESA modelines and see if they work, but I hadn't expected to need them. :-(
I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
This is the first machine that I've had problems with as far as resolutions go. Works fine in 1024x768 (except the last 3 or 4 pixels of the screen are missing). Other res's I've tried just don't work. 640x480 and 800x600 just cause a blank (white) screen.
Anyone got any ideas?
Email: animx.eu.org@wakko (reverse that)
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
In other words, some people need to remember that the the strength of open source is not that programs don't need to be improved, but that they can be improved. Any time someone says: "Doing foo is easy, just do:
I always think, then write a program to perform steps 1.,2.,3. since that's the kind of thing computers excel at; then we can leave the stuff like drawing, writing, communicating, playing, etc. to people, who excel at that sort of thing.
The fact that something is 'simple' to do does not make it easy for the average person. The thing that sets geeks apart from normal people is the ability to see things compartmentalized into their most basic components. I think most people think a great deal more holistically.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
It gets better refresh rates than KVideoGen or the other calculators I've found.
If you have Perl/Tk, you can run the X version with the command xvidcalc, or the command line version with vidcalc (try "vidcalc -h" first).
I did a lot of work on the caclulations to ensure that the resulting modeline was optimal in terms of refresh rate. You have to enter the specs for your monitor (either in the X interface or a settings file), so it's not for the faint of heart; you should probably look through ESR's VideoTimings HOWTO first.
Let me know how it works for you, ggbaker@sfu.ca.
Greg
I've not had to really tweak the monitor settings much unless I wanted to (which I did but only because I'm a geek).
For me it's always been the setup of the video cards. If the autoprobe stuff doesn't work then you have to be a geek to get stuff up and running.
Either way this should be addressed, the whole video setup is a bit confusing to the average person. Still, it's far more simple than getting most audio cards to work.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Matrox has supported 1152x864 for some time (just more of the high-quality of Matrox 2D), but lots of cards seem to support it now.
Due to some weird interactions and Windows insanity on a system I was working on recently, I ended up playing with a Voodoo3 and a Creative Labs TNT2 board. Both specifically mention 1152x864.
I personally find 1152x864 to be the ideal resolution for a 17 inch monitor... especially if you have a monitor that won't do 1280x1024 at over 60Hz.
I spent a good deal of time messing around with modelines. This is my home box. I am happy that the configurability is there, even if i spent the better part of a day going over it and ESR's howto on monitor timings. I squeezed out higher resolutions with this monitor than what windoze would allow me to use. I am pleased.
Try reading ESR's excelent video-tuning how-to.
People were able to run every monitor-card configuration using this document.
Ballerinas have fins that you'll never find
What would prevent someone from taking all the distributions, taking all the good stuff from each, gluing them together, and making a really nice Linux distribution? Thinking only about quality and usability, and not bloat (let this thing take up 5 CD-ROMs) or 5-year-uptime stability (allow it to crash occasionally on some computers while improving usability (a major tradeoff, but this can be fixed a little later)) how long would it really take to do something like this?
Disclaimer: This isn't a mocking statement or sarcasm, this is a question. No offense intended.
--
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/unix/modeline/
I'm a relative beginner to Linux, but have had my share of trying out different Linux distros and can find my way around now.
But while setup of the OS is usually painless, setting up the X server has to be the most annoying and crappiest part of the setup. You Linux people are always saying how MS blows etc... but they seem to have a system that works for detecting video cards and monitors, and we're not talking of a system that doesn't work, it works 99% of the time.
The Linux way requires you to know a great deal of stuff you shouldn't have to bother finding out.
1 - Windows doesn't auto-config anything. It just reads .inf files provided either on the windows CD, or by the monitor manufacturer. These contain modelines for that monitor. they're a little different from the X versions, but clearly the same thing. As has been stated previously, they are a small subset of the possible modelines, limiting the usefulness of your hardware. 2 - Auto-configuring isn't really possible. If all monitors could be probed for refresh rates, etc, then it would be. But this isn't always possible. Yes, there are utilites for calculating modelines. Yes, they are very simple to use, and require only that you have access to your monitor specs. No, they don't quite cover every situtation... sometimes you do need to know a bit about configuration. It's rare though. You'll be thankful for the text-editable config file alternative if you ever have to install some weird and whacky monitor/card combination that doesn't quite agree with Xconfigurator.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Didn't you mother ever tell that it was better to keep your mouth closed and be believed a fool than to open it and so remove all doubt.
PHP instead of Perl? Bullshit. We've got 50-100 Perl programs in mission critical positions at our firm. They cannot be rewritten into PHP. Not that we'd want to, of course. They are regular programs, not webscriptkiddie abortions!
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, you idiot.
Good stuff but it didn't work for me. Perhaps because I use a more recent perl. I fixed it up a little and put the new code here.
Note that what is fixed on a fixed sync monitor is the vertical and horizontal sync, i.e. the time it takes to draw one line, and to draw a screen (And therefore the number of lines is fixed). The time to draw one pixel is not fixed. This means that you may change the horizontal but not vertical resolution (Altough, you may still use DoubleScan).
Also not that you should check your monitor manual for sync frequency ranges or values (Depending on if it's a multi-sync) before you create any modelines. Using too high frquences, or just the wrong ones may damage your monitor (But in reality such damage is very rare, and I've never experienced it, altough I've been doing things quite wrong a lot of times (When I didn't have any manual for the monitor))!
Sorry for not putting this into the main text, but I was in a hurry...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Here's an essay that explains why people misuse "least common denominator" in a way that shows how dumb they are. Here's more math background if you're still confused.
A troll is essentially someone being obnoxious.
In this case, it is something a moderator (who should know better) considered to be unpleasant. Oh well, there's always Meta-Moderation.
Along with the introduction of Windows 95 and the whole wave of pnp devices, came a standard for monitors that allows software to query them about their capabilities (resolutions, refresh rates, ...). What is needed is just an interface for this functionality that would to query the monitor and dynamically create a list of possible modelines. I think this is urgently needed as so many new monitors appear everyday and it is impossible to keep up with a decent list of them with all their capabilities. When you look at it, Windows isn't all bad and does have a few capabilities Linux users wouldn't mind having. Axel
You know, yesterday I was on the phone trying to help my mom with her windows 95 monitor settings. She works in a library, and someone changed the settings, and "now the icons are smaller". It took a good 15 minutes to clearly explain what fundemental concepts such as resolution and color depth were. Gawd, I wish she had a Mac instead...
Point: Linux is going to have to go really far in making these types of things really simple if it's going to gain acceptance in the home computing world. Let's just hope that when monitor/video card configuration becomes a standard, consistant part of linux, it's not just a mimic of a Windows application (like so many other things are).
(BTW, I censored the subject line 'cause I fear lawyers)
_______
2B1ASK1
If anyone out there is using a NEC MultiSync 5d, and has gotten it to go over 1152x864 please tell me how! I did it in windows, but in X I can't get it to work. I don't have the manual, and a search of the net was pretty much fruitless. I found lots of stuff about the other Nec MultiSync 5x models, but nothing about the 5d.
Along with the introduction of Windows 95 and the whole wave of pnp devices, came a standard for monitors that allows software to query them about their capabilities (resolutions, refresh rates, ...).
What is needed is just an interface for this functionality that would allow X to query the monitor and dynamically create a list of possible modelines. I think this is urgently needed as so many new monitors appear everyday and it is impossible to keep up with a decent list of them with all their capabilities.
When you look at it, Windows isn't all bad and does have a few capabilities Linux users wouldn't mind having.
Axel
Is there some auto-detect thing that other operating systems do to figure out what a monitor can do that XF86 doesn't do?
There must be some reason that i don't need to know about modelines until i try to get X working.
always worked well, and involved a lot less reentering of the wheel than xf86config. YMMV.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Something I've wondered since going through the hassle of getting X to work properly with my AcerNote 373 (800x600, 65550 C&T) is what do I have to do to get it to talk to an external.. particularly the nice Proxima projector at the office. Under Win, I just plugged the thing in, hit the key combination, and I had both displays up.
Will the basic XF86Config I have drive the external without modification, or will I have to modify it?
jmax @ portal.ca
A troll is a post intentionally worded to generate response ---- hence the name.
One big reason that at least newer monitors work with Win9X so well, is that they're plug and play monitors. They just tell Windows what timings they need for each resolution, and then it works. Of course, you need a PNP monitor, and possibly a recent graphics card, but it's still a breeze.
:) and maybe Jenny Linux Girl tried it before, and submitted the modeline(s), then Joe Average has it easy. What does anyone else think?
XFree needs PNP monitor support (Unless 3.9.x/4.x has/will have it) as well as some sort of user submitted modeline database for old monitors. I think a user submitted modeline database that could be included in a distro would be great. So that if Joe Average has some crappy no-name 14" (8.5" viewable
i have an HP 2940A monitor...can we say fixed frequency? Windows could do like 1280x1024 ONLY. With X, after messing around ALOT with modelines, i can do 800x600 1024x768 1162x864 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 (which i currently use).
:)
a 20 inch monitor for 75 bucks, and i've made it work pretty damn good i'll say
I didn't think so. :-> I know I haven't, even though:
1. I have them, since I have the manual for my monitor and the specs are in it.
2. I told myself I would.
If even a small fraction of Linux users contributed their monitor specs to the X monitor database, this problem would go away quickly. Since I have never found any of my monitors (probably about five or so) in that database, I can only assume no one is doing it.
Since I haven't done it myself, maybe there's a reason for this I don't know about (like the database is really hard to contribute to), but I suspect it's more that too many Linux users are leeches nowadays, looking to get something for nothing, myself included.
Since I don't like thinking of myself as a leech, I just checked out the XFree86 FAQ. I didn't find anything about contributing to the monitor database, but I did find this list of places to find monitor info on the net:
http://www.xfree86.org/FAQ/#MONITORS
Now I have a new monitor and every thing works great. :) but it would have been nice of X to be able to somehow find out what windows was running automatically.
this is funny, I want linux, it is better, but I dont' want to put in any extra effort.
My monitor runs much nicer under Xfree then Win95, more stable picture, sharper image. try as I might the win95 driver selection thing just won't give the same results.
I would love to see modelines ported to win95, yes they can be a pain, but if you can be bothered to set them up, you deserve it, and if they REALLY bother you, why don't YOU fix it, the source it out there.
If you really want to take full advantage of your monitor, then read the Modeline Howto. (the one by ESR) It'll be well worth your time. I used to run an old Nec Multisync II and used the modeline howto to tweak the very last bit of resolution out of the monitor that I could. (And I found out just how much I dislike interlaced modes!) Right now I have an old pseudo-fixed-frequency IBM 6091-19 that I have running in modes all the way from 640x480 (certain games) up to 1280x1024. If I hadn't read through the modeline howto, I probably would have never gotten it working.
For those of you out there having trouble with your monitors, try searching the manufacturer's website for specs. If that doesn't work, then try searching dejanews with the name/model of the monitor and the keyword "spec*". This has almost always worked for me. If neither of these approaches works, then you can always try fooling around with conservative settings and gradually working your way up to higher resolutions/refresh rates. (Note that I am NOT responsible if you toast your monitor or video card!) If you're trying new modes out in your XF86Config file, make sure you're never more than a Ctrl-Alt-(+/-) away from a "safe" mode. (cref: Modeline Bondage)
If you have some new, high-powered monitor, then you may never have to muck with figuring out your own modelines, but if you're using old, discarded hardware, which is where linux shines, then it can *really* improve the usability of your display. Trust me: if you can use a calculator, then you can write your own modelines, and you may very well get _better_ ones than you'd get from xf86config.
zeke
I was most impressed with Caldera's as it had a larger database than Mandrake (2.3 vs 6.1). Of course, i suppose with each iteration, these will improve.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
At one time, I want looking for a modeline generator and found this one. I was surprised to see all sorts of weird resolutions in the results, like 1448x1086. Much to my surprise, that one actually worked on my monitor, which isn't rated for anything higher than 1280x1024. So, the question is: Why doesn't anyone talk about or offer resolutions other than the familiar 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc? It doesn't seem there's anything magical about these numbers at all.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
that XFree86 got this reputation due to shortcomings in the "easy" configuration programs, such as XF86Setup, XConfigurator.
.inf file for the info we need, does anybody here know what'd be involved in doing that?
I haven't used Corel, haven't used Caldera in a while, haven't used RedHat 6.2 either, so i can't speak for the latest of any of those.
But the kicker was, even if you did know the sync range, if you used the most popular consumer distribution, RedHat, you were shit outa luck unless it was on their list.
For those lacking an irrational fear of linearly-scripted text mode configuration, xf86config has always allowed you to enter a custom sync range, and it's calculations are pretty decent.
SuSE's x configuration app, SaX, is a TCL/TK based graphical configuration app that tends to do a great job, too.
The only real problem is getting ahold of the sync numbers. I sure wish manufacturers would just print it on the back of the monitor. I tend to use a fine point perminant marker to scribble it over the FCC info on mine, in case i have to reinstall.
But there are several ways of getting those numbers. I'll suggest a few.
RTFM: this is the most obvious. I've got no sympathy for you if you've got the manual and insist that you shouldn't have to read it.
Windows: A lot of Win9x video drivers will spit out the sync range if you get into the "advanced" display settings. Handy if you use dual boot. I know that nVidia's drivers do this, for one.
deja.com: somebody else out there probably already asked for help with it. make sure you tell it to search "all" messages. it's idea of "recent" is getting pretty freakin recent these days.
manufacturer web site: They just might have had the presence of mind to publish it online.
altavista/metacrawler: Someone else might have too.
email the manufacturer: if you're lucky they might respond.
Steal a manual: if it's a current model, CompUSA or similar might have one on hand they'll let you photocopy. Even if it's not, a store that sold it locally might have the specs on hand in their service department. I know when i worked on the service end of the industry years ago I hoarded that information. Believe me, the tech will sympathise with your plight. Imagine how they feel when someone dumps something on their table and says "make it work" - they know what it's like to pray for documentation.
I agree with a previous poster that it would be really nice if we could just parse a windows "monitor driver"
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Awhile back on slashdot there was mention of an XFree86 Modeline Database on the web... the URL is http://www.netmaster.ca/fvlug/monitor/. Give it your montior's name and it spits out Modelines. You can also submit your monitor's info for others.
---
Different automated tools that exist to create or select modelines work with different degrees of succsess. However, what one really needs as a good personal backup solution in the case these tools fail is a private database of typically used modes. Monitors file from doc directory of XFree installation is a good place to start. You can copy all modes people have created, indentify individual ones and sort them by resolution and dotclock. (For ignorant, dotclock is the first numeric value in the modeline definition).
.... etc (the same for other resolutions). Once you have such private database built, I doubt you will ever find a monitor that does not work.
Thus, you may have "1024x768a", "1024x768b",
I built my database five years ago and I have never come across the monitor that I could not configure in five minutes. What I need to know is what the monitors capabilities are (approximately) and I immediately can take the appropriate modelines from my list.
It is not that dificult once you get an idea of what "classes" of monitors are out there. Believe me there are not that many -- for 99.9% users it is five, maximum six types.
With this approach I had to write modelines only twice -- and those were special modes not suitable for desktop X and not in any databases I could find. One mode was for full screen TV and the other for full screen mpeg. Those were the only cases that I had to learn how to write the modes.
In general, I find X approach more flexible than Windows', since it lets you to define modes manually. When similar multiple modes exist, I can try them and chose the one best looking. I usually have to redefine modes manually after the installation, because I'm not happy with the results. The older tools tended to put the most conservative modes while the latest tools (like latest Xconfigurator form RedHat) put those that have the highest refresh rates, maxing out the monitor. In either case the results were not acceptable and there were not enough choices for me.
X can be very flexible here with just a little effort and understanding from the user side. For example, my modes declaration in Display section begins with "1280x1024f" and ends with "320x200" going thorugh many modes in between. Which windows computer can do that? Another example is my home monitor, which is a cheep 17" allowing to do only 1280x1024 at 60Hz, which is unusable. In windows, I can use it only as 1024x768 (since the only possible selection above 1024x768 is 1280x1024). In linux under XFree, however, I am happily using it as 1152x900 at 70Hz. And I did not have to write that mode either. I just took it from a database of modes. There are other monitors out there (there were much more in the early days of Win95) which when failed to be probed by Windows will work miserably or fail to work at all.
The stuff you mention is a problem, no doubt. But it is not that difficult to master. You need to understand that due to microsoft monopoly and its proprietry standards it is very easy to test monitors under windows (because vendors provide the specs and make their monitors windows probe friendly) and very difficult elsewhere. This situation is going to change rather quickly with expansion of Linux, erosion of Windows monopoly and a bunch of Linux friendly hardware available.
I can e-mail my mode database to anyone who is interested or post it if there is enough demand.
Unix SysAdmin and Programmer
The real problem is that certain open-source projects (XFree86, gcc, etc.) are very unlike others (Linux kernel, etc.) and often make the users suffer on the "it's good for you" grounds. As the number of Linux users grow, we are seeing more and more of a rift between engineers who just want to make good, *usable* software (open-source, free, commerical, whatever) and ones who want to advance a particular political (FSF) or cultural (geeks club!). XFree86 is quirky, no easier to configure than it was 5 years ago, and has all *kinds* of other problems. All this entirely because of political, not technical, problems.
It seems everytime a graphical interface or "program-to-make-linux-easier" comes out, it detracts from the "power" or the stability of linux. I've seen many graphical configuration tools and they all have some kind of tradeoff.
.02, i'd like to see the config files stay. but i wish they would all migrated to xml. just think, if every linux config file were xml, and there were a generic xml editing tool (i'm thinking something along the lines of regedit) we could have three levels of access to tweaking your config: raw text for those comfortable with that, a regedit-like gui editor, and the "pretty" gui setup tools.
.02
for my own
i for one am comfortable with the idea of editing the raw text, i'm just sick and tired of learning a new syntax for every different config file. x config files, kernel module files, the list goes on. simple key-value files, with descriptive key names, would make life so much simpler.
as i said, just my
I had a pain in the ass getting this stupid 15" monitor that I borrowed from my roommate to work in X. I had a nice 17" Sony Trinitron, but it burned out, so now i'm stuck with this POS. Finally I discovered Xconfigurator (I had been doing all this by hand for 6 years now :-) It had an entry in it's database for my exact monitor (AOC Spectrum 5EA). While it wasn't perfect, it worked... then I used xvidtune to get the settings *just* right. Then I made a modeline called "1024tuned" and made X use that instead of the regular "1024x768" Works fine now :-)
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
I couldn't get the TV outout on my ATI card to work under X. Everything displays fine from the command line, but once I get into X, the TV goes nuts... Does anyone know the proper settings for the TV out to work?
I had nightmares of modelines until I read the HOWTO. After that, the problem has been getting to know my hardware. If I see weird optical phenomena (shadows of mouse cursor, imploding LCD screen on Alt-Ctrl-F1 etc), I'm specifying too ambitious a modeline or color setting for the card or the monitor.
The HOWTO is a bit painful to read because it could be more concise. What you really need to know is the basic meanings of the modeline numbers plus -- this is important! --- the "Black Magic," which you couldn't come up with on your own.
Marko
Sure, it's old and clunky, but it gives you a pretty solid start so you can tweak it to your exact VGA/monitor combination. It may take you a good hour or so before you can say you've got all your modelines set up in an optimal fashion....
BUT REMEMBER!! - once you've done it, dump that XF86Config file on a floppy and forget about it! - should you decide to ever re-install that spanking new version of Red Hat on your system; you can just retrieve that config file and put it where it should be.... just copy and go!
Same with conf.modules/modules.conf; why bother remembering the arcane module parameters you used to get that elderly sound card working when you can just back it up and keep it for next time ?
My point ?
XFree86 is *not* Windows; it doesn't even pretend to be - the fact that it uses a graphics display and a mouse are purely irrelevant; and before you Microsoft zealots go on about Windows and its fabulous ability to automatically setup a display adapter and the connected monitor - NT can't even be set up with the proper monitor settings; it gets all its info from the graphics card driver.... so it's still possible to misconfigure your graphics system to a point where you can't even use it!
At least I can drop to a text mode shell under UNIX, I can't under NT :-))
For what it's worth; I have found Caldera OpenLinux 2.3 to have extensive support for monitors under XFree86; it comes with definitions for tons of monitors - and it even lists mine by name where Windoze '98 doesn't (Philips Brilliance 1720). Personally, I don't use Caldera; but find it an ideal distro to recommend to the typical Linux newbie - primarily for this reason!
Just my two cents!
LiteForce
tez@saynotospam.spilsby.net
"Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wuntime ewwors!" - Elmer Fudd
XFree comes with a number of "stock" modelines included in the sample configuration files. They go up to 1280x1024. By combining these modelines with the maximum horizontal and vertical frequencies of your monitor, X can pick the best modeline possible for monitors up to 1280x1024.
.INF file, you are generally out of luck with MS-Windows. Not so with XFree. On the gripping hand, many OEMs provide .INF files, while few provide XFree mode lines.
.INF file from Samsung's website, and fed it into MS-Windows. To set it up under XFree, I cut and pasted the modeline from their website. In both cases, I was up and running in seconds.
.INF, taking advantage of the larger installed base of MS-Windows. Other people have posted more information on such a program elsewhere in this discussion. (I see no need to invent a new specification format just for XFree; MS's files work fine for this; why reinvent the wheel?)
.INF files. It won't matter how easy it could be to setup X unless we actually make it so.
;-)
MS-Windows, in contrast, defaults to a "lowest common denominator" that works nearly everywhere, but typically gives you a 60 Hz vertical refresh rate. 60 Hz is pretty lousy, and can lead to eye injury. OSHA recommends at least 72 Hz for safe computing.
If you have an OEM monitor information file (.INF), you can clue MS-Windows in to the maximum frequencies for your monitor, and MS-Windows will do what XFree does -- pick the best possible mode from a list of pre-configured "stock" modes.
Note that MS-Windows has no built-in way of manually entering your monitor specifications, like XFree does. Thus, if you do not have an OEM
As usual, it comes down to a matter of OEM support. Many OEMs support MS-Windows, thus it is perceived as better. Fewer OEMs support Linux, thus it is perceived as inferior. In reality, this reflects the quality of the OEMs, not the operating systems.
Case in point: I have a 19-inch Samsung SyncMaster 900p monitor. To set it up under MS-Windows, I downloaded an
There are things that could be done to improve the situation under XFree. One is to write a converter program which will extract needed the information from an
The other thing to do is modify xf86config, Xconfiguration, and the other dozen or so X configuration programs to actually prompt for and use said
We also need to include stock mode lines for higher resolutions, as many monitors are capable of more then 1280x1024 these days.
Just my 1/4 of a byte.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Most people could care less what the refresh rate of the monitor is... it should "just work" and work well. There is no excuse... PERIOD. For the maniacs out there that want to screw with refresh rate settings, go ahead have fun playing. This should not be an issue in a modern os.
The one problem that people don't seem to see is with these simple modeline calculator tools that I've seen posted, you can't set some very important parameters for your screen. These parameters are the ones that determine how the image is centered on your screen, and how wide/narrow and tall/short the image is. If these aren't set properly, some of the image might be projected into a non-viewable area off the side of the screen, or you may end up with a postage-stamp sized image on your 21" monitor.
As a preemptive reply to people about to point out the buttons and dials that do that on many monitors: not all monitors have them, and when you switch resolutions (or OSs), you have to go about setting them again. You should be able to set these controls once, then software configure the adapter to display properly to this monitor.
You can always get a monitor to work under X if it works at all using ESR's modeline tweaking document. Unfortunately, this is a real pain to do. The document is rather stream of consciousness, with lots of loops in the process rather than one straight process which will work every time - it even involves some fudge-factoring and guessing! The first step is calling the manufacturer and getting ALL the monitor settings, since they don't always send them all. The parameters you will need are arcane things like front porch and back porch, all of which are explained well in ESR's document. With these numbers, you do a lot of calculations and come up with all of those numbers on the modeline line. And the monitor should work perfectly. It would be nicer if we had a program that you could type in all these extra parameters and it would calculate a modeline for you specific to those parameters. That's one thing we need.
For those of you who had problems setting up LCD monitors, this is the way to go right now. I set up a Viewsonic VG180 flatscreen LCD this way and now it looks great, while by default under RedHat 6.1 it looks bad (Redhat's video detection has gotten worse and worse overall since 5.2 - many video cards also used to autodetect and now don't). The extra parameters besides the refresh rates are extremely important for configuring an LCD monitor. If these aren't set right, and your screen is squashed or expanded in some way, the points drawn by your adapter won't line up with the physical LCD cells on the monitor, instead being half in each in bands on the monitor. This results in blurry banding across your screen. This is not a problem with X rendering, it just needs some configuring.
A better option for newer monitors is the so-called plug-and-play monitor, in which the monitor somehow seems to reveal its parameters when probed. If we had this type of functionality, it would solve problems with most newer monitors made. Monitor manufacturers want their monitors to be easy to set up without sending out a disk, so most are motivated to do this.
The last thing we need is a list of all the modelines for old monitors that you can't probe. We have a pretty good one now, that's one way that is used now to setup the monitor, but there are some gaps.
I recently installed RedHat 6.1 at home and it detected my video card and monitor and installed its own modelines, but the refesh rate on my hand coded old ones was noticably better, so I swapped them back in.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And he is right about it too
It may not be open source, but it does work, and that is my number one criteria.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I'd rather have a system that gives me a lifetime of complete network transparency for free in return for editing a file or two very early on, thank you.
So you don't mind spending a little extra time to max out the performance on your system, but if you have to spend 10 extra minutes to get a user's refresh rate up to something where they won't be able to count the scan lines going down the screen, that's a problem?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It is very informative even for us with lesser video equipment.
It took a while, but i managed to get a 3dfx Banshee card and a modified Sun GDM-1962B monitor running 1280x1024 under linux, 24 bit color and everything
:)
Modelines are wierd, but with a little bit of work, you can do anything with them.
xvidtune helps a lot
I have a 3 Plus. I hope these help (I got these from a tech at AMAX):
1024x768NI @ 60Hz
800x600 @56/60/72Hz
640x480 @60/72Hz
H-Scan 30-40Hz/46-50Hz
V-scan 50-90Hz
Bandwidth 65MHz
248mmx186mm
I run 800x600 at 60 or 72Hz (not sure...if it works, not screw with it). It running on a Trident 9680 (2MB).
Hope this helps.
2) The existance of more than one such database forces one to make a choice (or waste time with multiple entries). Choices always discourage people.
3) The databases never have well-established "standing". They don't have "big" names behind them or lots of names. People don't have confidence that their efforts will be well utilized.
The Linux communtity greatly needs an organization like LSB (Linux Standard Base) that is completely different from LSB [grin]. One that gets input from many people (more democratic or at least more mob-ruled) yet is run by a few eager-beaver leaders that can force things to move along briskly. They should choose one way to do things when they judge it's not very important (like file organization) and a very few when it is important (like window managment).
1. Write down that FCC id from the back of the monitor.
2. Go to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid
3. Punch the FCC id in.
4. Read the specs...
Is this fool proof? No. For example, read the results from searching on evokd-1910t. In this case, it's a wonder that the request for an FCC ID was accepted.
Not all monitors are made the same. In particular the refresh rates they are capable of at various resolutions differ. Just telling your card to go to 1024x768 mode isn't enough, you've also got to specify the refresh rate. Now you might get lucky like you did with the sony and find that the rate it defaults to is one your monitor can handle. But you might also find that it won't, like in the case of your 17. Trying to run a monitor at a resolution or refresh rate it won't do is a good way to damage it. If you're not sure what refresh it is capable of, set it to 60 as all newer monitors will handle that rate at sane resolutions. Most will handle a higher refresh of 70, 75, even 85hz. Read the docs that came with the monitor or look up your model on line. Setting up X to work with your monitor isn't hard, you just have to know what you've got.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Linux really, really needs some leadership to organize projects that deal with these sort of big-picture problems. We need some projects which are more unweildly than the development of software programs or libraries. X configuration has been a problem for many years; at least since 1995 when I first had to waste my time figuring it out. I see Linux installations every month at our install-meetings and it is very frequently a time-waster and often a show-stopper. Yet the years have only given us a bunch of poorly designed, poorly-working solutions, mostly developed by one or two people at each of several Linux distributors.
We really need some discussion about how to organize well-supported projects to tackle these sorts of problems now. Or maybe it is too late. Are too many people going to sit back and let the companies take care of Linux improvements since they are the ones getting rich off Linux? Are Linux hobbiests too jealous to help or are they assuming they are now being ignored by the "big boys"? Or is it simply that the few people with orgainzational abilities and desires are too busy making money?
It seems like this X problem should be one of the easiest mega-problems to fix since it would benefit so much from thousands of people testing the solution on their hundreds of different kinds of hardware. Why hasn't it happend and what should be done to make these kind of mega-projects happen? Or should we just encourage the right companies to do it for us?
Other long-standing problems with lots of existing poor solutions: Printing, Host naming, other network config like PPP, multi-OS boot loading, font handling, packaging, library versioning, lots of other configuration topics.
...and have had good results with it. for some reason it never can start X properly at the end, and gives an error that I'm "..running on the wrong console.." but "startx" and all is well.
...sometimes, Xconfigurator works better.
Incidentally, I could never get my notebook running right without hours of frustrating config issues, until the other night when I tried Corel Linux.
Corel Linux installed from start to finish with only two minor issues:
1) It kept showing invalid numbers for the 8GB. drive -- like "7 MB. Free". But the drive was almost open! So, I entered impossibly large numbers, and it scaled them down to what was actually there. Then, I massaged that into a few partitions.
2) The software update thingy assumes you have a net connection, and basically freezes up when it atttempts to go out to the net and get the latest package info. Make sure you disable the net update portion if you don't have net up yet.
Otherwise, everthing is great. I think you will see these kind of issues issues continue to fade as more (and better) support gets into the various X configuration tools and distros.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
[flame on] And if you don't have a manual for your monitor? What then? Should you go buy a 'good' monitor to use with Linux? [flame off]
I asked a local Linux guru to help me get a ISA PNP Ethernet card running using isapnptools. He responded that I 'shouldn't' use a ISA PNP card under Linux because they 'don't work very well'. If I can take that card and pop it into a NT box, I should pop it into a Linux box without much more hassle.
I don't care that the card is of a poor design or that isapnptools is a kludge. I just want it to work.
I'm tired of the attitude telling me 'don't use that hardware - it's inferior. Instead use...'. Linux should work with any hardware I've got sitting around. The Linux community should support any hardware I've got sitting around. If I'm going to have to convince a pointy-haired boss to buy a new $40 NIC (PHB: "What's wrong with the cards we already have? They work with Windows. And why can't we buy these $10 cards for Linux?") because the ones we already have don't work with Linux, I may as well go all out and convince him to drop $2500 on NT.
This is quite easy actually. I've had the same problems in the past and it's not a science to get a monitor to display what you want it to in Linux.
First of all, the xf86config tool for X is quite weak. However, it must be used first and foremost. That tool will get everything setup and ready for...
XF86Setup. Yes, you heard right. It's time to whip out the good old XF86Setup tool. Sadly, red hat systems don't really come with this tool, although I believe you can still install it. All you have to do is go through each setup screen and chose the best options. The last two setup screens here are key. On the first before last you get to chose your monitor modes. What I do is that I go above what my monitor can actually handle (I think). So I select something like 1280x1024 pixels at 60Hz refresh, which my monitor can't do. On the last tab, I select the 1024x768 display at 32-bit color.
This works perfectly fine and it's how I've always forced X to display what it actually can under my monitor(s). If you have problems with the way it's positioned, etc, run xvidtune either when it prompts you to, or at a later time.
Good luck!
yeah
I have around ten years of PC experience, including tweaking, optimizing, configuring HW and SW, programming in various languages, and countless DOS, Windows & Mac reinstalls. I am not a moron. I read manuals, I do research on the Web, and if I don't know how to do something I know where to learn. But I have never had as much frustration as when I tried to get X running on my system. The card is an ATI Rage IIC. Yes, I RTFM. Yes, I had all the numbers on my monitor. Yes, I read esr's FAQ. Guess what? None of it helped. No matter what I did, at best I always got a screen that was clear on the left side and distorted on the right. I upgraded my XFree86 installation. I switched between three different distributions (Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake). I tinkered with XF86Config until I wanted to shoot myself. Nothing worked. I banged my head against it for a month. Then I asked about it at comp.windows.x to see if anyone else had had this problem. I got ONE response, from somebody who had the same thing happen to him and was hoping I would get an answer. I never got any help at all. I finally swapped in a crappy old video card and got it working, but later took it out so I could concentrate on learning the command-line interface. I'll buy a different video card later, when I have more money and when I've learned my way around the system the hard way. So, I get very frustrated when I see people complain that if you can't get it working you must be clueless. I can easily imagine less sophisticated users being completely turned off to Linux by: 1) the relative difficulty of using it; 2) the difficulty in some cases of getting it working at all; and 3) the contemptuous attitude of those who have figured it out and therefore think they're hot shit. Every single one of you was once a newbie. Please try to remember that. p.s. Advice and constructive criticism are welcome. Flames will be cheerfully deleted.
"We only want a quiet place to finish working while God eats our brains."--Bruce Sterling
I just went through an interesting process of trying to get Xconfigurator to figure out how to handle a couple of different Matrox cards (a G-200 and an older one, but I forget the model). I could never get the cards to handle 1024x768, but I could manage to get them work properly at higher resolutions. I've tried five or six other manufacturers, such as Diamond, Creative and S3, and they all have worked, but I have yet to manage it out of the box with a Matrox card. What could be special about them?
sorry, couldnt resist...
For instance, try to figure out how to change your monitor resolution in less than an hour, starting from "resolution" or "monitor".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As it happens, I'm having the exact same problem now. Same video card, same distortion problems. And, yes, I have the monitor info (pulled it from Windows). Perhaps I'll try swapping out the card. Could it be a Linux issue with that card and certain monitors, then?
--arcum
(still not bothering to hunt up my password)
"ATI Mach64 3D Rage IIC: XF86_Mach64"
I dunno.. What kind of monitor? Despite the length of your rant^H^H^H^H post you don't give any real information; you've done it all, forever, and yet you can't get *this* to work so Linux is frustrating to you.
You spent a *month* on this?
And you'll try it again later with a different video card "..after you learn your way around the system the hard way.."
You *are* going at it the hard way, but I'm not convinced it's that hard...
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The problem was that when I ran the SVGA server, it worked fine, perfect, wonderful. But when I ran the setup programs, told it what I wanted, told it what I had, and everything, the Mach_64 server ended up thinking my monitor was a little too bic - the top and bottom of the screen were an inch above and below the top and bottom of the actual monitor.
Finally, I forget how, me, the newbie Linux user, who could find no help online, nothing in the man pages, nothing at all, somehow managed to figure out two things:
After this harrowing, or rather pain-in-the-ass, ordeal, I was rather fed-up. I mean, I put in all the data, I have a supported card, a generic monitor, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and probably every other Windows out there, supports my configuration out of the box. Linux requires me to hunt around for three or four days just to change a number that I don't even know what it was!
Now, I love Linux, don't get me wrong, but the obvious problem here is that if a Linux lover like myself is willing to throw in the towel, nuke the partition, and give up the goose, then how can we expect to attract anyone but power-users?
I don't know, I just think that tools that write out the config file for you should write out a config file that is compatible with your configuration.
Finally, after days, I did get it installed, set up, and working properly, but I was pretty frustrated when I did. Then Debian screwed up all my Enlightenment packages so my install got borked, but that's another story.
~Sentry21~
I very much doubt it's the card; I have my Matrox set up to go not just really high resolution, but also low res like 640x480 and even 320x240, just for completeness sake.
Therefore I would be suspicious of Xconfigurator.
BTW there's a problem in posting my modelines: they depend on your video cards dot clock, so what works for one person may not for someone else (unless they have the same video card, that is).
I should have said that in my above note.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Has anyone out there REALLY damaged their monitor by misconfiguring their modelines? I've misconfiged monitors plenty of times - you get a distorted image or none at all, and then you set it back to your previous setting and all is fine.
It makes me kind of curious...why shouldn't I misconfig my monitor? Someone is trying to keep the power of misconfiged monitors to themselves!!!
--Matt
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
If you dink around in XF86config with a text editor you can *really* goof stuff up if you don't know what you're doing.
And even Xconfigurator is not fool-proof if you answer something too quickly or without *knowing* that your answer is the proper one...
I've just set up an Optiquest Q73 monitor and an ATI Xpert98 video card (XF86_Mach64 server) under RHL 5.2, and I let Xconfigurator probe for the card but set up the monitor as "custom", chose conservative timings and only one resolution and color depth (1024x768x24bpp), and it looks great running Civ:CTP!
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
The only way I can think of to get 1024x768 in Windows is to switch in my trusty old Trident 8900C,
Heh, if you want to wait five seconds for it to draw each frame
Anyhow, NT display properties is different to that in 95 (s/95/98 if you like). In NT, you choose resolution and refresh rate. If you get refresh rate too high and the picture screws up, you can try again with a lower refresh rate after waiting 5 seconds. Horizontal frequency doesn't matter because (if you care) you can work it out from the resolution and vertical frequency. If you know your monitor's h-freq range then you are probably geeky enough to work out a safe refresh rate to enter.
In 9x however, you don't get to choose a refresh rate, and it figures out some sort of value to use based on your monitor setting, and this value usually sucks. However, there are tools around for 9x that allow you to manually specify refresh rates etc. (but I think they need a reboot. Ugh.)
This is an elegant way around the fact that rob chose to not allow tags. Why did he do this? I have no idea. It sure would make posting code snippets a lot easier! If he's too paranoid about people having lines that are too long- perhaps he could make a tag that does exactly what tom has posted here.
I just installed Mandrake 6.1. I'm running an ATI All-in-Wonder128 AGP and a Sony Trinitron 17" monitor (CPD 200ES - one of the ones in the Xconfigurator list, no less!!!). Now, by reading docs and following directions (installing the RPM for the Rage128 server and a new version of Xconfigurator from Mandrake's current/apps - the new Xconfig made NO difference that I could see) it works to a degree - I'm able to get X at all, which says that it absolutely is working (nothing else, not SVGA, VGA, anything will work on Rage128 except the Rage128 server from SuSe, at least that's free). My problem is that it won't go past 800x600. I know my monitor specs (from my manual), and I've tried xf86setup, kvideogen, xconfigurator, the lot of them. They all come up with sets of modelines, they work for 640x480 and 800x600, but NO 1024x768!!!! ARRGGHHH!!!!! (it just gives me an "Out of scan range" on my monitor). Obviously Windows works just fine at that res, up to 85hz. I'm wondering if this is a problem with the current version of the XFCom_Rage128 server. Has anyone else personally ran that server at 1024x768 (or higher, those don't work either)? Email me/post here. Thanks a lot in advance!
The question is "Where do you start?"
Consider the appliance user, with his new Linux install. He just wants to adjust the resolution of his monitor. He looks for a menu item. No menu item. He looks in the man pages. No help there, either.
Even if he figures out that he's got to twiddle a file himself, how the HELL is he supposed to know that the magic word is "modeline"?
And if he does find out that word, just try looking it up in the man pages.
The problem isn't that it's hard to adjust the resolution (though that is a problem, too). The problem is that the newbie has no obvious way to find out how to do it.
Windows and Mac both make it easy. Linux stock distributions make it arcane. So the new Linux user is stuck with some minimalist stock install resolution until he fights this battle for himself or gets help from somebody else.
THAT's why Linux gets a rep for being hard to use, requiring a geek under the hood at all times.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I made one 14" monitor run pretty darn hot, so hot that it began to smell like melting plastic. I suspect I was running it out of spec. I had just changed my X config to run at a higher resolution, so changing it back "fixed" the problem until I was able to find one of the standard configs that worked at all resolutions.
...With a few Matrox modes thrown in. Enjoy. You can get a copy of the official VESA mode table (complete with all the fields I left out) from, of all places, VESA.
[[Rob, Hemos, et al: WTF happened to <PRE>?]]
{ 25175, 640, 656, 752, 800, 480, 490, 492, 525, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 31500, 640, 664, 704, 832, 480, 489, 492, 520, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 31500, 640, 656, 720, 840, 480, 481, 484, 500, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 36000, 640, 696, 752, 832, 480, 481, 484, 509, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 36000, 800, 824, 896, 1024, 600, 601, 603, 625, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 40000, 800, 840, 968, 1056, 600, 601, 605, 628, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 50000, 800, 856, 976, 1040, 600, 637, 643, 666, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 49500, 800, 816, 896, 1056, 600, 601, 604, 625, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 56250, 800, 832, 896, 1048, 600, 601, 604, 631, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 65000, 1024, 1048, 1184, 1344, 768, 771, 777, 806, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 75000, 1024, 1048, 1184, 1328, 768, 771, 777, 806, SYNC_HnVn}
{ 78750, 1024, 1040, 1136, 1312, 768, 769, 772, 800, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 94500, 1024, 1072, 1168, 1376, 768, 769, 772, 808, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 94200, 1152, 1184, 1280, 1472, 864, 865, 868, 914, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 108000, 1152, 1216, 1344, 1600, 864, 865, 868, 900, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 121500, 1152, 1216, 1344, 1568, 864, 865, 868, 911, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 108000, 1280, 1328, 1440, 1688, 1024, 1025, 1028, 1066, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 135000, 1280, 1296, 1440, 1688, 1024, 1025, 1028, 1066, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 157500, 1280, 1344, 1504, 1728, 1024, 1025, 1028, 1072, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 162000, 1600, 1664, 1856, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 175500, 1600, 1664, 1856, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 189000, 1600, 1664, 1856, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 202500, 1600, 1664, 1856, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 216000, 1600, 1680, 1872, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 229500, 1600, 1664, 1856, 2160, 1200, 1201, 1204, 1250, SYNC_HPVP}
{ 204750, 1792, 1920, 2120, 2448, 1344, 1345, 1348, 1394, SYNC_HnVP}
{ 261000, 1792, 1888, 2104, 2456, 1344, 1345, 1348, 1417, SYNC_HnVP}
{ 218250, 1856, 1952, 2176, 2528, 1392, 1393, 1396, 1439, SYNC_HnVP}
{ 288000, 1856, 1984, 2208, 2560, 1392, 1393, 1396, 1500, SYNC_HnVP}
{ 234000, 1920, 2048, 2256, 2600, 1440, 1441, 1444, 1500, SYNC_HnVP}
{ 297000, 1920, 2064, 2288, 2640, 1440, 1441, 1444, 1500, SYNC_HnVP}
I have an ATI Xpert98 and a Hyundai Deluxscan 7770. Under Windows 98 the best I could get out of it without making my eyes bleed was 1024x768 running at 85 Hz. The other option would have been 1280x1024 at 60 Hz. Yuck.
But now, under X (and KDE) I'm running 1200x900 at 74 Hz which is a nice compromise between space and eye-friendliness. At that rate I don't notice flickering.
The program I used was KVideoGen, and you need to know some things about your hardware, but you can see these from the stuff X spits out when starting and from your monitor manual (ie. memory on videocard, monitor sync ranges etc). KVideoGen writes out a neat file full of modelines, you can then copy'n paste them to your XF86Config.
I recently went through a lot of tsouris (Yiddish for heartache) trying to get Linux installed on my Micron laptop. Neither Red Hat 5.1 nor SuSe 5.3 could install a properly functioning copy of X on my laptop.
Then I tried a CD of TurboLinux Workstation Lite 4.0 that came with a magazine I bought. TurboLinux installed X perfectly in color with the proper screen resolution and color scale.
TurboLinux is a major distributor of Linux in Asia that is just getting off the ground here in the United States. Their 'Complete Install' option dumped every package I need onto my waiting hard disk. Tcl/Tk ran from the command line without my even needing to create a link for it.
Before you do the install make sure you know your video card's product name and amount of memory. TurboLinux is finicky about this information and will not install X properly without it.
For some reason, TurboLinux was able to install X where Red Hat and SuSe could not, so I recommend trying it out when faced with X install problems.
Marjo Wycam, Master of the Programming Arts
This works for me:
http://www.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/tmp/xconfig.awk
All you need to know is maximum and minimum resolution, vertical refresh frequency and horizontal sync frequency of your monitor.
If you break your monitor, it is not my fault.
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen - http://iki.fi/juhtolv
Okay, I don't have time to write a full treatise, so here's a quick overview of all the sTUfF involved. For the record, my job is writing graphics drivers for BeOS.
There are several constraints which need to be observed. These are:
Typically, the graphics driver will constrain the pixel clock rate, so the only thing left to worry about is monitor scan rates. The scan rates supported by your monitor are printed in your owner's manual.
Modern monitors also support DDC (Display Data Channel), which is a funky serial protocol to get identification and configuration information out of the monitor. The original DDC spec provided only for transmitting a unique monitor ID. The ID was supposed to be looked up in a database which would contain the monitor's min/max scan frequencies and other characteristics (can you say C:\WINDOWS\INF\MONITOR*.INF?). A more recent revision of the DDC spec now supplies these frequencies directly, as well as gamma characteristics and other cool stuff. Neither XFree86 nor BeOS support DDC yet.
Trivium: Absolutely every monitor out there will support 31.5 KHz horizontal, 60 Hz vertical. Unfortunately, this is only useful for 640 x 480. That's why Windoze defaults to this when it can't identify your monitor or graphics card; it knows this will work in any case.
Once you have a mode line for a particular resolution, you can not simply tweak the pixel clock. Sync timings vary not only by resolution, but also by scan rate. This is because the horizontal sync pulse is not simply a percentage of total horizontal time; it needs to be of a fixed duration, regardless of the scan frequency. If you stray outside the sync pulse requirements, the monitor's flyback transformer can overheat, shortening the monitor's life (and possibly killing it in ugly ways).
There are three ways "The Rest of the World" generates mode lines. One is via a direct DDC probe as outlined above. Another is to use the official mode table provided by VESA. This table contains fixed sync timings from 320 x 200 all the way out to 1900-something. Monitor manufacturers are supposed to make certain that their monitors respond well to these modes. When compiling their BIOS mode tables, however, some graphics card manufacturers, however, will make minor alterations to the VESA table, usually to the HSync and HTotal parameters. I've never discovered why they do this (except that if you don't, the graphics will come out looking funny in some cases).
The third way is to use the VESA GTF (General Timing Formula). This formula takes the following parameters:
From this, it will compute a mode line that will work on all modern monitors, and most old ones (too old to support DDC). The formula is rather ugly, involving a square root somewhere, and I don't have it in front of me.
Copies of the VESA mode tables, GTF, and DDC specs can all be ordered from VESA. I don't know offhand what, if anything, they charge to print up and send you a copy.
XFree86 should at least use the VESA mode table as a starting point for mode lines.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
why thank you, insulting people is always friendly.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
Can you describe how to get around the win95 autodetects and set it how you want?
Do you think that new users shouldn't RTFM?
Do you like whiners who complain about stuff but won't take a single step to fix or do anything for themself?
Of course you just flame and move on, having added nothing.
I think you are the ignorant one.
I started with RH 5.2, with a messed up Diamond Stealth S220. With a minor bit of research, I was able to get it to 800x600 and use it. In terms of Xconfigurator, it is a pain in the ass program to use. I have/had no idea what the "clock rate" of the card, and never needed to know that under Windows. As for when Xconfigurator asked me what my monitor was, it was a Zeos. A quick look on the back of the monitor told me the right model number, actually being a CTX.
I've used my share of video cards on X, and no matter what I seem to do, it insists on shifting the display(in X) to the right and up a bit, so when i dock down to text mode, I have to adjust the display's placement over with the knobs. In Windows, I never had to do this. ARgh.
I looked this up earlier to figure out what was up with the modeline crap.
To the best of my knowledge, Windows basically uses the VESA standard for getting what we call modelines from the monitor itself.
Instead of writing all this crap, lets work on making xfree compatible with this standard.
Anyone know if this is going to be included in Xfree 4.0?
i had same problem but when i got right drivers for my ATI Rage128 card. everyhgin was workign just fine.. and i havea generic 17" monitor too
Most macs offer 1152x870 as a possibility (as noted, this suits a 17" nicely, as I use on my macOS box). The reason for such numbers is that 1152x870=1002240 is just less than 1048576=2^20, so with 2MB graphics mem, you get 16bpp and with 4MB you get 32bpp, all with a 4:3ish ratio. I am not sure whether the choice of 1152=2^7*3^2 as a multiple of a largish power of 2, makes the addressing of scan lines more efficient - most standard resolutions seem to be weighted towards power-of-two widths.
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
For some reaon, in all my excitement about the little button, I stated Toshiba rather than the actual make of my new monitor, Samsung. Its a Samsung SyncMaster 900IFT, though this doesn't help you... sorry for the confusion.
As far as laptop monitors, they are 'weird' aren't they? I don't know if they have a scan rate in the same way.
Oh well.
Juln
We all know the benefits of the easy GUI way, and of the powerful /etc/file way, and we all know the drawbacks to each way too, so stop arguing about it! Jeez, all that is so obvious... but this apparently isn't:
Xconfiguration, and for other examples all the stuff in linuxconf, would work a lot better if these GUIs both did things for you and showed you what lines of what files were being changed. I mean, here's a poor-man's impl: the filenames are at hand because the programs are about to open them, just fire the output through diff and throw up a window that says "here are the filename deltas".
And, to make things even better: make the program that does the initial setup/install run the program you will later use to do the reconfig. The whole setup process would then be teaching you the config tool you'd be using later (does some FreeBSD stuff work this way?). And then, if you weren't sure during setup whether you wanted some feature, you'd feel safe that you could return to the question later and change your answer.
Well, as usual when I post things somewhere about how I'm having no luck with something, I immediately figured it out. Well, figured it out may be too strong of a word... I had been trying it with lizardx, with an attempt or two in xf86config, I just tried again in xf86config, and got it working right away. I still don't really know why lizardx couldn't handle my monitor, though.
Oh, and give me some credit, the information I got from Windows was H-sync, V-sync, refresh rate, and current resolution. I already had model and make from the front of the monitor, and it isn't in the list.
Well, now that I have kde working, my next step is to replace my modem with a decent one, so I can get on the net with Linux...
Well, as usual when I post things somewhere about how I'm having no luck with something, I immediately figured it out. Well, figured it out may be too strong of a word... I had been trying it with lizardx, with an attempt or two in xf86config, I just tried again in xf86config, and got it working right away. I still don't really know why lizardx couldn't handle my monitor, though.
Oh, and give me some credit, the information I got from Windows was H-sync, V-sync, refresh rate, and current resolution. I already had model and make from the front of the monitor, and it isn't in the list.
Well, now that I have kde working, my next step is to replace my modem with a decent one, so I can get on the net with Linux...
--arcum
http://www.xig.com
Accelerated-X
It's funny. I asked this question a couple of weeks ago, and was disappointed that it wasn't posted. I think X leaves much to be desired when selecting resolutions *and* refresh rates. I've used Xf86Setup and Xconfigurator, and neither seem to be a "do it all" solution. I always end up editing the .conf file, and that's so it will make my card run at 32bpp, at 1024 * 768, without using a 60hz refresh rate on a top of the line monitor that doesn't happen to be in the monitor list (which is painfully small; I mean, aren't they just a bunch of numbers? Why can't the list be more complete [especially for viewsonics :)]). And lord knows, if you don't have the manual, it's a real pain to be looking up horiz and vertical scan rates. All this completely ignores the fact that if we want new users (especially in graphics), then we should place more emphasis on the ease of configuration for things like graphics cards and monitors. I hope XF86 4.0 has a better base for this sort of UI.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
"Don't manufacture a problem that doesn't exist."
The operative word is "yet". Remember grasshopper that the path once taken can never be undone.
"This is one of the greatest benefits of having the GUI be a wrapper for things that can be done at the commandline. In the MSWindows world, it is common for a GUI program to preclude having powerful configuration options, but it is unlikely under the *nix's. "
You knew the question was going to come a call'in.
Why is it unlikely under Unices?
Slightly offtopic, but does anyone know if it is safe to drive a fixed frequency monitor at lower frequencies than those it's supposed to be driven at? I have a ff monitor that I want to use, but I don't want to ruin it by trying to run it in text mode (which runs at about 30 kHz horizontal and 60 Hz vertical). I know that it would display no image in text mode, but if I accidentally try to use that mode, would that ruin my monitor?
Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. --Douglas Adams, _Mostly
You usually don't have to worry about killing a modern monitor by exceeding its design liimitations, because it will either shut off or come up with a little screen telling you whaats wrong. Assuming you have a a halfway decent monitor(which im sure you do with those specs !) I always will sacrafice resolution/color depth/speed for a higher refresh rate. if your running at 60hz you will kill your eyes. anything less then 75hz should be considered unacceptable, 85hz should be considered very good. i run a princeton e0500 15" at 1024x768 16bit @ 76hz. nate aphro@aphroland.org (i forgot my pw long ago..)
I have the same problem with my ATI Rage IIC. I'm fairly convinced there's a bug in the Mach64 server for this card. I use the same monitor with a Matrox Millenium video card, with the same Modeline, and it works just fine. I am very frustrated with the lack of interest from the Mach64 maintainers in apparent bugs in their code. XFree86, despite being open source, seems to use a very closed development model, which is unfortunate.
"Yet Another Slashdot Coder Elite"
Quit it with this elitist "Code it fer yerself, dude" attitudes people - if we were all like this there would be no hardware for all you coder doodz to code on...
Not everyone can code as well as you. But then again, I bet you couldn't build a memory expansion for your computer by hand... But, as you can tell on slashdot, hardware is a lost cause - doesn't look as cool and takes longer than coding.
Personally, I don't give a damn how smart anyone is - I just don't expect anyone using a computer to be able to do more than make the OS work, and their applications run. Past that, you are getting into heavy reading and University territory - Not the kind of thing someone trying to hold a job down is willing to do. But if you aren't willing to read enough to use the OS, and use the applications, then you get no sympathy for me - but "code it for yourself" isn't an answer. That's like when someone says "It is stupid that I have to shift gears in the car manually" you tell them "build an automatic shifter". That's just plain stupidity - I want to _drive_ a car, NOT BUILD IT!
On the same vein - I want to USE applications, not BUILD them! Sure Open Souce is great for coders, but it is also nice for those of us who like to use software without breaking the law... I mean, what is the point of coding something that no-one uses...
yes, yes, we know Windows does not automatically *detect* anything "it uses the *.inf files provided by your friendly neighborhood OEM.
i have booted countless desktops and laptops w/the QNX 1.44 demo disk and it has never failed to find a reasonable res/color depth (and it does not use the HDD, let alone *.inf files).
so...again....WHY CANNOT X DO THIS?
this was *really* the original question and it is not yet answered.
When I boot from the Corel CD or from the Corel install disk on my laptop, it goes into a graphics mode that looks like someone is pressing real hard on the top half of the LCD panel.
I get the same response when I play Quake 1 at some odd aspect ratio/graphics mode so I switch back to a normal graphics mode to play the game.
The easy thing for them to do is be like Caldera and use a normal graphics mode for installation.
I figure it's not worth the hassle trying to track down old monitor specs, so if there is nothing obvious, I just make one up that has very generous ranges. I can then read off the actual frequencies from the console output of the X11 server. If a monitor were to die using that procedure, well, they have gotten pretty cheap and I probably didn't want it anymore anyway. But after installing Linux with dozens of different monitors, so far, I have not had a problem.
Of course, if Linux wants to take over the desktop, I think a more plug-and-play approach is needed. IT departments want easy installation on a variety of hardware.
This wasn't under X, but I've done it. Screwing around with the tweaking utility for my video card in OS/2 2.1 (many years ago), and suddenly the monitor died with a big puff of smoke and the smell of fried electronics. (no exaggeration here--I thought I was about to see flames shooting out!) Luckily, it was still within warranty.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
POOF!
Usually I haven't had any trouble just using X Configurator. (I use Mandrake 6.1) although i was installing a machine today that had correct drivers for my hardware but didn't work right off. After playing with some color resolution I got X to come up but widgets were not drawn correctly in the window manager and icons would dissappear and mouse pointers were becoming squares. Anyone else encounter such problems?
The Anti-Blog
>>> Linux should work with any hardware I've got sitting around.
Oh I see, the gods have commanded that linux work with the PNP sound card and Winmodem that came with your Gateway you use to surf Aol. Linux works great on most boxes and lots of, tons of things. PNP came about because windoze sucked a blue streak when it came to expansion hardware. So deal
Here are my humble thoughts, after having installed X on two laptops successfully and failing on another laptop. 1. Windows doesn't support the video unless there is a "driver" and it doesn't always have the best video mode. Resolution is limited to the "magic sequence" (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, ...) Heck, you can't even get good *text* modes out of Windows. Most Win* desktop installations run at lower refresh rate than they could (e.g. 60Hz on a huge monitor, i.e. really yucky, find them in any computer store) -- of course, the "driver" says "optimal refresh rate". If that's your case, you're usually stuck until there is a "new driver". 2. Windows starts up in 640x480, 16 colors, and takes you from there, and if you want to get another mode it switches temporarily so that you can see if it's working. X configurators I've seen (e.g. xfree86setup) often do the opposite: they ask your monitor's frequency ranges and put ALL modes in "just in case", but *give them the same names* (they are all "800x600" etc. according to resolution) so that X automatically chooses the "best" mode. But then you can't switch between them at runtime. You could have, if they were named say "800x600A", "800x600B" etc. and were all included into the "active" modes line. Then you'd be able to press Ctrl-Alt-+ and see if anything works at 800x600. In my experience, the automatically selected modeline didn't work, resulting in unusable system (e.g. Corel Linux did this, "autodetecting" 1024x768 on my 800x600 LCD screen; display was completely garbled and there was no text console! pfui!). But the working modeline usually is there in the config file, it's just not selected because X tries to find the "best" line that fits the monitor -- but maybe it doesn't fit the video card. 3. Perhaps a solution is: stick to standard VGA and really, really basic, standard, low-quality modes like 800x600 at 60Hz etc., something that won't break any monitor, and then have some text-based installer, testing mode by mode to see if anything better works with your hardware. That's what people end up doing by hand anyway; but at least one could go through all modes in XF86Config! Serge
Here's an analogy. Two hammers side by side in the store. The one on the left you can just pick up and use, easy. Just swing it at a nail and BANG that pesky nail is driven home. The one on the right however is an ingot of iron and a block of "green" wood. (or for the the high end model raw carbonfiber or fiberglass with som 2-part epoxy) This hammer can potentialy be made into the best, highest quality most reliable hammer in the world. Of course you have to know how to forge, machine and heat treat the head. You have to be able to season the wood and carve it for a handle or mold one from the carbonfiber or fiberglass. Most people will buy the hammer that is already made and usable imediately and easily. These people have work to do and can't mess around making their own hammer and possably ending up with an inferior hammer. Then there are the people who will buy the "super hammer" (forge not included) because it's *open source*! You can make a realy good hammer with this, nevermind that it might take a year to season the wood alone. You may want to take that path, but why should I? It's the same thing with windows and Xfree86. With windows people who know more about monitor configuration provide the settings for me I just select my monitor from the list and away I go. However with X it takes way too much effort for almost no gain. I just can't justify the the effort required for setup to myself. That was the reason why I gave up trying to use Linux. About a year ago I successfuly installed Linux on my PC and it worked fine. However I spent an entire day trying to simply set up my monitor without adequate results in my opinion. I like the idea of linux I think the project has admirable goals. However it just can not fill the needs of most people. Some day in the future things may be different, however it isn't here now.
There are many aspects of Linux that 'old school' users take as common knowledge, but which are not at all easy to find for someone who grabbed Linux off a shelf, using the READMEs and HOWTOs, regardless of their level of computer experience.
I was saying code it yourself as a solution to the problem.
The deal with it 'solution' was always there.
I could design an automatic transmission, or learn to drive manual, if they complain they don't want to drive manual, I will tell them to build the automatic, or just not drive.
If I have a problem, I either fix it (I can barely code BTW), or deal with it. Complaining about everything and DOING nothing is unforgivable
I always end up with the monitor that wont work "out of the box" in X. For example my main workstation (an Alpha) has a 20" IBM P200 monitor. I tried all of the default settings but none of them work. I also tried a couple of the GUI based configurators but they don't work very well either. I always end up using xf86config. This seems to be the best out of the bunch IMO. With xf86config I can enter ALL of the settings by hand. Then all I have to do is edit '/etc/X11/XF86Config' and disable all but 32bpp mode. After that X works nicely. YMMV.
LONG LIVE ALPHA!!!
I don't know what is up with "EVERYONE HAS PROBLEM CONFIGURING ... blah." My reply to the original submition is, that , If all your friends have problem with this, you are hanging with the wrong crowd.
I'm sorry but i hate to say this: Anyone who can't do this is probably those lamers who would prefer asking for help then reading dox. Sure you could have bought a no name monitor that you can't figure out the sync rate, but just about all of them work with one of the modes in XF86Setup. (isn't that app name a typo?)In my humble opinion, the real problem is that these most Linux people don't read a single line in the README file or the quick start file before whinning and asking questions. How much easier can XF86Setup be? It's got a good GUI, a set of modelines that never failed me. Linux has this tradition of "re-educating Windows people." Do linux really need these people? yes. That's what Red Hat is getting the dough for, right?
Let's try and see what Windows do with this thing. I haven't done Windows for a while, I am not sure. But it seems to me, that Windows tell the user that it will test the mode, and if the mode fails, after roasting the monitor for 15 seconds, the old mode will come back. Look, when i tell people that i'm trying a different modeline on thier monitor and there's a remote chance of monitor being damaged, they get nervous and have me stop it. But if Windows show a dialogue box saying "If your monitor doesn't work you will have to wait 15 seconds", They are OK? In reality, I would cut off X in 3 seconds, not 15! How hard can it be to write a routine that ask the users to wait 15 seconds to see if the new mode works or not? Furthermore, Windows don't use any high refresh rates (because the usrs can't tell)
Here we are facing a age old delimma: to fix the program or to fix the user? To me, the answer is simple: if the programmers get paid, yeah, fix the program. Otherwise, fix the user.
Cut that distro ad crap, it comes with ALL Xfree servers. All hardware, all OSes that XFree supports.
I admit I have eye problems, but...
isn't
(1) == (2)
As for my monitor, it's an older one, an Impression 3 Plus SVGA that has worked perfectly in Windows for years. Goes up to 1024x768, NI, at .28. Never had any trouble at all using it in Windows. I would replace it but can't afford to at the moment.
If anyone out there has any useful information, I'd appreciate it. From the response a little further up, looks like there are others who have had the same trouble, so maybe someone has a solution...
"We only want a quiet place to finish working while God eats our brains."--Bruce Sterling
I always paste a pece of paper with sync range info under the monitor or somewhere on the monitor when i get them. I encourage others to do the same.
From what I have learned here, I managed to finally get my resolution up to 1280x1024 in spite of having a completely undocumented monitor...
And this is why I like /. so much :)
perl -e 'print pack"H*","626c6a3840626c6a382e636f6d0a"'
(Run the sig)
ATI has been anal about spec til October. why didn't you find out about hardware before buying things?
... maybe cuz QNX charges some 400+ dollars per acedemic liscense?
They really need to work on it's integration with
linux... *shrug*
Unless you're using a card that it's been tweaked for
(and not just a card that's 'supported')
It can be a real pain in the ass.
Can we say endless problems?
Anyone else have it take down their X setup?
Anyone ever 'successfully' remove it from their
system with no ill effects?
If they figure it out... I'll buy it.. but until then
I'll take the extra 10 minutes to tweak my Xfree config file.
Works freakin great... waaay better than Microsuck ever thought of.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
I suspect that the reason a lot of video modes don't *seem* to be available under X is because (despite what a couple of earlier posts said), that most people avoid interlaced video modes under X, but Windows doesn't mind.
For example, I have on old IBM PS1 monitor that will only do 1024x768 (properly) when interlaced. Windows comes up interlaced and looks acceptable, but I had to fiddle with my Xf86config file for a while and specifically tell it to use 1024x768 interlaced before it would come up in the same mode.
If you can't get the same resolution under XFree86 as you have under Windows, and you have an old monitor, try equivalent interlaced modes. That will probably work for you.
ciao,
David
The problem is that they get some minimal default configured. Now that they're up, they'd like to use the whole screen.
How do they CHANGE it?
How do they FIND OUT how to change it?
Pretend you know NOTHING about X. You're fresh from Mac or Windows. You have a machine that has a multi-megapixel monitor running 640x480 and want to make more use of it. Your old environment had a graphic monitor config tool, that's what you're used to.
What do you do?
Hunt for a tool. No tool.
Hunt for online documentation. Try "monitor". Try "resolution". Nothing.
Now what?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Granted, looking at the most common OS' you surely will get that
impression.
With Mac and Windows you gotta stick to a narrow predifined path to
stay out of trouble... well, for MacOS it's hardly possible to go
outside this path, and for Windows you surely will end up with a
massive headache if you try to take a 'detour'.
In the other trench we got the various *nix system, but unless you got
vi and the likes in your blood, you're screwed.
And that seems to be the common view.Mac/Win are userfriendly but
inflexible, *nix is flexible but userhostile. You gotta choose,
because you can't have both.
Wrong! Take a look a AmigaOS and BeOS (I think), highly flexible and
very userfriendly. I guess that's why a lot of people still stick with
this 'outdated' OS, there is no alternative that gives the same
pleasuere of using a computer.
Re-install is not a part of an Amiga-users vocabolary, I for one
hasn't reinstalled once since '92 when I got my first HD.
So it IS possible to have both flexibility and ease-of-use at the same
time.
But to get back to the monitor-problems. Someone might want to look
into the CGX-prefs-program for Amiga. AmigaOS has the same problem as
Linux: lack of drivers. But this program makes it very easy to create
a monitor-file. No need for pens, calculators and the likes.
- Bjarne
This is one of the reason why I consider Linux to be a dinasaur os, this is just not acceptable for any modern operating system. This reminds me of the old dos days when every user had to know the difference between conventional memory, Extended memory, XMS, EMS etc. Is this the future OS of the 21 first century? Modifying some configuration files to get the screen to work? I hope not.
Although Windows NT isn't the perfect operating system it's light years ahead in usability and ease of use if you compare it to Linux.
Remove the "die.spam.die". to mail me.
At any rate, the "Max" refresh rate is probably just the manufacturer's recommended maximum rate. The warranty might well be void if you drive it at anything more than that.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
sorry, the formatting dident come out right
When I first started learning Linux I was using a generic ET4000 card and a multiple-fixed-frequency monitor. The big problem was that the video card was *also* multiple-fixed-frequency! And the parameters for the card and monitor (as listed in both of their manuals) didn't match up exactly, so X couldn't find a workable resolution. I never could get away from the VGA server with this setup. Now I've got a multi-synch monitor with a wide range of freqs. for both horizontal and vertical and a card that could handle much more than I could throw at it... everything's simple if you've got money to spend.
But it still bugs me that I couldn't get the old setup working.
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
There's a util that converts monitor settings from the *.mga file that come with matrox drivers, into x86config monitor settings. That's what i used anyway ..
One advice: Run the program "xvidtune".
HELP PLEASE.....
I REALIZE THIS IS SOMEWHAT OFF TOPIC.
A FRIEND ASKED HOW TO CHANGE MOUSE DOUBLE-CLICK TIME ON X.
I CAN FIND IT FOR GPM. IS THIS THE WAY TO CHANGE IT UNDER X ? I AM GUESSING IT IS NOT, BUT CAN'T FIND ANY REAL INFORMATION AS TO HOW TO DO IT.
I have made a script some time ago and a web page to compute modelines: http://www.inria.fr/cgi-bin/nph-colas-modelines
Can you put an archive of the thing on Geocities?
those of us who cant afford the latest and greatest hardware that costs an arm and a leg and a firstborn
There are already VESA standard modes listed in the Section "Generic Vido Modes", of _Configuring XFree86_ on the xfree website.
X is fexible in that you can use modes that are BETTER (higher refresh rates, better resolution), or simply DIFFERENT than the VESA standard modes. You can still use VESA modes, however, if you wish.
And most tool that generate XF86Config files (xf86config, XF86Setup, Xconfigurator, etc.) include the VESA modes in their output (the XF86Config file).
So X lets you use VESA modes. But it doesn't force you to use them. Good thing too, since the last time I checked, the VESA standard modes didn't include a 1600x1200 mode.
I poked around in Device Manager on a win95 box here but didn't see it..
hmm..
**shuffle-shuffle-shuffle**
I'm not seeing it anywhere..
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Xconfigurator - tried and true.. this application is the closest thing has to plug and play. it will detect or attempt to detect your video card and then probe you monitor prior to writing your config file to make sure it has a good chance of working. you only have to specify what kind of monitor you have and what resolutions you want.
XF86Setup - This is my heavy duty alternative. when xconfigurator doesnt work perfectly, this is usually the answer to my problems. this requires that in addition to the Xserver for your card, that the VGA16 server is installed. It will boot into x in 16 color vga mode and allow you to specify every piece of x related hardware including the keyboard and mouse. you are able to configure the mouse down to the model and the number of buttons. The video card can be chosen by name or chipset. Once you have finished configuration, the x server shuts itself down and restarts with the specified hardware. If all goes well then it will prompt you to save the configuration. At this point, it will also let you make small visual adjustments to the vertical and horizontal refresh rate using xvidtune ( also required ) and automatically save the changes into the configuration.
LW
The problems with configuring X don't end with modelines, they just start there. For instance, once you get that right, you probably have to specify the correct -dpi flag to get X to know the right size for things that actually try to size things (like fonts) since many folks are running 100dpi or better but the default is usually 75dpi. And once you do that, if you try to switch screens with Ctrl-Alt-+/- it'll be wrong again.
And back to fonts again, you invariably have to muck with your font path to get the right ones first for the given resolution. And of course then when you switch screens it will be wrong again.
Yes, most of the info is out there, but it's much harder than it should be. Just the name of the XFree86 Font Deuglification Mini HOWTO should be a tipoff.
Beyond that, I think there are some changes required to fix fundamental problems like the screen -> dpi one. Maybe the modeline should include the dpi for that resolution, or maybe the monitor section should list the physical size of the usable screen so the X server can calculate it.
I am having slightly different problems tweaking X's video modes. I have two systems, but only one monitor. The obvious solution is an A/B switch box. One system is a Win98 box, which I can configure to use a nice resolution (say 1024x768). Now, when I setup X on the other system to use 1024x768, the resolution is correct, but skewed into the upper right corner of the monitor. Tweaking the X settings to shift the image is the only option (since MS doesn't allow any adjustments).
On one hand, this has been very frusturating to get these settings correct under Linux/X. OTOH, since MS doesn't allow any adjustments, at least X offers a solution where under MS I would be SOL.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem& item=224205737
Linux runs significantly faster than Windows on any machine I have tried it on (except for an old 486/33 with a Trident 8900 card). I haven't had any problems with graphics card config under Linux. I have set up over 5 computers to run Linux Xfree86 (from Slackware 2.5 to Mandrake 5.2), and the graphics card has never been a problem. Sound cards, on the other hand, have required rebuilding the kernel several times before they work. Ugh.
I'm collecting words with syllables missing from the middle, such as "nutrious" and "incandent". "Illerate" has to be one of the very best in a decade. These couldn't exist if it weren't for a system of teaching reading that creates partly-dead brains, called (sometimes) the "whole word" method. Takes us back about 5,000 years, before the invention of phonetic alphabets. Sorry to be totally off-topic; couldn't resist! // Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@world.std.com
You need to look in the .inf files that were provided by the OEM. They should be in /windows/ or in /windows/system
Scuttlemonkey is a troll