2006/11/30, Tim Schmidt <<a href="mailto:timschmidt@gmail.com">timschmidt@gmail.com</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Meeting new machines is my job, and I haven't met one yet that<br>couldn't be convinced to work with a Free driver, at least well enough<br>to install and hit the net.</blockquote><div><br>Mine too. And I did. More than once :-) <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> For example, I installed Ubuntu on a new machine the other day. Nice<br>> spec, had an ATI card. I tried Dapper and the live CD came up with a <br>> screen resolution of 640x480... this is on a 19" LCD monitor! Looked<br>> awful. Edgy ran at 800x600. Still awful.<br>> This was not a config problem, since after checking the config file<br>> everything seemed fine. The problem was in the driver refusing to go <br>> above 800x600 for that card.<br><br>We're talking about Nvidia specifically, and a recent machine failing<br>to do anything higher than 800x600 is a configuration problem.  Any<br>machine made in the last 10 years, equipped with enough ram for the <br>framebuffer, and an appropriate monitor, will do 1024x768 with the<br>VESA driver.</blockquote><div><br>No some can't. Specifically some VIA and ATI cards. For VIA I patched the video driver myself more than once, and for ATI I had to use the binary one. <br><br>Sorry, but suggesting VESA is, well, simplistic. There are cards which get SO slow with vesa (for instance via, when they even work) which we in the factory consider it non-functional.<br></div><br><br></div>-- <br> []<br>Alexandre Strube<br><a href="mailto:surak@ubuntu.com">surak@ubuntu.com</a>