OpenGL glxgears demo program

[NoOp]

On 08/01/2008 02:03 PM, Mumia W. wrote:
> On 08/01/2008 03:10 PM, Chaman Singh Verma wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
> 
> Hello.
> 
>> One of my friend installed Fedora on a similar machine, and I checked that 
>> machine with glxinfo:
>> it reported Direct Rendering: YES. I was wondering if my machine is the only 
>> with Direct Rendering NO.
>> Should I reinstall everything afresh ?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> Chaman Singh
>> 
>> 
> 
> Assuming you are talking about reinstalling Ubuntu, I wouldn't recommend 
> it to solve this problem. If it can be solved, it will be solved in a 
> much less disruptive way, but sometimes DRI cannot be enabled properly.
> 
> On my system, DRI causes hard lockups within ten minutes of use; it's 
> probably a driver bug, and until they fix it, I need to stay away from DRI.
> 
> 
> 

You are probably right. However if he's been trying different drivers
(including driconfig etc) it might be worth a shot.

I've just (today) loaded 8.04.1 on a very old 600Mhz Intel machine with:
*-display
             description: VGA compatible controller
             product: 82815 Chipset Graphics Controller (CGC)
             vendor: Intel Corporation
and DRI works out of the box. Can't run Compiz etc., of course, but DRI
is working and glxgears gives a respectible (for that chip) 295 FPS.
I've got a 1Ghz machine with the same chipset and it also runs DRI with
no problems.

On this and one another machine I am running:
*-display
             description: VGA compatible controller
             product: 82865G Integrated Graphics Controller
             vendor: Intel Corporation
and DRI and compiz work just fine. glxgears is 668.877 FPS - not
spectacular, but not bad for an old 2.4Ghz Intel machine.

Chaman's chip is newer than either of those:
 *-display UNCLAIMED
             description: VGA compatible controller
             product: 82945G/GZ Integrated Graphics Controller
             vendor: Intel Corporation

The part that bothers me about Chaman's display is the "display
UNCLAIMED" comment from lshw. I'm not sure why it would be reporting
that & it might, or might not have something to do with the problem.