[ltp] Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 vs 64MB ATIMobility Radeon x300

[noc ops]

L. Mark Stone wrote:
> 
> Quoting noc ops <aptgetd@gmail.com>:
> 
> 
>>L. Mark Stone wrote:
>>
>>>Quoting noc ops <aptgetd@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm trying to decide whether to pick Intel Graphics Media Accelerator
>>>>900 vs 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon x300 (integrated) for my thinkpad R52.
>>>
>>>
>>>With ATI you get ATI's binary-only drivers or the barebones ati kernel
>>>driver.  If you use ATI's drivers, you'll need to recompile them
>>>everytime you do a kernel update.  That means you'll need to install a
>>>build environment as well as the kernel sources. It also means you'll
>>>need to have some familiarity with boot options and/or init 3, for
>>>when you update the kernel and forget to recompile the binary driver
>>>before rebooting.
>>>
>>>With the Intel, you can use the 855resolution package (or the newer
>>>915resolution package; 855resolution works fine for me) to get
>>>1400x1050.  Not sure about Ubuntu, but SuSE (which is what I run on my
>>>15" 1859-BAU R52) includes the 855resolution package and so set up was
>>>pretty easy--and I don't have to worry about kernel udates.  Plus, I
>>>get 3D, the external monitor works, and I can use the KDE utils (I
>>>don't know if Gnome has something comparable) to change the screen
>>>resolution on the fly.
>>
>>--------------
>>What if I let the system (ubuntu 5.10 in my case) use the default
>>(intel) display driver? Or should I get the newer version of i915 [0]?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the 855resolution and 915resolution packages are not display  
> driver packages, so you will use the default Ubuntu-bundled Intel  
> driver (the SuSE-bundled driver supports 3D; I expect Ubuntu's will  
> too).
> 
> What 855/915resolution does is to patch the Intel video BIOS. Sounds  
> scary, but it isn't, because the patch you apply to the video BIOS is  
> not permanent.  The Intel chipset is capable of many more resolutions  
> than can be stored in its BIOS.  In my case, 1400x1050 was not stored  
> in the video BIOS, hence the need for the patch.  (As near as I can  
> tell, the IBM-supplied Windows XP video driver does the same thing.)
> 
> You don't have to use 855/915resolution if you don't want to, but in  
> my case that meant SuSE would only do 1280x1024, instead of 1400x1050.  
> And at 1280x1024, screen fonts looked pretty awful and fuzzy.
> 
> I took a stab at creating a draft HOWTO for SuSE. Please feel free to  
> use it if it is helpful. You can access it at:  
> http://pinot.rnome.com/LCD.pdf.  Note that I have changed the  
> DisplaySize setting in the Monitor section after I wrote the pdf.   
> Also, if you are not familiar with SuSE, "sax2" is the video utility  
> that generates the xorg.conf file.  I don't know the comparable Ubuntu  
> tool.
---------------
thanks a million! I'll give this a shot when my machine arrives.



regards,
/virendra

> 
> I hope that helps!
> 
> Mark
>