Very Computer

Hi Linuxers:

I was planning to run NeXTSTEP 3.2 on my PC but I realized that
NeXTSTEP demands a lot of hardware resources. Then I heard about LINUX.
Now I run Linux on a low end PC and am very happy with it.

My question:
  I know there is much fuss about video cards in Linux
commumity, but does Linux really benefit from them? and how ?
I've read that NeXTSTEP doesn't benefit from video accelator cards
because those cards were designed to accelerate MS Windows, but
NeXTSTEP uses linear frame buffer which used in workstations.
I was wondering how this is not true about Linux.
Does anybody have a clear idea about this?

Thanks,
Saied

: I was planning to run NeXTSTEP 3.2 on my PC but I realized that
: NeXTSTEP demands a lot of hardware resources. Then I heard about LINUX.
: Now I run Linux on a low end PC and am very happy with it.

: My question:
:   I know there is much fuss about video cards in Linux
: commumity, but does Linux really benefit from them? and how ?
: I've read that NeXTSTEP doesn't benefit from video accelator cards
: because those cards were designed to accelerate MS Windows, but
: NeXTSTEP uses linear frame buffer which used in workstations.
: I was wondering how this is not true about Linux.
: Does anybody have a clear idea about this?

If you have a card with an accelerator which is supported by XFree86 then Linux
does indeed benefit from an accelerated card.  As well, a VLB card is much
faster than an ISA card.

Check the XFree86 docs for a list of supported accelerators.  In general, the
more expensive the card, the higher the performance.  I just have a cheap
Cirrus Logic 5428, however, and I am quite happy with its performance.  It is a
VLB card and it is accelerated as well.  It is fully supported by XFree86.

Harry
--

 \      Harry C. Pulley, IV       |to the PUBLIC DOMAIN.|and to each his own.
----------------------------------+---------------------|This thought in mind,
Stay away from the DOS side, Luke!|Un*x don't play that.|I walk alone.

agree.

Quote:>As well, a VLB card is much faster than an ISA card.

That depends.  If we are talking about the different versions (vlb vs. isa)
of the same model, then yes; otherwise the statement is highly speculative
(read: over-hyped).  Assume the original poster was asking xf86 performance
(any card will do fine with linux text console, after all), the GUI accelearation
is far more important than the bus speed.  For a well designed GUI
accelearator, required bandwidth for running X should be much lower than
that allowed by ISA bus.  I had a S3-801 based ISA card running
on a 386-40 system, and it outperforms my friend's CirrusLogic 5428 based
VLB card on a 486dx2-66 system by leap and bounds in X.  
I'm not advocating ISA cards, however; heck, I'm hunting a good localbus
(vlb/pci) and motherboard combo myself; but it's not due to need for more
X performance, but for Doom, where bandwidth counts.
I'm just trying to point out that for X performance, GUI accelearator
chip is much more important than bus speed.

Quote:>Check the XFree86 docs for a list of supported accelerators.  In general, the
>more expensive the card, the higher the performance.  I just have a cheap
>Cirrus Logic 5428, however, and I am quite happy with its performance.  It is a
>VLB card and it is accelerated as well.  It is fully supported by XFree86.

You will see (pun?) what I meant in the my last paragraph if you try opaque
window movement with the CLGD5428 card.  I always use opaque window move, and
I don't have much patience.

Jim

        Stuff deleted here.....

:: You will see (pun?) what I meant in the my last paragraph if you try opaque
:: window movement with the CLGD5428 card.  I always use opaque window move, and
:: I don't have much patience.

: I don't use opaque window moves.  As above, satisfaction with your system
: performance is highly dependant on your applications.  I find the CL5428 to be

        This mention of opaque window moves has me curious! How do I get the
        Xserver to do this? I have a PCI version of the ATI Graphics Ultra
        Pro and I would like to see how well this works. Thanks! Besides a
        friend was giving me some guff about how the GUI in NextStep was so
        much better because when moving windows around the actual windows
        were picked up by the mouse rather than an outline so I would like
        to show him this is possible in X also.
--

| Youngstown State University  | Computer Science / Math / Mech. Eng.
|They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus.
|Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown.

[..stuff deleted ..]
: You will see (pun?) what I meant in the my last paragraph if you try opaque
: window movement with the CLGD5428 card.  I always use opaque window move, and
: I don't have much patience.

Huh? Do I have a wonder-5428? I've a cheapo vlb-5428 and it does the opaque
move like a charm. You may compare that... Start up a 16color vga server on
this board, which does not use the blitter, and try opaque move ... YAWN!
Use the accelerated 256 color SVGA server, and it runs like speedy
gonzales... (:

Someone asked how to do opaque move: In fvwm, try to put that in .fvwmrc:
  OpaqueMove 100
  OpaqueResize
In addition, rtfm... (:

Olav
--
/======================================\
| Olav "Mac" Woelfelschneider          |

+--------------------------------------+
| I refuse to grow up,                 |
| I don't want to lose my humor...     |
\======================================/

        Thanks to everyone on hint as to where to look for info on how to
        do opaque window moves! I had looked through all of the relevant
        XFree86 and X documentation and didn't think to look in the window
        manager documentation. Just in case anyone else is wondering in
        olwm (or olvwm -Openlook Virtual Window Manager) I had to set
        OpenWindows.DragWindow to True. Thanks to all! Now I can show this
        to those NeXTSTEP folks who were looking down their noses at X!
--

| Youngstown State University  | Computer Science / Math / Mech. Eng.
|They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus.
|Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown.

: : I was planning to run NeXTSTEP 3.2 on my PC but I realized that
: : NeXTSTEP demands a lot of hardware resources. Then I heard about LINUX.
: : Now I run Linux on a low end PC and am very happy with it.

: : My question:
: :   I know there is much fuss about video cards in Linux
: : commumity, but does Linux really benefit from them? and how ?
: : I've read that NeXTSTEP doesn't benefit from video accelator cards
: : because those cards were designed to accelerate MS Windows, but
: : NeXTSTEP uses linear frame buffer which used in workstations.
: : I was wondering how this is not true about Linux.
: : Does anybody have a clear idea about this?

: If you have a card with an accelerator which is supported by XFree86 then Linux
: does indeed benefit from an accelerated card.  As well, a VLB card is much
: faster than an ISA card.

: Check the XFree86 docs for a list of supported accelerators.  In general, the
: more expensive the card, the higher the performance.  I just have a cheap
: Cirrus Logic 5428, however, and I am quite happy with its performance.  It is a
: VLB card and it is accelerated as well.  It is fully supported by XFree86.

 Yes, the 5428 is a very nice card, support true color, and it gets
 40K xstones on my DX2/66 machine using Xfree 2.0. (about 60% of the
 speed of an ATI Ultra Pro)

 At 100 dollars, it is probably the best performance for the buck.

Cheers,
        Laszlo Herczeg
     *** Ask me about the Toronto Linux Users Group (TLUG)  ***

Quote:> Yes, the 5428 is a very nice card, support true color, and it gets
> 40K xstones on my DX2/66 machine using Xfree 2.0. (about 60% of the
> speed of an ATI Ultra Pro)
> At 100 dollars, it is probably the best performance for the buck.

I've been seeing VL-bus S3 805 based cards going for $85US at the shows.

                                                     w
--
Warren Bosworth Focke

 - Bela Lugosi's dead, Jim!

:  Yes, the 5428 is a very nice card, support true color, and it gets
:  40K xstones on my DX2/66 machine using Xfree 2.0. (about 60% of the
:  speed of an ATI Ultra Pro)
:  
:  At 100 dollars, it is probably the best performance for the buck.
:  

There are many s3-801 cards with about double the speed for about
$10 more.

--

Where ? What cards ? I looked through a Computer Shopper but I did not
quite find what I hoped to find --- so please advise me on how to find
a cheap and fast S3 card for an ISA bus. I need only 1 Meg as my monitor is
cheap too. So what would I get for say 70 US $ ? Help will be appreciated.
Regards,
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel                                  

And, while we're comparing performance: I've got a VL-bus el cheapo
no-name S3-805 card in an 486SX-33 and it gets 86K xstones using XFree
2.1. I paid 630 FIM for it, so it must be well under $100 in the US.
(US$ is ~5 FIM, and we have a 22% VAT).

86K xstones seems surprisingly good to me, especially considering that
486SX-33 is nowadays pretty lame. Anyone know if this score correlates
with realistic X video performance? I didn't notice that the S3 server
would cheat somehow, but don't trust me in that.

Note: I'm not flaming CL5428 either. They're also good cards for their
price, and very common, which means good support.
--

: no-name S3-805 card in an 486SX-33 and it gets 86K xstones using XFree
: 2.1. I paid 630 FIM for it, so it must be well under $100 in the US.
: (US$ is ~5 FIM, and we have a 22% VAT).

: 86K xstones seems surprisingly good to me, especially considering that
: 486SX-33 is nowadays pretty lame. Anyone know if this score correlates
: with realistic X video performance? I didn't notice that the S3 server
: would cheat somehow, but don't trust me in that.

: Note: I'm not flaming CL5428 either. They're also good cards for their
: price, and very common, which means good support.

I got similiar performance from an ISA bus 386-40 with a S3-801.  I
was very pleased that my $110 S3 card with 1 MB ram, did just
about as well as the ATI-Ultra-pro which was $$$ at the time.

--

Linux is great.         Bike to live, live to bike.                     PGP-ok

: >> Yes, the 5428 is a very nice card, support true color, and it gets
: >> 40K xstones on my DX2/66 machine using Xfree 2.0. (about 60% of the
: >> speed of an ATI Ultra Pro)
: >> At 100 dollars, it is probably the best performance for the buck.

: >I've been seeing VL-bus S3 805 based cards going for $85US at the shows.

: And, while we're comparing performance: I've got a VL-bus el cheapo
: no-name S3-805 card in an 486SX-33 and it gets 86K xstones using XFree
: 2.1. I paid 630 FIM for it, so it must be well under $100 in the US.

Not to be nit-picky, but $100 US is currently 125 Canadian. I paid
105 Canadian for the card.

I haven't seen S3 cards in your price range in Canada, but that could be
the function of the market.

The CLDG 5428 does 10 Mb/second raw video IO using SVGALIB applications,
which I am happy with at the moment. I don't believe an ISA card could
do this, no matter what the chipset is, simply because of the ISA
bus overhead.

: 86K xstones seems surprisingly good to me, especially considering that
: 486SX-33 is nowadays pretty lame. Anyone know if this score correlates
: with realistic X video performance? I didn't notice that the S3 server
: would cheat somehow, but don't trust me in that.

: Note: I'm not flaming CL5428 either. They're also good cards for their
: price, and very common, which means good support.
: --

Cheers,
        Laszlo Herczeg
     *** Ask me about the Toronto Linux Users Group (TLUG)  ***

: : Hi Linuxers:

: : My question:
: :   I know there is much fuss about video cards in Linux
: : commumity, but does Linux really benefit from them? and how ?

: Yes, it does.  Makes it a LOT easier to connect a monitor to the
: machine. :-)

But do you need one? I've seen at least one post about a system with no
monitor, just a dumb terminal on the serial port.  :-)

For that matter, you could remove the monitor and video card off a networked
system just fine if it was only for remote work (WWW server, ftp site, etc.)

        -Kurt Hockenbury

Quote:>But do you need one? I've seen at least one post about a system with no
>monitor, just a dumb terminal on the serial port.  :-)

I spliced mine into the telco closet, so
it displays incoming calls.
--
Bill Eldridge                          

310-206-3960                - now if the bus to the beach
310-206-3987 (fax)              only ran on Sunday