> On Nov 08 20:43:21, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

quoted text
> > which causes some graphic defects under aperture=1.
> 
> What "graphic defects"? And what makes you think it's due to the radeon,
> and what makes you think it's du to the aperture=1?
>

It didn't detect the right resolution so I made an xorg.conf at
aperture=2 and then set it back to 1. I then noticed at 1 (more obvious
at higher resolution and doesn't appear at =2) that the picture was kind
of folded with strange shimmering/corruption about 4 inches from the
right. I did a search on aperture in the archives and one mail asks if
anyone knows of xorg.conf options that might fix corruption on r128.

"http://www.mail-archive.com/misc@openbsd.org/msg82600.html"

quoted text
> > It
> > looks to me that aperture=2 would be quite a bit more 'evil' than
> > aperture=1 which most machines run fine under
> 
> I have allowaperture=2 on all machines where X is installed.
> What is 'evil' about that?
>

It allows access to the first megabyte of memory. How much worse it is
than 1 +exploit, I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty bad to me.


quoted text
> > and so I'm going to switch  for an nvidia card I have to hand
> 
> nvidia? why?
>

Simply a choice between that another nvidia which last time I tried
blew up an agp port and some old 16meg cards.


quoted text
> > (only reasonable spec one available).
> 
> what do you mean?
> 

Ditto

quoted text
> > I assume the performance will drop.
> 
> What "performance"? Why?
>

Nvidia driver as oppose to ati.