Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102

Thread: Catalyst 10.1 and Xorg 7.5 / 1.7.x?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Paderborn
    Posts
    40

    Default Catalyst 10.1 and Xorg 7.5 / 1.7.x?

    Hello,

    currently fglrx is RC buggy in Debian unstable, because Xorg 7.5/1.7.x is uploaded and fglrx 9-12 still does not have support for it.

    Does anyone know, if 10-1 will add the missing support?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    Just use Kanotix based on Debian Lenny, that's still working. I doubt that something before 10-4 will get support, maybe a beta for it as that would be for U 10.04 release. ATI ignores every other distro - Fedora had Xorg long ago and ATI did not care - HD5xxx users even have got fun with vesa driver only.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the-me View Post
    Hello,

    currently fglrx is RC buggy in Debian unstable, because Xorg 7.5/1.7.x is uploaded and fglrx 9-12 still does not have support for it.

    Does anyone know, if 10-1 will add the missing support?
    In the past the fglrx support only software which is shipped with the supported distributions.

    Maybe with 10.04 we get an beta or rc with ubuntu and 3 or 4 month later the final version.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Ubuntu will be on Xserver 1.8.

    That means Ubuntu will ship without fglrx support - it's too new for them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by damentz View Post
    Ubuntu will be on Xserver 1.8.

    That means Ubuntu will ship without fglrx support - it's too new for them.
    I think then AMD release for Ubuntu an beta with xserver 1.8 support. and some MOnth later the Final version with xserver 1.8

  6. #6

    Default

    This is a big issue for me. I just got an HD4670 card to replace my old Nvidia card. I had read that ATI's driver support was pretty good nowadays, and I certainly wanted to support the realease of specs.
    But now I discover that ATI's driver doesn't even support a 3 month old Xorg release, the one I'm using no less. I had no such problems with Nvidia. Now I either have to downgrade my Xorg package and presumably have to live with being a release behind Xorg (and prevent Arch from upgrading that package), or simply return this card and get a Nvidia card.

    Is this a common occurence, or is this a one-off issue? And when (if ever?) should I expect ATI to provide support for this 3 month old Xorg release?

    Also, I was under the impression that the open source driver had at least basic 3D-support, but it doesn't seem work for me.. Maybe it doesn't have support for dual screen? (Intel has this, so it's certainly not an randr problem)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwedishPenguin View Post
    This is a big issue for me.
    Welcome to the club.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Same old story, it seems. I asked about ATI and which cards should be considered for a certain price and speculate about driver maturity.

    But, it seems like it's too difficult to update and keep up. It seems the kernel and xorg are constantly being updated/upgraded and at a faster pace than usual. If I'm wrong, okay, but that is my impression. Nvidia seems to do a much better job at keeping up even if they have their own issues. Even if it's a constant offering of beta drivers, there is some usability that I don't perceive ATI having.

    It's not as big a deal if you have a desktop card but you might be a bit frustrated if you just bought one. But, with laptop cards, it's a major issue since there is no switching. Whether it's an older card that may or may not have OSS support being fully supported and no fglrx choice at all or a brand new card with mixed support, it still means waiting for sufficient improvement.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    yes if you want the newest packages the FGLRX hurts you every year and day,,,,
    don't buy AMD if you need the latest packages with the FGLRX...

    Buy AMD for the open-source driver!...


    WINE is the only reall point left for the FGLRX,,,

    if the opensource driver get opengL3.2 the wine problem will be fixed...

    fixed means delete FGRLX out of your harddrive and dring a good Whisky to delete the irritation with the name FGLRX from your brain to...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    yes if you want the newest packages the FGLRX hurts you every year and day,,,,
    don't buy AMD if you need the latest packages with the FGLRX...

    Buy AMD for the open-source driver!...


    WINE is the only reall point left for the FGLRX,,,

    if the opensource driver get opengL3.2 the wine problem will be fixed...

    fixed means delete FGRLX out of your harddrive and dring a good Whisky to delete the irritation with the name FGLRX from your brain to...
    As I understand it, the OSS driver doesn't support 3D or deliver 3D features. Until it does, there will be a need to use fglrx so why keep harping on ONLY using the OSS driver. It's not practical when 3D is a large part of every OS. You couldn't even use Google Earth, I suspect.

    Furthermore, the OSS driver is not usable in the latest cards either, I suspect. At least, not fully working. So, you have an incomplete driver set no matter the driver. I think that is what the complaints are about and not keeping up with the changes in X.org or the kernel. The fact that support for older cards is either discontinued or neglected is yet another whammy. If AMD/ATI want to distinguish themselves from Nvidia, they should have long term support instead of just concentrating on newer cards which is not being maintained in an up-to-date fashion anyway. AMD should probably devote more resources to it? One of the flaws in Linux, imho, as far as having more adoptions is video drivers. They are either requiring a really extensive driver install which is DIY or the support is way behind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •