Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
IMHO, it's a very good practice to include the comment line that the gtf utility generates, as it contains the settings data you need to compare to your monitor specs to make certain you're not going to fry it.
You already have the "Screen" section set to include "1152x864" so make this one change and you should be able to choose your display setting of 1152x864 from the GUI after you restart the xserver [Ctl-alt-backspace] on most Linux distros.
It will probably go right into your preferred res, as we are only giving it one preferred option.
If this doesn't do it, we'll all be standing by. But let us know, OK?
All the best,
Last edited by SilverBear2006; 03-11-2007 at 10:13 AM.
You probably know this already, but just in case:
you need to edit the /etc/X11/xorg.conf file as root, with a text editor, not a wordprocessor.
If you're not root, it won't let you save the file to the /etc directory, as all the files in there are owned by root.
To get to be root and into editing the file, here's what I would do, since I'm running KDE. At the command line prompt $: kdesu kwrite /etc/X11/xorg.conf
you'll be prompted for your root password, and then kwrite will open the file as with superuser [root] privileges.
In gnome, instead of kdesu, you use gtksu and then whatever editor you have installed instead of kwrite.
You could try generating a new xorg.conf from the command line. Before doing so, make sure you have a proper back-up of your current one because it will get overwritten in the process.
cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.bak
When you're done change to runlevel 3:
then run this command:
/usr/bin/xorgcfg (or /usr/bin/xorgconfig - I think both will work)
Follow the instructions; I think they're clear and intuitive.
Don't worry if you don't get it right straightaway; you can always start over. If you can't get into Gnome/KDE anymore, you can simply boot into runlevel three by adding this to your boot line in Grub:
that's all, really.
If it doesn't work and you need to recover your old display, you place back your xorg.conf.bak:
cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf.bak /etc/X11/xorg.conf
I'm afraid this approach is pretty much the last option so I hope it helps.
I used to use SuSE 10.0 but I don't have an install of it right now to check this out with.
I seem to remember that the installation disk had a lot of "configuration" and "repair-installation" options.
If you could use your SuSE install disk to reinstall an authentic SuSE xorg.conf [without affecting anything else], we might get somewhere with that. I have never worked with saX before, and I think that the xorg.conf file it left you with it has just muddied the picture.
I'm sorry for my late response, I haven't been at home for the past few days.
BTW, jolphil, I have 512 MB of RAM... please let me know of any further details.
Thank you so much for the help people. I'll go through the link you've specified and let you know if it helped.
jay73: Well, thanks man. I tried what you said, but whenever I did, my system returned some 'server crash error message'. I'll be posting the details about that soon.
You shouldn't be overly impressed with the whole "server crash" business, it sounds way worse than it is. Please do post more detail about the exact error message, that would be extremely useful. I wouldn't be surprised if it were simply a matter of not choosing the best available option during xorgcfg.
Note: if you followed my suggestions, you can always use your back-up if you want to avoid the server crash.
I'm sincerely very sorry for the delay in my response, I couldn't help the situation as I was out of town.
And well, Jay, I did try what you suggested, and I also got the server to run by typing xorgconfig instead of xorgcfg. Then, I put in all the details as meticulously as possible, and then rebooted.
The xorg.conf file was successfully written, but this time, after any number of reboots, my system refused to go to runlevel 5 (I tried typing init 5); in fact, everytime I rebooted, my system started up in runlevel 3.
Ultimately, I had to restore the backup and reboot, and this time, the system automatically loaded the GUI (runlevel 5).
I have one doubt. I checked on the intel site to see what video accelerator my motherboard has, and found it out to be GMA 900 graphics system. I tried to check in the working xorg.conf file to see what it was using, and it says 'i810'. I also selected the same card while making a new xorg.conf file through xorgconfig. Is that the problem?
If it is, then why is my old xorg.conf working? Any ideas?
Phew, I'm glad to hear from you after all this time. I was beginning to fear my well-meaning advice had caused your computer (and you too) to blow up...
Why the old xorg.conf should suddenly have begun to function properly, that's something of a mystery to me. The only two things I know is that, in my experience at least, autodetection of video cards is an uncertain thing; I've seen at least as many mistakes as successes. On top of that, Suse is one of the most pig-headed distributions I've ever seen when it comes to such things. The real problem, I think, is this sax2 utility, which seems to hide away a good deal of details (it's no coincidence many say that Suse comes pretty close to Windows) and those may well prevent you from making any corrections through xorg.conf. I've seen this on my own pc and the only thing that did help was using xorgconfig. That must be like some kind of sledgehammer blow to sax2; I've rarely seen it resist any longer after that. Still, I'm a bit surprised you couldn't get into runlevel 5. My guess is some minor mistake was made - and that is usually all it takes; in the end, this didn't allow you to boot into runlevel 5 but using xorgconfig alone was enough to unsettle any hidden sax 2 settings so that your xorg.conf could finally take full effect. And let's not forget that your old xorg.conf wasn't exactly your old xorg.conf anymore: I believe you had already done some manual editing on it; it seems these modifications only got through after trying xorgfonfig. This does seem likely to me, but again, I'm not too sure either.
As a last piece of advice, do make sure you have a copy of xorg.conf stored away in a safe place.
And oh yes, enjoy your Suse. It's been a lot of work but that's OK, I nearly killed myself trying to master Debian 3.1 some time ago; I utterly failed in certain respects but, who cares, it's given me so much confidence and insight that I could now wreck half my system and repair it in a matter of minutes. Who knows, with a little learning, I may some day be able to wreck all of it ...
I been thinking about your problem and keep coming back to the Integrated graphics system and how it relies on CPU power and system memory..
I have one doubt. I checked on the intel site to see what video accelerator my motherboard has, and found it out to be GMA 900 graphics system. I tried to check in the working xorg.conf file to see what it was using, and it says 'i810'.
What I found might help to understand how important the entire system plays in the higher resolution/refresh rate
that is required..Sorry to keep coming back to the same line.. http://www.intel.com/design/graphics/gma900/
Thanks Jay73 and Jolphil.
Well, I pretty much believe it now that the real problem with my display now is what my system sees my graphics card as. I've tried my best with switching monitors, but somehow, sax wouldn't let me switch to anything more than 60 Hz on a 1280x1024 screen. And 60 Hz is all it thinks my 'i810' graphics card is capable of.
I've been through the link you've specified Jolphil, I'd been to it before, and yes, it provided me with some mighty good insight as to what my video card was capable of.
Here are two things I found interesting:
> 128 MB maximum video memory
> 2048x1536 at 85 Hz maximum resolution
I think this more or less proves that sax has got it wrong in my case. It still recognises my card as i810, and come to think of it, I think an i810 is capable of only 1280x1024@60Hz. Thats whats causing all the problems.
Next, I tried xorgconfig from the commandline (runlevel 3). Sadly, it didn't provide any option for a GMA900 card. So, I put in the values on my own (128 MB max mem and so forth); but still, my system refused to boot into runlevel 5. Sheesh...
Then I downloaded drivers for GMA 900, and something prevented even them from being installed.
To make things worse, one of my friends who happens to have exactly the same system configuration, installed and ran FC 6; and in his case, things went as smoothly as anything. He can easily run his system at 1152x864@75 Hz (he has the same monitor as me).
Sincerely, I'm beginning to think that Suse is not that cool after all. It really confuses me to see the Novell people aspire so hard to make something like windows, even when they know that windows is not the best OS (putting it mildly).
Thank you so much for your time guys.
Any ideas what to do next?