X runs very slow on DSL other than some other distros I've used (like Knoppix). It's just not taking full advantage of my hardware I suppose. For example, if I scroll through a website on DSL, it is very laggy, and on Knoppix, it's smooth. I'm curious what I can do to X to make it like that. I figured it was just a setting in the configuration file for X, but I can't seem to find that file anywhere

I know this is a problem with DSL, but I thought it was universal too, so I posted it here.

what are your hardware specs? i guess you don't get this in gentoo???

Funny you noticed that Gentoo thing I was installing Gentoo on this rig until I realized how long it would take to compile everything from source on this old rig. So yeah, no Gentoo for now, but I might hop back to later. Miiiiight.

My video card is integrated (on a laptop). It's a Neomagic NM2160 (Graph 128XD). The laptop is a Dell Inspiron 3200. So yeah, when it's not using the vid card like it should, I knoooow, ha.

Perhaps DSL set up X to use the framebuffer driver, which is very slow. I'm guessing you want the neomagic driver. The X config file is (or should be) at /etc/X11/xorg.conf.

Ah yeah, I am! It's cause the display was very bizzare on the Xvesa mode. I'll try to work something out now that I know what the problem is Thank you!

aaahh ... the X config isn't there ... and there is no xorg.conf file on the system either :P I'll hunt around a little more for the file ...

dsl uses "xfree86" rather than "xorg" so the file is probably called xf86conf or something.....

as you may recall most distro's switched to xorg some time ago, but with DSL size and performance are paramount.......

I've searched and searched and it looks like DSL doesn't even use an X configuration file at all. Some flags are passed onto X to boot it, and that's it. Ah man, it would be nice to update the graphical environment, ya know? Something as light, but recent ... I don't think installing Xorg on it would lag it down, hmm ... I'm gonna look into this a bit more.

in 50mb of DSL dont hope for any hardware acceleration. the set of software and overall features is so minimal that you will literally have to make a complete debian before it is usable. might as well start at knoppix.

Ah yeah, I know, but DSL is really nice, being so light and all ... and GOOD NEWS! There's an optional XFree86 DSL package that I discovered, and I'm installing it right now. The little package installer warns you that it's not a "click-and-play" system and there are configurations that need to be setup, so I think this is it.

Lynx post btw

you might wanna check out the slightly larger version of DSL:

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/dsl-n/

not sure which packages are included though. but i'd guess at the extra Xfree86 stuff......

I guess now I'm gonna have to throw a wild pun out and say DAMN! That's really cool!! I'm plotting a plan on how to get that on my laptop right now, thanks for the link!!

yeah, i reckon the 2.6 kernel will be better for your laptop.... and it's not like you are that short of space/resources that you need to run normal DSL.

i heard about it from www.distrowatch.com - good place to keep track of new releases at a glace.

yeah i tried using it as an os for my server(P200 64MB 2GB) and found it less than appealing on the old hardware... plus the installation of packages is not standard at all. those packages you are installing are not normal debian packages... of course there is synaptic installed... using old-stable apt repositories. once you add in the stable repositories and start installing new packages you gonna end up upgrading everything, you system will double, tripple and quadripple in size within minutes. although it may work for VERY VERY minor use like word processing and surfing, the DSL updates are too incomplete for anything else. a word of warning, DSL Apache/PHP package is VERY incomplete. as you update you will end up with debian sarge on your hands. ive been through it.
anyway im not trying to discourage you, go ahead and try anyway. it wont hurt anything lol.

a minimal install of sarge would probably not be that big and would run ok. you could probably use XFCE okay too.... you'd just have to be strict with regards to using apt-get too much...........

thats what i have... the arguement is that you can go to sarge directly by doing net install, rather than doing patchwork on DSL.