The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Martin on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @10:53
|
Ask ATI.
AFAIK their drivers don't support compositing.
But KWin will just fall back to plain X when used with fglrx. Not that much eyecandy, but it will work;)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Troy Unrau on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @10:53
|
AMD has claimed that they will be releasing ATI drivers as opensource - so I assume that once this happens, it will be supported in short order... I'm pretty certain this works under the opensource driver already, but there may be some speed problems.
I guess as long as AIGLX or XGL work with the fglrx drivers, you should be okay. The reason I mention the nvidia driver directly in the article is that for nvidia, it works without aiglx or xgl, which may or may not be an advantage, depending on your perspective... (one less layer means slightly faster, vs. proprietary driver implementing things in it's own way....)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Martin on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @10:57
|
If I'm not totally incorrect, NVidia has implemented something very similar to AIGLX on their own.
ATI's proprietary drivers (fglrx) doesn't even support composite yet. But once they (hopefully) release their source code, the extensions will be added quickly to the drivers/it will be merged with the radeon driver.
Also noteworthy, is that I read somewhere that ATi was blocking the release of open source drivers that supported their newest card (the code was ready, but somehow the programmer wasn't allowed to release it, probably an NDA).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Troy Unrau on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:08
|
About NVidia: that is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Also, about fglrx, last I checked, it does support Composite, and it does support GL, but not both at the same time forcing you to choose. Normally, users will elect for GL, since you are reduced to using Mesa if you enable Composite.
Not sure about the ATI rumour, but when companies release the source code, they usually try to clean it up somewhat to ensure they aren't accidentally releasing IP that they do not own the rights to... think of the big delays in opensourcing java, for example, or star office :) A driver is a little smaller, but the principle is the same.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Alexander van Loon on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:24
|
Troy Unrau, you say NVIDIA's drivers work without XGL or AIGLX. I know XGL is a separate X server, but isn't AIGLX a part of X.org?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiglx
"The AIGLX project has been merged into X.Org and is available as of X.Org 7.1."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgl
"Xgl is an X server architecture..."
So how can you work without AIGLX if you run X.org and use NVIDIA drivers?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Troy Unrau on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:35
|
NVidia's drivers perform the same functions as AIGLX or XGL without their presence. They do it internally within the driver, and as such, will run KWin Composite on X.Org version 6.9, for example, when using the proprietary nvidia drivers.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Anonymous on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @15:58
|
>AMD has claimed that they will be releasing ATI drivers as opensource [..]
If you're referring to the keynote at the Red Hat Summit, opinions diverge and there was nothing like a promise of any kind, except that AMD's marketing person claimed that AMD is willing to work on better Linux support for their drivers - like AMD/ATI did so often. Only (tabloid) news sites Slashdot and OSNews reported in a "It's coming soon" way, linking as proof to a blog of someone who thinks to have heard a promise of open graphics drivers.
Just to consider: AMD doesn't even care enough to clarify. And then recall again their promise of having to work better with the Linux community. All I'm saying is, don't get your hopes too high with AMD.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Jack Ripoff on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @20:45
|
They'd rather just release their hardware's specs/documentation freely so we stop depending on them and their flawed drivers. Mind you, ATI drivers have never been good (never even MS Windoze's).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Stephan Sokolow on Friday 31/Aug/2007, @02:40
|
You're telling me. I have an old ATI Rage128 card that guarantees a WinXP blue screen (with the newest version of the driver) if you start up aMule but it works like a charm on the reverse-engineered X driver.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Beat Wolf on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:00
|
this question you have to ask the other way around. because the problem lies with the proprietary drivers. they dont support one extremely important fonction that all those fancy WMs use, and i think there is no way to make it work with the current ati drivers. But i'm no developer.
Change to nvidia or intel if you can. i'm out of luck too with my laptop.. at least those things work with the open source driver.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Jan Mentzel on Thursday 31/May/2007, @00:48
|
having laptop here as well. so changing is on option.
The open source driver neither supports OpenGL hardware accelleration nor directdraw. I know, thats not the developers fault.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Robin on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:24
|
With fglrx, Xgl is needed to run Compiz/Beryl. fglrx will run in GL Mode, Composite is somehow emulated or so by XGL (afaik).
I wonder if kwin_composite will work with XGL and gl enabled fglrx...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Troy Unrau on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @11:38
|
Since it is doing much the same thing as Beryl, it should work. I've never played with Xgl though with fglrx. I got so upset with the drivers for my fairly new (onboard) radeon express 200, that I went and bought myself an nvidia card just to avoid the driver hassle.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Leo S on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @12:55
|
I share your pain, I have the same card, and it is absolutely atrocious. In the beginning it didn't even work in 2D mode. At least that works now, but the performance is dreadful, and fglrx is such an awful driver that I don't even want to try it anymore. I spent weeks on it in the past with more or less garbage results. My only hope now are the ATI open source drivers (if they actually release them).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Jack Ripoff on Wednesday 30/May/2007, @20:49
|
Opensource or not, their drivers will remain buggy.
Our real hope would be pressuring them to release their docs so we can code our own decent drivers.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by ac on Thursday 31/May/2007, @05:23
|
so now specs are better then code? the opensource driver community could easier write a new driver from scratch than fixing atis maybe-very-soon-opensource-driver?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Jack Ripoff on Thursday 31/May/2007, @05:58
|
"so now specs are better then code?"
As far as device drivers are concerned, it always has been.
"the opensource driver community could easier write a new driver from scratch than fixing atis maybe-very-soon-opensource-driver?"
Probably. That driver's just so buggy, it's code may be a complete spaghetti mess. I could be wrong about this thou, perhaps it may just be a matter of cleaning the code up.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: ATI / fglrx?
by Daniel on Monday 29/Oct/2007, @22:05
|
I have a Radeon XPress 200M, and I installed the newest drivers from AMD. They are a completely new codebase and fully support AIGLX. I am running Beryl with few problems,so I am sure that this will work excellently with KDE4.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
