[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:05:45 +0000 Keith Abraham <keith.abraham8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24/03/14 07:52, Henry Bremridge wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 09:28:06PM +0000, bad apple wrote: > > > >> This is why I universally recommend Intel graphics for Linux > >> machines now, unless they need serious graphical firepower. > >> > >> Good luck getting your nvidia drivers working again, > >> > > Oh Good. Someone else had the same problem I had. :) > > > > I will be following your advice and buying a new motherboard with > > intel graphics: the less I have to do with Nvidia the better > > > > > > > Graphics: Card: NVIDIA GF119 [GeForce GT 520] X.Org: 1.15.0 driver: > nvidia Resolution: 1680x1050@xxxxxx > GLX Renderer: GeForce GT 520/PCIe/SSE2 GLX Version: 4.4.0 > NVIDIA 331.49 > > I have no problems here with the above using Debian unstable on my > personal gear. > > Just a thought. Before you lash out money for a new motherboard did > you remember to install the appropriate kernel headers to build the > nvidia module? > > I can highly recommend the following pages from the siduction manual > for Nvidia cards > > http://manual.siduction.org/gpu#nvidia > > Keith > There has been quite a lot on this topic which makes me wonder why. That is, if nvidia cards cause so much trouble for Linux users, why not stick with Intel graphics, or any others that work? Why have nvidia graphics at all? Now I realise that there must be a good reason, just wondering what it is. Please excuse my ignorance, Neil -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq