2007-06-12, 13:29 | Link #81 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-06-14, 05:33 | Link #82 |
You could say.....
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Now I need help for my pc. I've just bought an 32" LCD TV/Monitor. My PC has an ECS NVidia GEforce 7300gt. As far as I can see my Nvidia Drivers are working fine under Ububtu, but I'm sure that I can get 1366x768 with my card. But I can only get 1024x768. I'm connected by s-video to the monitor. (should I be using either the DVI or VGA out instead?).
I was also planning on getting one of those HDTV USB dongles as well. But I'll hold off until I can figure out what to do. |
2007-06-14, 13:19 | Link #84 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Worst case scenario, you can access the X settings and add the resolution there. I don't think it should cause problems with the nVidia drivers. I had to do it that way when running Kubuntu under a virtual machine on my 1440x900 Macbook Pro. Scary process, but worked perfectly.
You may be able to do it more easily by editing the xorg.conf file, located in /etc/x11/ - I presume there are resolutions listed there, and you can type your desired one in. It should then become a selectable resolution. I think the way I did it was by opening a terminal and typing Code:
sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg Final note, those were the recommended instructions for people running Linux in a VM, largely under Parallels, where the graphics card is only emulated. I don't think it should make a difference whether it's a VM or not, but be aware. I also noticed: switching to DVI or HD15 instead of using S-Video might help with the computer's auto-detection, but if you set the resolution manually, there'd be no need to bother with it.
__________________
|
2007-06-14, 22:55 | Link #85 |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Okay, I just returned from my friend's house, after unsuccessfully trying to install Ubuntu. Here's the deal, and let me check if I'm right in my assumption:
My friend's PC is a crappy, premade PC, with only 256 MB of RAM. HOWEVER, it also has an onboard Intel graphics card, which draws 32 MBs from the RAM, which gives a total of 224 MB of effective RAM. Now, as the Ubuntu homepage advises, you need a minimum of 256 MB of RAM to run the graphical GUI install. The GUI ran without problems (other than clunkiness due to the low amount of RAM available), however, it hanged whenever it reached the 15% of the install (Detecting file system, if I remember correctly). I tried it three times, but no avail. Windows XP, on the other hand, got installed perfectly without a single problem. So may I be right in my assumption and guess that what killed the install was the low RAM? I once installed Ubuntu on another machine with 256 MB of RAM, but it had an Nvidia graphics card. I'm gonna go with my instinct and bring tomorrow to my friend's house the lighter version of the Ubuntu installation CD, which runs in a command-line fashion. I just wanted to know what you guys think about this issue.
__________________
|
2007-06-15, 01:45 | Link #86 |
INTJ
IT Support
|
What I used is:
sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg You literally have to "teach" Ubuntu that your video card is capable of certain resolutions. Now, as a pre-warning to those who don't use terminal too much and/or don't quite understand what it is you're getting into once you enter that into terminal, don't change much of the settings it goes through with you. If the hardware terminal is showing is fine as it is, then just hit enter or tab to "<ok>" and hit enter. Don't bother changing the values or selecting a different type of hardware connection type. It can render Ubuntu unstable. Also, in a similar note, once you've selected all the resolutions your video card is capable of, don't bother messing with the refresh value. Just hit enter until the configuration choices are over. Ubuntu automatically recognizes the necessary refresh rate each resolution needs to display on the screen properly. |
2007-06-15, 02:47 | Link #87 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-06-15, 18:03 | Link #88 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
And well... as you figured out, nobody forces one to use emerge... (and I've read so many problem reports for the 2007.0 installer that I think the whole emerge e-builds repository needs some cleaning or lets say revision).
__________________
|
|
2007-06-18, 00:45 | Link #89 |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Ubuntu validates as Genuine Windows
Ubuntu validates as Genuine Windows.
Man, that one got me cracking. (PS: Shouldn't it be "Wine validates as Genuine Windows?" ) EDIT: Another one, for the kicks of it
__________________
Last edited by WanderingKnight; 2007-06-18 at 01:30. |
2007-07-03, 00:36 | Link #93 | |
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
|
Quote:
Now here is another one. Anyone gotten past the issue of an app not being 100% Ubuntu compatible and you can't save to or load from a network place? Two good examples are Firefox and Comix (I need my comix!!!!), the only way I have gotten around it is by mounting the network drive via CLI.
__________________
Last edited by grey_moon; 2007-07-03 at 01:13. |
|
2007-07-07, 18:51 | Link #94 |
INTJ
IT Support
|
Strange and crazy thought. I dual-boot with Ubuntu and XP. Now, everyone should already know by now that on Ubuntu, you can read most (if not all) partition formats and mount them so that you can read/write to them. Now, if you flip back to Windows, the Linux partition is invisible. Is there any way to get around that? Possible at least as a read-only ability?
|
2007-07-07, 18:57 | Link #95 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Here. It is mainly an ext2 driver, but here there is some info about accessing ext3 formatted drives.
__________________
|
|
2007-07-07, 19:59 | Link #97 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Just a note I discovered about accessing the Linux partition from Windows: if you don't unmount the partition cleanly (say, if the computer crashes, and you load straight into Windows) then Windows will say that the partition is corrupt, and won't let you access the partition(s). Loading back into Linux and shutting it down cleanly fixes this issue.
I use OpenSUSE and had this issue once (it was a bit frightening). I presume it'd be the same across all Linux distros, though.
__________________
|
2007-07-07, 20:14 | Link #98 |
INTJ
IT Support
|
Yeah. That's a back and forth thing with the two OSes. Even when I don't cleanly shut down Windows, Ubuntu refuses to mount the drives, but at least it explains why. Windows in the other hand... Well, you explained it, so at least everyone else now know what to do.
|
2007-07-07, 21:09 | Link #99 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-07-08, 11:50 | Link #100 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Ah, so that's one of the features of journaling...
Not to side-track this too far, but is anyone familiar with ZFS (the partition type)? Any comments on it? It sounds pretty exciting, but all of the nuances and problems never come out until it hits the masses. The features that Sun has been trumping up sound pretty neat, though. The big selling point being that data is always recoverable...
__________________
|
Tags |
linux, ubuntu |
Thread Tools | |
|
|