Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:27:42PM -0400, Khepri wrote:
>
>>I was just curious to know if the general consensus for a soundboard
>>under Linux is Soundblaster and Nvidia based for video?
>
> Actually, Creative Labs has historically been kind of a thorn in the
> side of FLOSS developers, as far as I'm aware. SoundBlaster Live! cards
> do seem to be fairly well supported, though, as far as I can tell. I
> have one in this machine and Debian loaded support for it without a
> hitch. I can only assume that its drivers for Windows have been
> thoroughly reverse-engineered by FLOSS developers.
Okay...that's good to hear! Most of the posts I saw general involved
boards that were too new.....driver development latency...LOL
>>ATI seems friendly, but Nvidia seems friendlier, however I just read an
>>post somewhere on the web suggesting Nvidia doesn't offe rthe kind of
>>suport they have in the based the the main Linux liason no longer works
>>there and has moved on..or was that Soundblaster? If so, which board?
>>Not seeing to many good things about the Audigy cards but the Live!
>>cards seem to be an easier go of it....
Man, what happened there!? that was supposed to say,"...the kind of
support they have in the past because the main liason between them and
the Linux community left the company..." ...something like that.
> I've also had no issues with my ATI card in this machine. I have an ATI
> Radeon 9500, and (again) Debian supports it without a hitch. On the
> other hand, I have another computer 'round here in which I installed an
> old ATI Rage and it absolutely did not play well with Linux.
Exactly!...That pII400 over there has the old Rage card...alomostever
distro I tried on that machine had major issues with that card...
> Then
> again, the Rage line was notorious for being flaky and generally awful
> regardless of the OS, and though they've discontinued the line ATI still
> gets a lot of bad rep from that.
Hmmm, butit's good to hear the 9500, at least, does well...
>>One piece I don't see much feedback on is the otherboard..company-wise,
>>are there any I should avoid for being known to be troublesome under
>>Linux? I think I did see a couple of complaints about ASUS but I don't
>>recall exactly what that was...
>
>
> This machine has an ASUS P4B266-C motherboard, and I've had zero
> problems with it. I have, however, had no end of trouble with an
> Amptron board in another computer. It's a cheapo board with everything
> integral (onboard video, sound, et cetera) that has had minor issues
> with Windows and major issues with unices. I seem to remember running
> across some kind of complaint about ASUS boards with Linux, but I don't
> remember the specifics and, frankly, everything's likely to have a
> complaint or two aimed at it eventually. My own experience with ASUS
> has been good.
Ah...more good news then...thanks!
> You might consider avoiding boards that use SiS chipsets. They're
> pretty commonly flaky.
Great! I had been looking one online...
Are most of the Intel boards OK? All my older machines have a 440bx and
I've yet to have a problem with those.....but things change....:) Come
to think of it this box has the second edition in it...what a great
board that was...upgradable forever it seemed but I think it at the end
of its rope...bus not fast enough I guess because every once in a while
on really heavy tasks it'll bawk as if it's bottlenecking or something..
So I figure if I'm going to have a msfree system might as well dedicate
a box to it instead of dual booting....my habit is proving to be to hard
to kick with it sitting there like that...pure evil....lol
Thanks for the help!
Chris
> --
> Chad Perrin
> [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:28:27 EDT