F17 video annoyances, old hardware

[drago01]

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Felix Miata <mrmazda at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2012/03/31 15:27 (GMT-0700) Adam Williamson composed:
>
>
>> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 12:20 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>
>
>>>  Ever tried to get VESA to produce 2048x1152, 1366x768, 1680x1050,
>>> 1600x900 or
>>>  1920x1080?
>
>
>>>  Have you tried to buy a 4:3 display lately? Do all your CRTs work
>>>  as well now as they did when new if at all? Are you familiar with what
>>>  1024x768 and 1280x1024 look like on a 1920x1080 display?
>
>
>> They look better than an error message telling you your X server won't
>> run.
>
>
> Only when the message isn't a lie. Just because it didn't start doesn't
> necessarily mean it can't be made to start. 'Tis better just a message than
> a literally distorted untruth.
>
>
>> (you're wrong anyway; vesa is perfectly capable of 16x9 resolutions. It
>
>
> Not all I listed are TV (16:9) modes, nor did I list every possible native
> mode of current and recent displays, much less future displays. Did you try
> 1280x800, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200?
>
>
>> does 1600x900 fine on my Vaio Z, and it did 1600x768 on my Vaio P after
>> some poking of ajax).
>
>
> 2.08:1? Velly intellestink.
>
> Some cards provide extra modes, but most widescreen modes are not in any
> VESA standards I've seen, and thus nothing close to all cards can be counted
> on to support a wide display's native mode.
>
>
>> ...it's still better than no X.
>
>
> I don't think everyone would agree. Some might take as an inducement to
> figure out why and end up with satisfactory support instead of VESA molasses
> or funhouse.

Try

Option "NoAccel" "1" in xorg.conf ...