New rootless broken on 800x600 iBook

  • Martin Costabel

    Martin Costabel - 2002-04-18

    The new rootless XDarwin mode is screwed up on my 2000 iBook (800x600 screen). It is hard to describe: colors all wrong, two-pixel-wide blue vertical stripes. Not usable, in any case.
    I have a screenshot with gnome running at
    The big window to the right is supposed to be XEmacs :-)

    Some additional info:
    1. Fullscreen mode works correctly.
    2. If I replace by an older 4.2.0 version, there is no problem with rootless.
    3. The problem is independent of the window manager.
    4. This exact same binary works well (very fast indeed) on a 2001 iMac (1024x768 screen).

    • Torrey T. Lyons

      Torrey T. Lyons - 2002-04-18

      It is great that you are giving the new rootless code a try. It does have some substantial changes from what was is XFree86 4.2. Hopefully the changes are improvements. Performance is the main area we are working on. Before I start a stampede to try it out, however, I should mention that the version in CVS now is for thrill seekers only. It can change from day to day and still has a few known bugs.

      The screen shot on your web page is very weird. I haven't seen that particular problem before. Are you sure you have the display set to 32-bit color (millions of colors)? I have an older iBook which works well at 800 x 600, but I have seen other types of screen artifacts on my PowerMac G4, running at greater resolutions.

      • Martin Costabel

        Martin Costabel - 2002-04-18

        You hit the nail on the head. I was *sure* I was running in 32bit colors. I always did. But I checked now, and it was set to thousands of colors :-(

        In millions of colors, rootless runs OK.
        In thousands, fullscreen works, but not fullscreen.

        Thanks for your work, and sorry for the noise.



Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks