From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 9 14:12:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lambic.physics.montana.edu (lambic.physics.montana.edu [153.90.192.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68584151E8 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu) Received: from localhost (handy@localhost) by lambic.physics.montana.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA47037; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:12:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:12:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Brian Handy To: razzle dazzle root beer Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: accellerated X 5.0 multihead on 3.2-stable with matrox mil G200 In-Reply-To: <19990609165612.H6847@oof.net> Message-ID: X-files: The truth is out there MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Also, even in single monitor more, accelX is extremely slow compared to Xfree, >so much that it is practically useless. I suppose I could install freebsd2.2 >but I'd give up the second Xeon processor then. :( Wow, is this true? In the past on my machine (MM II w/ 8MB) I found the Xig server to be a hair faster than XFree86. That was only using one machine, and using Xaccel 4.x. Seems strange it would slow down so significantly. I haven't tried doing it under >=3.2 yet, and I may not. I'm holding out for XFree 4.0 with overlay visuals before I plunk down more money for the server. Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message