neocytrix Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Hello all, I've installed Debian and it installed smoothly and everything, except when the graphical environment loads, the colors and pixels are all messed up on the screen, It looks (grainy) if that helps, and color quality is very poor, When I go to the configure desktop, it says the resolution is set to 640 X 480 (even after I said it was 1024 X 768 (or whatever the standard size is for most). However, this isn't even an option on the drag down menu, there is only 640 X 480, 416 X 312, 400 X 300, and 320 X 240. Someone please help me -Neocytrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 well, we need more info, like; -video card -driver being used in other words....post the Device Section of your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neocytrix Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 That file doesn't exist. This is everything I have in /etc/X11 app-defaults gdm X Xresources Xsession.options cursors rgb.txt XF86Config-4 xserver xsm default-display-manager rstart xinit Xsession Xwrapper.config fonts sysconfig xkb Xsession.d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 That file doesn't exist. This is everything I have in /etc/X11 app-defaults gdm X Xresources Xsession.options cursors rgb.txt XF86Config-4 xserver xsm default-display-manager rstart xinit Xsession Xwrapper.config fonts sysconfig xkb Xsession.d XF86Config-4 oh, they never switched? yuk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 XF86Config-4oh, they never switched? yuk they have, but it looks like neocytrix is using an older release, probably stable.. neocytrix: give testing or unstable a shot, stable is just .. old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 yes, cause when I used unstable for over a year it was more stable than mandrake :P don't let the definition of the word fool ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 You can upgrade to unstable quite easily ... edit your /etc/apt/sources.list You change the stable for # Unstable deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free # Testing deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free From the command line init 3 or /etc/init.d/xdm stop (xdm can be also kdm opr gdm depending on the login manager) then apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Debian Unstable ( AKA Sid ) sounds scary, and it can be like that at times, but it's almost as stable as Mandriva current, and certainly nowhwere close to the Cooker "genuine unstable" mess... Easiest way to have Sid installed at your box is a Kanotix liveCD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neocytrix Posted June 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Okay ill give it a shot. Im sure you'll be hearing from me again lol. Thanks all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Debian Unstable ( AKA Sid ) sounds scary, and it can be like that at times, but it's almost as stable as Mandriva current, and certainly nowhwere close to the Cooker "genuine unstable" mess...Easiest way to have Sid installed at your box is a Kanotix liveCD. Yep it certainly is, even the best wayt to install a mix of stable and unstable by installing and then downgrading. Certainly the core functionality of unstable is very stable, more stable than any mandrake I ever used. The unstable elements are mostly trivial parts for instance a mail reader where you actually have a lot of choices if one version doesn't work for you anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Well this will be fun to watch. Cant believe it was suggested to run unstable. And running a mixed system is just begging for trouble. How bout next time suggesting backports.org instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Has unstable later releases of software? I originally downloaded Debian 3.1 (sarge I think) and just wondered if unstable or testing had much newer components, such as kernel, kde, etc, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Has unstable later releases of software? I originally downloaded Debian 3.1 (sarge I think) and just wondered if unstable or testing had much newer components, such as kernel, kde, etc, etc. Yes, in most things its not huge for instance KDEbase is presently 4:3.3.2-1 sarge 4:3.5.2-2 testing 4:3.5.3-1 unstable But Xorg is still only in testing and stable ... 1.7.0.18 sarge (stable) 1.7.0.20 unstable This is not necassarily because xorg is unstable but that some of the utilities etc. have not been fully tested....hence they are with trusted xfree Whereas I don't mind being a bit out of date with KDE or some trivial apps the current situation with xorg is a bit different. I have never really found unstable to be any less stable than Mandriva wheras Stable is pretty much rock solid. Of course it misses lots of apps but these are available as backports from testing into stable so the deps match but then they aren't guaranteed stable. However if its sometihng like a browser its not so important as the kernel or some underlying important software.. you can always just use a different browser... and it won't crash anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 Can I safely remove the updates line from sources.list? Reason is I change the two lines to unstable from stable, and it's doing the dist-upgrade now. However, I couldn't change the updates line from stable to unstable, because it didn't find the source. And since if I've upgraded to stable, theoretically, I wouldn't want stable updates interfering with my system. Or do I still need it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.