https://wiki.archlinux.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Sotanaht&feedformat=atomArchWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:01:47ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:NVIDIA&diff=201972Talk:NVIDIA2012-05-17T22:49:34Z<p>Sotanaht: /* Suggestions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments ==<br />
<br />
Nice documentation. Thanks to contributors. --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 07:53, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Suggestions ==<br />
<br />
NVoption Online Version - great tool to make tv-out easy and fast <br />
<br />
[I'm using gmplayer with gl and twinview]<br />
[http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/]http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Since most of the wiki is aimed at new users anyway: why differentiate between the Xorg client and server? [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 19:23, 9 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Just got to say thanks for you edits Manolo, you're doing a great job on the wiki. As for Xorg naming, their is no client only a server ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xorg Wikepedia]). However, the nomenclature of it is a bit awkward. Xorg server got its' name from when the popular design philosophy was that computer hubs would essential be dum-terminals (i.e. not have an graphic card) and one machine would handle the graphic load. It's sort of an outdated (and awkward) term now but is still used and the proper and common wording.<br />
:: --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 01:34, 10 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the clarification/compliments. So if I understand correctly, "Xorg" is referring to "Xorg server"? [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 02:05, 10 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Maybe someone can put this in better words:<br />
Logging out, or switching to a different terminal using ctrl+alt+F<2-9> consistently resulted in a black screen, and killing Xorg with ctrl-alt-backspace resulted in a terminal screen with only the top line visible. It turned out that a 'vga=773' added to kernel line was the cause of this. After removing that the problem was solved. Probably something to do with KMS? B.t.w. I have only used x with 'startx', so possibly specific for that way of starting X.<br />
[[User:rwd|rwd]]<br />
<br />
:Was it with this driver or nouveau? The proprietary drivers don't have KMS. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 17:42, 13 December 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
This was with the proprietary driver. I originally had put vga=.. because it made gave the bootup screen a higher resolution, and because the beginners guide mentions it (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide#GRUB). Apart from leaving out the vga option, I discovered that setting it to the native resolution as explained on https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB#Framebuffer_resolution fixes the black screens as well. Maybe a warning for using vga= option with with proprietary drivers would be useful.[[User:rwd|rwd]]<br />
<br />
Well the thing is that vga= is meant for the proprietary drivers only - open source drivers already set the native resolution without a vga command. It can be removed from the beginners' guide though, since it breaks open source drivers, and if the card doesn't support the vga command, it breaks the closed source ones too. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 20:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I think the "Installing" section is a little ambiguous and could use a bit of rewording. Because the steps are numbered, and little indication is given otherwise, it is implied that you need both the packages named like nvidia-173xx, ''and'' the regular nvidia packages. I don't actually have my nvidia drivers working properly, so maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but if I'm right in assuming that you need ''either'' the specifically named drivers like nvidia-173xx ''or'' the plain ol' nvidia drivers, step 2 needs to be reworded. I would suggest displaying two separate [code] blocks, one with # pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils, and the one that's there now. Then make it explicitly clear that you need to do one or the other, not both. --[[User:Sotanaht|Sotanaht]] 18:45, 17 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oh, I forgot that the nvidia-173xx drivers were not in the official repos. Scratch the part about including the command for installing that. I still think it's important to make clear that people using the nvidia-173xx drivers ''do not need'' the regular nvidia drivers. Also make it clear that people using the regular nvidia drivers do not need any nvidia-XXXxx drivers. --[[User:Sotanaht|Sotanaht]] 18:49, 17 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reboot after installing the driver ==<br />
It's mentioned [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=122995&oldid=prev#Errors_after_updating_the_kernel here]: ''Rebooting is generally recommended after updating kernel and graphic drivers.'' <br />
<br />
I created a Tip at the end of the Install section saying just that, because many people install the drivers, 'startx' and <sadface>.<br />
<br />
== /var/abs/extra/nvidia/ no such file or directory ==<br />
<br />
When trying to follow this page's instructions regarding a custom kernel, after successfully installing abs I am unable to cp -r /var/abs/extra/nvidia/ because I get a no such file or directory error. In fact, there is nothing in /var/abs/ except "README" and a "local" directory, which also has no "extra" or "nvidia" dir. Are these instructions outdated? [[User:Brianwc|Brianwc]] 12:43, 7 January 2011 (EST)<br />
:That's because the abs package just contains the tools, you still need to run the abs command to sync the abs tree. Try 'sudo abs extra/nvidia' --[[User:Solarshado|Solarshado]] 09:32, 22 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nvidia 173xx ==<br />
The nvidia-173xx package no longer exists (29 Oct 2011). <br />
<br />
Has it been replaced by nvidia-173xx-all? If so, this package hasn't been updated since Feb 2011.<br />
<br />
Will it need to be updated to be able to use the latest xorg 1.11? <br />
<br />
In the meantime, please include instructions for which xorg related packages pacman should ignore.<br />
:[http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-October/021764.html] -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 21:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I commented out the info about older drivers, since they're not compatible with Xorg 1.11. Maybe if someone create the appropriate packages for Xorg 1.10 in AUR, then we could add back some info, but until it's misleading I think. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 23:32, 3 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::nvidia-96xx and nvidia-71xx are in the AUR, you can't use pacman to install them. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 00:03, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::You can't install these packages from AUR, because they requires Xorg 1.10/1.7, which is not available in official repos, nor in AUR. Once NVidia make them compatible with Xorg 1.11, then someone should add them back to the official repos. Another option is to someone create xorg-server-1.10, xf86-input-evdev-1.10 etc. packages to support these drivers. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 01:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::You can use [[Downgrading_Packages#ARM|ARM]] or some other mirror that holds old packages and still use nvidia-173xx and older drivers. My question is, why did you put {{ic|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}} instead of "install {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-all}} and {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-utils}} from the [[AUR]]."??<br />
:::::The latter still works with out of date packages while the former does not, because I'm not aware of any repo that has nvidia-96xx. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 09:06, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::It's possible, but it requires further explanation (maybe in a new section). Simply install nvidia-* packages from AUR is not work currently. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 10:20, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::And installing them with pacman does work? I still don't get this change. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 11:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The following section was commented in the article. I am moving it here instead:<br />
<br />
These drivers are not compatible with the latest Xorg release in the official repo.<br />
<br />
:Whereas users with older cards should install (GeForce 5 FX series cards [NV30-NV38]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
:or (GeForce2 MX, GeForce3 and GeForce4 series cards [NV11 and NV17-NV28]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
:or (Riva TNT, TNT2, GeForce and GeForce2 series cards [NV03-NV10 and NV15-NV16]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-71xx nvidia-71xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 10:31, 4 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== custom kernel ==<br />
<br />
The package changed for kernel 3.0 and the instructions no longer work. Please fix this. [[User:Z.T.|Z.T.]] 09:14, 23 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== '/dev/nvidia0' Input/Output error... suggested fixes ==<br />
<br />
Can anyone verify that the BIOS related suggestions work and are not coincidentally set (either automatically when changing the IRQ or turning off ACPI) while troubleshooting? I have found little information that confirms any of the suggestions would work. The file permissions thing seems to be completely unfounded and never works (as noted in the article) that I could find. It would probably be a good idea if we cleaned out items that have not been verified to work. For my setup I was having this error and none of the items in the wiki nor the many file permission search results worked. -- [[User:Clickthem|click, them so hard]] 19:16, 4 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:I've added an Accuracy template, please next time add it yourself so that discussions like this are more visible. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 05:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)</div>Sotanahthttps://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:NVIDIA&diff=201970Talk:NVIDIA2012-05-17T22:47:13Z<p>Sotanaht: /* Suggestions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments ==<br />
<br />
Nice documentation. Thanks to contributors. --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 07:53, 17 October 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Suggestions ==<br />
<br />
NVoption Online Version - great tool to make tv-out easy and fast <br />
<br />
[I'm using gmplayer with gl and twinview]<br />
[http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/]http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Since most of the wiki is aimed at new users anyway: why differentiate between the Xorg client and server? [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 19:23, 9 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Just got to say thanks for you edits Manolo, you're doing a great job on the wiki. As for Xorg naming, their is no client only a server ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xorg Wikepedia]). However, the nomenclature of it is a bit awkward. Xorg server got its' name from when the popular design philosophy was that computer hubs would essential be dum-terminals (i.e. not have an graphic card) and one machine would handle the graphic load. It's sort of an outdated (and awkward) term now but is still used and the proper and common wording.<br />
:: --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 01:34, 10 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks for the clarification/compliments. So if I understand correctly, "Xorg" is referring to "Xorg server"? [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 02:05, 10 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Maybe someone can put this in better words:<br />
Logging out, or switching to a different terminal using ctrl+alt+F<2-9> consistently resulted in a black screen, and killing Xorg with ctrl-alt-backspace resulted in a terminal screen with only the top line visible. It turned out that a 'vga=773' added to kernel line was the cause of this. After removing that the problem was solved. Probably something to do with KMS? B.t.w. I have only used x with 'startx', so possibly specific for that way of starting X.<br />
[[User:rwd|rwd]]<br />
<br />
:Was it with this driver or nouveau? The proprietary drivers don't have KMS. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 17:42, 13 December 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
This was with the proprietary driver. I originally had put vga=.. because it made gave the bootup screen a higher resolution, and because the beginners guide mentions it (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide#GRUB). Apart from leaving out the vga option, I discovered that setting it to the native resolution as explained on https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB#Framebuffer_resolution fixes the black screens as well. Maybe a warning for using vga= option with with proprietary drivers would be useful.[[User:rwd|rwd]]<br />
<br />
Well the thing is that vga= is meant for the proprietary drivers only - open source drivers already set the native resolution without a vga command. It can be removed from the beginners' guide though, since it breaks open source drivers, and if the card doesn't support the vga command, it breaks the closed source ones too. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 20:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I think the "Installing" section is a little ambiguous and could use a bit of rewording. Because the steps are numbered, and little indication is given otherwise, it is implied that you need both the packages named like nvidia-173xx, ''and'' the regular nvidia packages. I don't actually have my nvidia drivers working properly, so maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but if I'm right in assuming that you need ''either'' the specifically named drivers like nvidia-173xx ''or'' the plain ol' nvidia drivers, step 2 needs to be reworded. I would suggest displaying two separate [code] blocks, one with # pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils, and the one that's there now. Then make it explicitly clear that you need to do one or the other, not both. --[[User:Sotanaht|Sotanaht]] 18:45, 17 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reboot after installing the driver ==<br />
It's mentioned [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=122995&oldid=prev#Errors_after_updating_the_kernel here]: ''Rebooting is generally recommended after updating kernel and graphic drivers.'' <br />
<br />
I created a Tip at the end of the Install section saying just that, because many people install the drivers, 'startx' and <sadface>.<br />
<br />
== /var/abs/extra/nvidia/ no such file or directory ==<br />
<br />
When trying to follow this page's instructions regarding a custom kernel, after successfully installing abs I am unable to cp -r /var/abs/extra/nvidia/ because I get a no such file or directory error. In fact, there is nothing in /var/abs/ except "README" and a "local" directory, which also has no "extra" or "nvidia" dir. Are these instructions outdated? [[User:Brianwc|Brianwc]] 12:43, 7 January 2011 (EST)<br />
:That's because the abs package just contains the tools, you still need to run the abs command to sync the abs tree. Try 'sudo abs extra/nvidia' --[[User:Solarshado|Solarshado]] 09:32, 22 July 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nvidia 173xx ==<br />
The nvidia-173xx package no longer exists (29 Oct 2011). <br />
<br />
Has it been replaced by nvidia-173xx-all? If so, this package hasn't been updated since Feb 2011.<br />
<br />
Will it need to be updated to be able to use the latest xorg 1.11? <br />
<br />
In the meantime, please include instructions for which xorg related packages pacman should ignore.<br />
:[http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-October/021764.html] -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 21:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
::I commented out the info about older drivers, since they're not compatible with Xorg 1.11. Maybe if someone create the appropriate packages for Xorg 1.10 in AUR, then we could add back some info, but until it's misleading I think. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 23:32, 3 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::nvidia-96xx and nvidia-71xx are in the AUR, you can't use pacman to install them. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 00:03, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::You can't install these packages from AUR, because they requires Xorg 1.10/1.7, which is not available in official repos, nor in AUR. Once NVidia make them compatible with Xorg 1.11, then someone should add them back to the official repos. Another option is to someone create xorg-server-1.10, xf86-input-evdev-1.10 etc. packages to support these drivers. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 01:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::You can use [[Downgrading_Packages#ARM|ARM]] or some other mirror that holds old packages and still use nvidia-173xx and older drivers. My question is, why did you put {{ic|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}} instead of "install {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-all}} and {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-utils}} from the [[AUR]]."??<br />
:::::The latter still works with out of date packages while the former does not, because I'm not aware of any repo that has nvidia-96xx. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 09:06, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
::::::It's possible, but it requires further explanation (maybe in a new section). Simply install nvidia-* packages from AUR is not work currently. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 10:20, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
:::::::And installing them with pacman does work? I still don't get this change. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 11:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The following section was commented in the article. I am moving it here instead:<br />
<br />
These drivers are not compatible with the latest Xorg release in the official repo.<br />
<br />
:Whereas users with older cards should install (GeForce 5 FX series cards [NV30-NV38]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
:or (GeForce2 MX, GeForce3 and GeForce4 series cards [NV11 and NV17-NV28]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
:or (Riva TNT, TNT2, GeForce and GeForce2 series cards [NV03-NV10 and NV15-NV16]):<br />
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-71xx nvidia-71xx-utils}}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 10:31, 4 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== custom kernel ==<br />
<br />
The package changed for kernel 3.0 and the instructions no longer work. Please fix this. [[User:Z.T.|Z.T.]] 09:14, 23 November 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== '/dev/nvidia0' Input/Output error... suggested fixes ==<br />
<br />
Can anyone verify that the BIOS related suggestions work and are not coincidentally set (either automatically when changing the IRQ or turning off ACPI) while troubleshooting? I have found little information that confirms any of the suggestions would work. The file permissions thing seems to be completely unfounded and never works (as noted in the article) that I could find. It would probably be a good idea if we cleaned out items that have not been verified to work. For my setup I was having this error and none of the items in the wiki nor the many file permission search results worked. -- [[User:Clickthem|click, them so hard]] 19:16, 4 March 2012 (EST)<br />
:I've added an Accuracy template, please next time add it yourself so that discussions like this are more visible. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 05:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)</div>Sotanaht