As much as I love the command line, there are just some things I'm more comfortable doing from a GUI, especially messing with hardware and

net

 work settings.  (I know ... "wuss" - I can hear everyone now)

I've just updated my

Linux

  box with a bigger hdd and installed Debina GNU 4.01 (Etch) and my xserver will not get offa' the <>babysitter 640x480 setting, no matter what I do.  So I've done a little hardware snooping and apparently my ATI Radeon video card is not supported in the newer versions of xserver.  So my question to everyone/anyone would be ...

what type of video card should I install?

I don't play games so it doesn't have to be anything snazzy, I just need the UI to ap

pear

  1024x768-ish and I'll go away happy?

Thoughts? 

/ja

have you played with your /etc/X11/xorg.conf
try adding the resolution there in the "Screen" section.
i think most would recomend anything nvidia over ati for

linux

 .

I tugged on that thing like I was a teen.  No results.  I've removed every resolution from it that was less than what I'm after, but it still just defaults to 640x480.



I totally agree here.  Do you have anything in mind?  The reason I ask is because I believe I read last night where the GeForce 7300 (I believe that's it) suffered from the same issues as the ATI.  So if you've got a model in mind, I'd be very much appreciative.

Thanks much, Arms ... I appreciate the help.

/ja

The last word ... thank you for your recommendation, arms.  For $45 USD, the nVidia e-GeForce 7200 GS was just what the doctor ordered.

TTFN


/ja

Man I hate all that stuff. That side of things is one of the few that Windoz does OK. Yuck tho.

np.
mine's integrated and i'm running

ubuntu

  7.04 which handles the drivers pretty well. i still had to edit the xorg.conf to add my resolution.
there suposed to be a bullet proof xorg configuration gui coming. i forget if it's a gnome or

ubuntu

  project.


along with photoshop it's one of the few things i miss about windows.

<hijack>
You must not be a

Mac

  guy.

Have you considered running a Windows instance on a

Linux

  box? Parallels does a REALLY good job of this... I run a few different versions of Windows on my

Mac

  so that I can empathize with my clients  it runs at nearly full speed (I am told I lose about 10% performance, but I don't notice it at all) and I run Visio on it, since that is the one app that I have never seen in the

Mac

  world that I like. I am also just putting the finishing touches on a

Mac

  box, running an ancient version of RH with some custom

Apache

  Shared Objects on it as a server in my cluster to replace some aging stuff... it's pretty cool to see it all go.
</hijack>

Sorry for the hijack JA
/p

re <hijack /> ... not even a thing.


You know, I never bothered with PhotoShop and instead went straight to the Gimp on all platforms.  So far, it does a hell of a lot more than I can --- but I guess that's not really saying much; I can scale the Table of Contents with the best of them 

unfortunately at a professional level, adobe is required which means

mac

  or windows.

I've heard and read a lot of arguments that the Gimp is every bit as good... but it just seems to me that knowing PS is the way to go. That being said, if you can get done what you need to get done, then a JPG is a JPG, no?

yes if JPG, or another unlayered file format is all that is needed, and you are never going to deliver the working files to anyone.

If you gotta send it to a print shop, its gotta be InDesign,Quark, or illustrator. though many now take PDF as well.

but yea, for the most part, photoshop doesnt matter I guess, since you rarely send your PS files to anyone, but it does happen.

Oh totally agree... I was thinking more from a 72 DPI web graphic perspective... you jump to print, or you have to integrate with a clients art team and it's a whole different story.

haven't used a

mac

  since early high school.
i have vmware player put i find the performance sucks so i just dual boot if i need photoshop which is not very often.
im not crazy about the gimp. i use it some times but i much prefer photoshop's ui. gimp is good considering it's free but it's not the same.
lacking some really simple features if you ask me - for example making shapes.