Hello,

I have a Peg II system equipped with an ATI Radeon 9200 (128 MB). All works well.

I recently got a hold of a Volari V3XT AGP card (64 MB) and installed it in the Peg II. When I power the system on, I don't get any display.

I bought the Volari in anticipation of an Efika purchase. Though I'd test it out before receiving the Efika.

My question is whether anybody here has experience with the Volari V3XT on a Peg II system. Should it actually work? Is it dependent upon the openfirmware version?

Cheers,

Gabor

slim

please tell us again why you want to use that crap card? :P

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:41 ]

I don't mean to get into a discussion about which card is better, etc. I just want to know if this card is supposed to work in a Peg 2 (I've seen information that it works in Efika).

Cheers

dont think so...

if OF doesnt come it it doesnt work.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 19.04.2011 - 07:48 ]

> I think support for this card was begun to support Genesi when they were still
> involved with the device that became CherryPal.

Even though time spans were overlapping, I don't see any connection between Genesi's involvement in THTF/MTC/LimePC/CherryPal/C114 and the Volari V3XT/V3XE. Thus I would change the statement to: Support for this card was begun to support Genesi customers who purchased the Efika Open Client with pre-installed Volari V3XT/V3XE between May 2007 and January 2008.

Edit:
I changed "Genesi" to "Genesi customers" because Volari support in MorphOS got announced (and released at the same time) over 7 months after Genesi had stopped selling the Volari cards. This could hardly count as supporting Genesi.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2009/4/5 17:50 ]

I think Velcro is right; back in the time before the 5121e they were evaluating various ways of creating a "next generation Efika" (LimePC kind of devices) based on the 5200b. I think one idea was to use a FPGA, another was to use a traditional GPU. At that time they chose XGI, much because of getting access to official tech documentation and driver source code etc, something that the big GPU suppliers are reluctant to offer (to say the least). But then the 5121e entered the picture. And then it went away. And now it's all about the ARM SoC i.MX515 instead, which will do everything the 5121e did, and *more* on top of that. The goal has been pretty much the same, but the paths leading there has changed.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 19.04.2011 - 07:49 ]

> I think Velcro is right

I don't. And I don't think you are either :-P

> back in the time before the 5121e they were evaluating various ways
> of creating a "next generation Efika" (LimePC kind of devices)
> based on the 5200b. I think one idea was to use a FPGA, another was
> to use a traditional GPU. At that time they chose XGI

You say it yourself: "before the 5121e". I think Velcro_SP clearly refered to the time *of* the 5121e (based plans) when talking about the time Genesi "were still involved with the device that became CherryPal", not to the time of their very own plans based on 5200B.
And btw, only one of the three proposed "next generation Efika" designs was supposed to be a "LimePC kind of device", namely the one with onboard XGI Volari GPU (plus onboard FPGA). The other two designs, one with FPGA and the other one without FPGA, were both supposed to have a PCI slot for gfx.

Eventually, to let speak the MorphOS gfx driver developer pega-1 himself (German):

"Die Karte wird deswegen unterstuetzt, weil diese Karte mit einer Komplettkonfiguration des EFIKA in den USA ausgeliefert wurde".
(Translation: The [Volari] card is supported [by MorphOS] because it was distributed as part of a complete EFIKA system [a.k.a. Efika Open Client] in the US.)

In conclusion, though being based on the work already done for long time implemented MorphOS 2D support for SiS 3xx chipset, V3XT/V3XE driver development for MorphOS could not have been started before May 2007. So while your explanation would make good sense regarding the causal connection, it doesn't fit regarding the alleged time. With Vecro_SP's explanation it's exactly the other way round.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:50 ]

> please, not another of your needling nitpicking "debates."

You don't like being answered to in a public discussion board? Simple solution: Don't write in a public discussion board.
Or is it rather you don't like being corrected on anything? Or is it rather you think you're right and I misunderstood your unmistakable statement? Then, I'm looking forward to your elaboration.

> please stop "paraphrasing" me in your warped style.

Where exactly did I warp your statements by "paraphrasing" (rather: citing) you? Please cite the passage(s) you refer to.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:49 ]

> I'll post in the forum as long as I like and it's allowed

I'm absolutely fine with that. And I'll answer to your postings as long as I like and it's allowed.

> but hopefully over more substantive matters.

Obviously, you considered the matter being substantive enough originally to write some statement about it.

> I'm not going to write a novel [...] about when MorphOS programmers
> first became involved with V3XT.

So you keep refusing to clarify your obscure statement? Fine. I classify this as acknowledgement that you were wrong. Nothing nasty about that. We're all wrong from time to time, even me ;-)

> It's a stupid thing to argue about.

Absolutely, especially since the truth is so obvious.

> you're a word-twister.

...as much as you're a liar (as long as you keep failing to provide proof where I twisted any words).

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:49 ]

man what an amusing but strange thread...

velcro.. you opened the door to this with your facetious comment

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:47 ]

> people will decide this

People will decide what?

> you made claims about wattage calculations that left out the
> monitor wattage in a way that benefited your position.

No, they explicitely *included* the monitor wattages with both the notebook (with built-in monitor) and the C114 (with mandatory external monitor) figures. In what way did that benefit my position?

> You persistently mischaracterized my comment about "a gfx
> co-processor"

No, I did not. Either you really meant "graphics co-processor" (as in "not gfx core") -- which wouldn't have made any sense due to your "128 megs" figure -- or you just confused AXE and PowerVR. You didn't want to answer my question as to which of these two possibilities were the case.

> You jumped on an unverified casual estimate from a single user that
> his EeePC ran at 10 watts

Unverified? Estimate? EeePC? 10 watts?
You're surely confusing me with someone else. Or confusing reality with your imagination.

> Here I am told that that I am wrong about my explanation that
> development started before May 2007, but I said nothing at all
> about May 2007.
> [...]
> I referred only to when Genesi was involved in the project that
> became the CherryPal. Yes, I was thinking of the device with the
> onboard graphics that Granny referred to. I didn't say anything
> about May 2007.

Again: May 2007 was when Genesi started selling the Efika Open Client incl. the XGI Volari V3XT/V3XE gfx card, which was the self-confessed reason for pega-1 to start development of the respective driver. Consequently, his driver development must have started somewhen between May 2007 and August 2008.
The plans for the "[5200B based] device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to" were announced in April 2006 (already linked to) and eventually scrapped again no later than October 2006 due to the emerging 5121e with on-chip PowerVR gfx, which BBRV had known since long before its public announcement in May 2007.
So according to your explanation pega-1 would have had to start driver development even before October 2006.

> For all I know Genesi was involved after May 2007.

Involved in or with what?

> you haven't shown even that MorphOS devs had no involvement with
> V3XT before May 2007!

I have, for sure. Read again pega-1's statement I cited.

> What the heck are you talking about?

I'm talking about your perception of Genesi and MorphOS history being distorted and about how I perceive it taking the facts into consideration.

> Why?

Because I'm in love with the truth and hate untrue things being told, be it intentionally or not :-)

> Why is this a big deal?

I never claimed it was a big deal. Who defines what's big and what's not anyway?

> In all of these you choose to argue about minutiae and not
> substantive issues

That's rather subjective. I hope you don't mind me thinking another way of my arguments.

> to engage in an endless mind-numbing polemic about nothing that
> goes nowhere.

Your're utterly misinterpreting my intention.

> I responded only because you're criticizing my comment.

Yes, your original comment containing a statement about when and for what purpose MorphOS support for the Volari was begun. Fair enough. That's how discussions work.

|||




[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:47 ]

> People will decide whether or not you twist words.

I guess the same people will decide whether or not you lie.

> people who go back and read that awful thread will realize my
> depiction of your comments is entirely accurate.

I think they'll rather come to the conclusion that your perception of reality is quite flawed.

> Pega-1's statement includes no reference to May 2007

It includes a reference to the time when Genesi was selling the XGI Volari V3XT/V3XE as part of the Efika Open Client. And this time started, guess when, May 2007. The fact that it started May 2007 remains true even if pega-1 doesn't explicitely refer to "May 2007".

> nor any statement that the first and only work to support the
> chipset was done for the Efika.

That's funny now as you were the one stating that the Volari driver was started to support the planned "[5200B based] device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to", which was supposed to be one of three different, guess what, *Efika* devices.

> Nor is Pega-1 the only dev to work with gfx drivers.

That's right. The Radeon driver was developed by both pega-1 and Bigfoot:

------------------------------
Radeon 51.8 (26.09.08)
? 2001-2008 by Vision Factory Development and Mark Olsen
------------------------------

But it's not the Radeon driver we're talking about, it's the Volari driver:

------------------------------
VolariV3XT 51.2 (18.11.08)
? 2001-2008 by Vision Factory Development
------------------------------

(The reason for the "2001" instead of "2007" or "2008" has already been explained earlier in this thread.)

> You are entirely mischaracterizing that.

I think you are.

> I also didn't say anything about Pega-1 or October 2006.

Exactly *that* is why I'm trying to enlighten you on the facts. It's a *fact* that pega-1 is the developer of the Volari driver for MorphOS, the same way it's a *fact* that the plans for the "[5200B based] device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to" were scrapped no later than October 2006. Why should pega-1 have commenced driver development after October 2006 for a planned project that was abandoned in October 2006? Why should he even have commenced driver development before October 2006 for a plain fantasy board when it was a well known fact (especially to the MorphOS Team) that Genesi have always been more capricious than a woman during her menstruation?

> You are entirely mischaracterizing that.

I think you are.

> All you've done is illustrate that a developer worked on the driver
> to support a card to be put in the Efika.

No, not "a card to be put in" but "a card that has/had already been put in" when he started work.
And even if he began before May 2007 to support the Volari card to be put in the Efika Open Client, as you propose, it would still contradict your original statement that "support for this card was begun to support Genesi when they were still [...] involved in [...] the [5200B based] device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to".
May I consider this a retraction of your original statement then?

> This doesn't rule anything else out, including what I said was my
> recollection.

Of course it does. The well known Efika with a Volari card in its PCI slot (and without FPGA), which was sold between May 2007 and January 2008, is definately not a fantasy Efika with a Volari GPU (and an FPGA) onboard, wich was presented as a possible future platform between April and October 2006.

> It is a laugh that you are "in love with the truth."

Considering that you seem to put no value whatsoever to the truth, these sentiments of yours are quite understandable.

> You're in love with your own ramblings.

Me being in love with the truth doesn't rule this out, yes ;-)

Don't be a jerk, Thomas. XGI are a good company and the card is pretty sound performance wise.

Also: the V3XT works fine in my Pegasos and no doubt a lot of other peoples'.

Slim, what Pegasos board version and firmware are you using?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:45 ]

Andre can you lock this thread?

You guys, quit fighting.

We did support the Volari V3XT for a long time, and discontinued that support mid-2007 simply because it was too difficult to integrate drivers into Linux, and MorphOS was perpetually delayed at the time (and the V3XT driver didn't arrive until the second release anyway).

We did ship lots of Open Clients with Volari cards. We did replace some of them with Radeons at request. The plan was to get the Linux stuff working, supply the MorphOS team with cards and documentation, and build an Efika with an on-board graphics chip.

This was still while the 5121e was on the drawing board; an interesting new development and not something we could make a product out of.

In any case we're pretty much moving forward with ATI-based hardware on the Open Client, and the integrated graphics in i.MX515 and any other ARM based SoC and low availability of the AGP cards obviates their use anyway.

> you're a brave man typing away at your monitor with these comments.

I'll continue to call you a liar as long as you call me a word-twister without providing proof.

> I feel pretty confident, yeah, that others will find nothing at all
> to suggest they are credible.

I think the same with you calling me a word-twister.

> Again a total word-twist!

It's not.

> I said absolutely about a 5200B based device

You lost track, again. You claimed you were "thinking of the device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to", as everybody can easily read up in this thread. As "Granny" explicitely referred to a 5200B based device, you did likewise (you even quoted him on that and thanked him). Presumed you didn't lie (again), that is.
Which CPU was the device you were thinking of supposed to be based on, if not the 5200B? Any links to Genesi plans of such a device with a Power Architecture CPU different from the 5200B, but with onboard Volari GPU?

> nor did I imply it, nor did I mean it, nor do I think it.

Then finally come across with what you were *really* implying, meaning and thinking with your original statement. The only things you did up to now is making contradicting claims and statements which don't make any sense and insulting me.

> Yet you purport to quote me as doing so.

You seem to struggle big time in following simple logic and grasping the informational content of the postings you're replying to, not only with this 5200B matter.

> It is impossible to carry on a rational debate with you.

The only one missing rationality in here completely is you.

> You're an Internet crank, nothing more.

And you're a liar, and maybe even more.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 18:43 ]