Resurrection..!

[Mike Walsh]

By the way is tahrpup really as ugly as some of the screen shots I have seen?

mike

See if this gets you there:-

http://imgur.com/zE1HwlK

That's my current 'take' on 'Tahrpup', on the Inspiron. And this is what it looks like on the Compaq:-

http://imgur.com/HlMEjrU

Whaddya reckon?

Mike.

[Burn_IT]

They use an Intel Extreme Graphics integrated chip.

[Mike Walsh]

Naw. Not without a listed driver used. Probably shoulda coulda went with xvesa instead of defaults in xorg 1st.

Then find the graphics chip. Puppy has that in hardinfo or pupinfo.

then a

Code: Select all

xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 1920 x 1080, maximum 4096 x 4096
VGA-0 connected primary 1920x1080+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 510mm x 287mm
   1920x1080      60.0*+
   1440x900       59.9  
   1280x1024      60.0  
   1280x800       59.8  
   1152x864       75.0  
   1024x768       70.1     60.0  
   800x600        60.3     56.2  
   640x480        59.9  

of what is capable wouldn't hurt either. But maybe someone else with the same problem and rig like posted earlier may know.

Hi, rokytnji.

Now then, I hope some of this makes more sense to you than it does me...

Video output from Pupsysinfo:-

VIDEO REPORT: tahrpup, version 6.0

Chip description:
VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE Chipset Integrated Graphics Device (rev 03)

Requested by /etc/X11/xorg.conf:
Resolution (widthxheight, in pixels): 1024x768x16
Depth (bits, or planes): 24
Modules requested to be loaded: synaptics dbe

Probing Xorg startup log file (/var/log/Xorg.0.log):
Driver loaded (and currently in use): intel
Loaded modules: dbe dri2 extmod glx kbd mouse synaptics

Actual rendering on monitor:
Resolution: 1024x768 pixels (270x203 millimeters)
Depth: 24 planes

...the above also recorded in /tmp/report-video

and THIS is the xrandr output:-

Code: Select all

# xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1024 x 768, maximum 32767 x 32767
LVDS1 connected 1024x768+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 0mm x 0mm
   1024x768            60.0*+       60.0
   800x600              60.3
VGA1 unknown connection (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
   1360x768            59.8
   1152x864            60.0
   1024x768            60.0
   800x600              60.3
   640x480              59.9
VIRTUAL1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
#

Tell you anything? BTW: How the hell do you copy & paste from urxvt? It doesn't seem to work..... I had to type the xrandr stuff out by hand!


Regards,

Mike.

[Mike Walsh]

As for the battery. Yes, it did used to get warm. Nice for the winter when balanced on my rheumaticy knees, but not so nice when placed further up the thighs where the resulting heat was enough to nearly cook my gonads. In the younger male population this would have had a considerable impact on future fertility and would therefore count as a sure means of population control.

You know WHY they get so warm, don't you?

Back when Dell were building these old Inspirons, neither Intel nor AMD had begun manufacturing these ultra-low power mobile-edition CPUs most current laptops & netbooks have. What you (and I) have got under there is a full-size, desktop-edition Celeron, related to the old Pentium 4 desktop CPUs. Hence the need for that enormous, 14-cell, 16.8V battery pack; it has to provide the voltage/current normally supplied by a mains PSU..!

And all that extra voltage produces more heat.....

But in tests at the time, the few laptops on the market that were fitted with the 'NetBurst' Celeron used to beat the pants off of just about everything else. And that's why you can actually take them apart, and upgrade the Celeron to a halfway decent Pentium 4; like the 3.01 GHz Pentium with a 1 MB cache.....oughta provide a bit more 'oomph'! That's what I'm seriously considering doing; I've got the patience, and the enthusiasm, to do it.....and I LOVE tinkering with old hardware..! Besides, you can pick up old Pentium 4s for next to nothing on eBay & Amazon at the moment; nobody wants them, 'cos of their high power consumption, in comparison to their performance.

Regards,

Mike.

[wboz]

Hahaha, love it! I resurrected an old Dell laptop probably an 1100 recently for my parents ... primarily for fun honestly ... but Puppy Linux made it happen!

But I see your "running pretty slow" and raise you with "screen working but backlight not, fooling everyone else into thinking that the computer would only run for 20 seconds and the computer was junk." It took a flashlight, a basement workshop and some luck to figure out that the computer and in fact LCD was running fine actually, the screen just couldn't show you any of it.

That computer will never run in laptop form again, but you can hook it up to a VGA output and it runs Puppy 4.3.1 like a champ. Only thing is no WIFI card support (don't care enough to figure it out, I'm sure it could do it but the antenna is in the screen so there's not much point since that's detached now.)

I had no idea the chips were replaceable. Are you sure? I stripped it down to the motherboard, it didn't have any sort of CPU clip/lever like a desktop. I would not have guessed, but now I'm intrigued. And yes it does run hot. I assumed it was a CPUfreq issue, it wasn't bad enough to be concerning, that dell pulls plenty of air through with the fan ... it's a big chassis.

In my brief time with it I developed an affection for the machine. Very VERY slow but pretty honest. My favorite bit is the great keyboard.

[rokytnji]

Well, you are using the intel driver with a intel Brooksdale chip.

My Dell E5500 for comparison.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 407#806407

I have

Code: Select all

Graphics:  Card: Intel Mobile 4 Series Integrated Graphics Controller bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:2a42
           X.org: 1.11.0 drivers: intel (unloaded: vesa) 

compared to your Dell

Code: Select all

VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE Chipset Integrated Graphics Device Driver loaded (and currently in use): intel (rev 03) 

But it tells us nothing because this info is needed on

Every time I try to install ANY Linux distro to this old girl, the 1024x768 screen reduces down to 640x480, jammed up into the top left corner.

Which I find really strange because all my intel video
graphics chips and Linux are like bikers in a topless bar. They just have a ball hanging out with each other. Not like you describe at all.

[starhawk]

We have our answer! "Brookdale" is the problem.

Intel Brookdale chips are known to be extremely problematic with Puppy. Here are some links that may help -- although I should warn you that (as I have no Brookdale system of my own) I can't be of any real further help...

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=81590

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 026#722026

http://01micko.com/slacko5.5/notes.html

On the third link, look at the third bullet point under "Known Issues"

[bigpup]

How do you copy & paste from urxvt?

Copy- left click hold and highlight

Paste- middle button click

Also works to copy from terminal and paste to other programs.

Also if you use copy method that comes with other programs you can paste in terminal by middle mouse click.

If you do not have a middle mouse button.

Clicking the left and right buttons, at the same time, will have same effect as middle mouse button.

shift+insert will also work to paste.

[Fossil]

The only way to create a full screen display was to flash the BIOS. Otherwise it was just a small 640x480 centralized image.

Only thing is no WIFI card support (don't care enough to figure it out, I'm sure it could do it but the antenna is in the screen so there's not much point since that's detached now.)

There is an antennae in the screen?
Don't forget the old computer also has a PCMCIA slot which allows some more possible upgrades.

Most of Dell's new Inspirons, such as the 5100, include two dual-band, 802.11a/b antennae and mini-PCI Wi-Fi cards. However, the Inspiron 1100 lacks both the antennae and the mini-PCI cards. The only way to get Wi-Fi is to add it via a Type II PC Card--and use up your only available card slot. This setup means one more removable part to worry about and gives you only half the signal strength from the PC Card's single antenna.

http://www.cnet.com/products/dell-inspiron-1100/

[Mike Walsh]

Thanks for the tip, bigpup.

That's really what I OUGHT to have expected with Puppy. Very minimal.....both in operation AND execution. Nice;& very neat.

My mouse is a bit of a so-and-so, though. I've got a Logitech Zone Touch T400. Doesn't have a scroll wheel; it has a "stroke strip", that works just like a touchpad.....no moving parts to wear out. Up & down, side to side, it'll do all sorts of party tricks. Couldn't get it to paste, though.....until I remembered about the TWO 'middle buttons'. You can press the front of the 'strip' for one button.....and the rear of the 'strip' gives you a second. Haven't used the second one since I quit Windows earlier this year.

THAT'S the one that 'pastes'! Technology, eh?

Regards,

Mike.

[Mike Walsh]

The only way to create a full screen display was to flash the BIOS. Otherwise it was just a small 640x480 centralized image.

Only thing is no WIFI card support (don't care enough to figure it out, I'm sure it could do it but the antenna is in the screen so there's not much point since that's detached now.)

There is an antennae in the screen?
Don't forget the old computer also has a PCMCIA slot which allows some more possible upgrades.

Most of Dell's new Inspirons, such as the 5100, include two dual-band, 802.11a/b antennae and mini-PCI Wi-Fi cards. However, the Inspiron 1100 lacks both the antennae and the mini-PCI cards. The only way to get Wi-Fi is to add it via a Type II PC Card--and use up your only available card slot. This setup means one more removable part to worry about and gives you only half the signal strength from the PC Card's single antenna.

http://www.cnet.com/products/dell-inspiron-1100/

Nah; no need to mess about with any of that stuff. Well, not for ME, anyway.

Mini-PCMCIA cards are rarer than hen's teeth these days. I know the 1100's only got two USB ports, and I've got Puppy occupying one of them. But the wi-fi adapter I use at home sits in the other one.....and since I have things set up for network printing & file-sharing, I don't need to plug anything else in.

Mind you, I neither need, nor want wi-fi in the old girl, anyway. It never leaves home; my BlackBerry takes care of the 'mobile' stuff if I need the 'net when I'm out & about.

Would YOU want to lug something that heavy about with you?

Regards,

Mike.

[Mike Walsh]

We have our answer! "Brookdale" is the problem.

Intel Brookdale chips are known to be extremely problematic with Puppy. Here are some links that may help -- although I should warn you that (as I have no Brookdale system of my own) I can't be of any real further help...

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=81590

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 026#722026

http://01micko.com/slacko5.5/notes.html

On the third link, look at the third bullet point under "Known Issues"

Hey, starhawk.

Y'know, I KNEW they were problematical chips.....but I had NO idea they were THAT awkward!

So how come they worked so well running XP?

I've thought for long enough that Intel has always developed its stuff 'hand-in-glove' with MicroSoft.....or at least, DID a decade or so back, when MS still 'ruled the roost. We all know they're losing their grip in the face of Android!

Mike.

[mikeb]

Apart from some awful chips they have always been hit and miss when it comes to releasing data/specs so that drivers can be written..... even microsoft have been held back with some of their recent offerings. Intel is loyal to Intel ...anyone else it depends if they feel its to their benefit.

If MS actually were given some clues for the chip in question and Linux had to reverse engineer thats a common reason.... I also felt for some time the Linux world was not focussing much on business machines where there cards are dominent for whatever reasons but have taken many steps in recent years to improve support...this would most likely not include the older chips where support would remain as is.

Must say I have found the 8 series of intel graphics bleeding weird in general....from framebuffer to desktop they are so unstandard...yes not even vesa support half the time.
Cut the goolies off...that's what I say.

mike

[wboz]

The wifi card is located under the upper-right keyboard. it's quite big by modern standards (about 4x) but uses the same antenna leads. The antenna wires plug into those connections and runs up into the LCD screen.

Note that I don't have the laptop on hand so it's not certain it's the same model as you are describing. But in any case this is not a problem you guys need to solve for me, the fun was in fixing the computer, not using it, so I don't. Thanks!

[Mike Walsh]

Apart from some awful chips they have always been hit and miss when it comes to releasing data/specs so that drivers can be written..... even microsoft have been held back with some of their recent offerings. Intel is loyal to Intel ...anyone else it depends if they feel its to their benefit.

If MS actually were given some clues for the chip in question and Linux had to reverse engineer thats a common reason.... I also felt for some time the Linux world was not focussing much on business machines where there cards are dominent for whatever reasons but have taken many steps in recent years to improve support...this would most likely not include the older chips where support would remain as is.

Must say I have found the 8 series of intel graphics bleeding weird in general....from framebuffer to desktop they are so unstandard...yes not even vesa support half the time.
Cut the goolies off...that's what I say.

mike

Must say I HAVE to agree with yer there, mate.

Don't ask me why, but I've ALWAYS been an AMD fan. Never did go a lot on Intel; didn't like their "We're gonna dominate the planet, so there" attitude. I've always been a sucker for an underdog (!) ... (sorry, couldn't resist that), which for quite a long while, AMD were. No getting away from the fact, though, that you DO get a lot of 'bang for your buck' with AMD; their offerings might not be quite as 'cutting-edge' & technically brilliant as Intel's, but price-wise they beat the pants off them.

And their graphics cards have ALWAYS been better than Intel's!

BTW; did you get a peek at my current desktops? I'm sorry they weren't true 'links'; I HAVE now figured out how to do that..!

Regards,

Mike.

[mikeb]

Ok found the links...I lost track of this thread for a while...

graphics seem to be intel's weak spot...trying to be jack of all trades it seems.... I suppose they feel obliged to provide the whole package.

On the older machines though I get up to double the data throughput on intel chipsets of the apparent same performance.... thing is the hardware timings are on (PC) spec with intel which unforunately the vias and alis of the world were simply not.

As for pentium 4... bit of a sick joke...they pushed that line even though it relied on piling in the current/voltage to max out the oudated technology... they wanted to recoup costs and then some.... the low power atoms etc came from the more efficient tulatin line which was held back to keep the 4 series selling and the i series were a further developement in cpu technology to take over to do the job properly without needing to fire up a small nuclear generator to run them.

anyway...not sure if we are digressing or not...


mike

[starhawk]

IIRC, mikeb, Atoms are their own branch of the x86 architecture tree -- their own microarchitecture family and everything, not derived from elsewhere. You're probably thinking of the Pentium/Celeron M series, which *were* a polished and fancied-up P3 (likely Tualatin) architecture...

[mikeb]

atoms were developed along the lines of the tulatins..I tend to over simplfy cos me iz not an historian... thinner substates and lower voltages... used to lower power consumption rather than max the speed.... their instruction set is more limited than other cpu of the same era. I like the 4 watts max they sniffed even if they don't crunch the numbers as well as others.... the dual core variety do compensate for that to a certain extent and if you can dangle a decent video card on them can be fun too..

The later releases have nice specs but very unfriendly video for the linux world and older windows though

mike

[mikeb]

The roadmap here seems to suggest the olde pentiums live on...
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Bonnell_%28micro ... en#Roadmap

but to me it all gets a bit hazy

mike

[starhawk]

Did some digging... you're right, I'm wrong. Sorry for my earlier attempted 'correction'.

Atoms were developed from a 'Stealey' (code-name) CPU design set that was part of the McCaslin 'platform' (CPU + Chipset) for so-called 'mobile internet devices'. I'm not sure if they were ever used. If so, they would've been called A100 or A110 CPUs with no series branding.

Stealey was a cleaned-up sips-at-the-pump Dothan Pentium M... Pentium Ms of course used a variant of the P6 microarchitecture, which originally went from Pent Pro all the way to the P3 lines. Pent M stuff is the basis for the later 1st gen Core stuff (Core Solo/Duo), which in turn is the basis for the 2nd gen Core stuff (Core 2 Duo/Quad). After that, the waters in the Wikipedia River here get a little too muddy for travel -- Intel has later core architectures of course, but they don't say what the ancestors are any more