Created
Updated
Viewed
9.1k times

Most new Linux and Unix "flavours" seem to have problems with the so-called "non-standard" screen resolutions. Ubuntu 11 (the so-called "contender" of Windows) can't even set a widescreen resolution through a standard way. 😳 Desktop BSD supports only some "standard" resolutions. Linux might be better than Windows regarding server administration and security but Windows (and Mac also perhaps) give their users the best possible hardware facilities and support. I replaced my dear Ubuntu with my copy of WinXP for that reason!

Surprising it is that some older versions and less popular nixes like Ubuntu 8.04, Peppermint linux (ver1) and Wolvix (a dead project now) do provide a REALLY versatile list of screen resolutions! 🙄 Wow.. is that some kind of a joke of the Nix world or some change in the kernel or drivers cause that?

Also why do I have to hop forums to know "how to change resolution?" or why do i have to use a workaround? Screen resolution is a NEED and NOT A COMFORT! They should deal with it before anything else!!

It is not the fault of Linuxes though; because the hardware vendors who provide first hand support to proprietory buyers like Microsoft but open source developers of Nixes (especially Linux) could only get them after disassembling them when they have been "thrown away" by their vendors. 😢

Can this "deadlock" ever be solved?

add a comment
0

4 Replies

  • Votes
  • Oldest
  • Latest
Replied
Updated

Ubuntu doesn't have nearly all of the hardware support of something like Fedora or Gentoo. On top of that, you'll see things that work perfectly in one version not work at all in the next. I don't know how to explain this except to say, don't use Ubuntu. It being "the so-called contender of Windows" is due entirely to marketing efforts by Cononical getting people to actually move from Windows to Linux (even if it is a crappy linux) and nothing at all to do with it being the best distro out there. Peppermint is based off of Ubuntu, so what else would you expect? You get better hardware support going upstream (ie: Debian, what Ubuntu is based off of), not usually downstream - though there may be isolated cases.

If you go buy a computer and build it all out and install Windows on it and don't put the disk in for the video drivers, what do you get? Probably exactly what you're looking at under Linux - the only difference is, the video drivers for Linux don't exist (normally) on your video driver disk, they're in your distro's software repository.

Had you just posted information on what distribution you were using and what video card you have, someone would have probably been able to help you without you trashing your installation.

Having said that, I'd suggest you give Fedora a try and follow the directions on http://mjmwired.net to set it up.

add a comment
0
Replied
Updated

i have all ways used ubuntu and it works mostly fine on my AMD 64x box, i may not have extensive experience with it like others on Ozzu but the times i had it running it did what i wanted which was a linux web server environment for in house testing and development. i rather lampp then xampp 😛

add a comment
0
Replied
Updated

I haven't had issues with screen resolution with any linux. I've used a lot of different monitors those on my laptops, other lcd and old crt monitors. I have had problems with driver support for things like graphics cards and wlans.

add a comment
0
Replied
Updated

As This123 stated, it's most likely hardware compatibility and drivers that are proprietary. In open Linux they have to supply source, and many manufacturers won't release them to the public in source form.
You can get around it by purchasing an Enterprise Linux, such as RHEL or SLES. I run RHEL on my work laptop, and it's a champ.
That being said I also have Ubuntu on my tertiary laptop, as it is not required to do much functionally and it was easy to install and use for simple tasks.

add a comment
0