Asus eeepc-900 antix21, display resoluton problem

[Member DaveW]

Hi, The antiX21 OS was installed from liveUSB made on a more recent machine. When the liveUSB was first booted on the eeepc, there was no display. It booted up with safe boot mode. Then the OS was installed from that. Everything is working, except the display resolution, is not as desired.

On antix-17, the eeepc display res. was 1024×600. On antiX-21 it is 800×600. The only other choice shown on arandr is 640×480. (By the way, for some unknown reason, arandr shows the primary display as “Default” rather than “LVDS-1”.)

Here is inxi -Gxxx

Graphics:
Device-1: Intel Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics vendor: ASUSTeK
driver: N/A arch: Gen3 bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:2592 class-ID: 0300
Device-2: Genesys Logic USB 2.0 Camera type: USB driver: uvcvideo
bus-ID: 1-8:3 chip-ID: 05e3:0505 class-ID: 0e02
Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.20.11 driver: X: loaded: intel,vesa
unloaded: fbdev,modesetting gpu: N/A display-ID: :0.0 screens: 1
Screen-1: 0 s-res: 800×600 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 212x159mm (8.35×6.26″)
s-diag: 265mm (10.43″)
Monitor-1: default res: 800×600 size: N/A modes: N/A
OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 11.0.1 128 bits) v: 4.5 Mesa 20.3.5
compat-v: 3.1 direct render: Yes

I attempted resolution change via Grub, by adding VGA=791, but this is deprecated and doesn’t work. GFXpayload only recognizes 640×480 and 800×600.

Is it possible that vesa is the limiting factor? If so, what is the process for unloading one video driver and loading another? According to lsmod, vesa is not a loaded kernel module. There was a /etc/X11/xorg.conf file (which I moved to a Temp directory in home, while attempting to make resolution change. I suspect that a new xorg.conf file will be invalid unless using the two resolutions noted.

Old xorg.conf

Section “Device”
Identifier “Device0”
Driver “vesa”
End Section

Thanks for giving thought to my problem. I await your suggestions.

[Forum Admin rokytnji]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Been awhile since I owned a eeepc 900. During bootup. I was offered a screen resolution selection.

I used to enter 1024×600 but it never took. 800 x 600 was max.

So by trial and error. I found putting no input for screen resolution. Not sure since so long ago but I think boot up selection was either running live or after initial install and grub boot up.

Anyways. By being patient and doing nothing. Boot completed and I received full screen 1024 x 600 on my 9″ screen.

With no screen selection from me. I think they were number choices for different resolutions. Like lowest resolution choice was 01. While greatest was 8 or 9 I think.
Not sure if antiX 21 worked like early releases when I had my eepc. Mine used the intel driver instead of vesa though. I used normal boot without adding anything to kernel line like a newbie.

Graphics:  Card: Intel Mobile 945GSE Express Integrated Graphics Controller
           bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:27ae
           Display Server: X.Org 1.17.2 drivers: intel (unloaded: fbdev,vesa)
           Resolution: 1024x600@60.00hz

You probably defaulted to using the vesa driver picking safe graphics on grub menu on boot.
Just don’t give it any input and see how it goes on a live session.

Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.

Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

[Member sybok]

Helpful

Up

0

::

A) Would a newer/another kernel (and its headers) version help?
It seems that it did in the past, see e.g. https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1796213

I usually install headers with a new kernel.

B) Attempt a hack:
Boot into antiX 17, write arandr output of the correct resolution.
(Perhaps test a command to set such a resolution and write it down.)
Boot to your antiX 21 and try to enforce the arandr parameters from antiX 17 in the current session.
If it works, put it in a script called at session startup.
If not and it messes things up, then only the current session and reboot should restore the low resolution.

C) I believe that there was a newer version of antiX with intentionally downgraded X-server that might work better.

[Moderator caprea]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Is there an xorg.conf file in /etc/X11/ which leads to using the vesa driver?
If so please post it here or might try to make it invalid by renaming it to xorg.conf.bak

You can also then try to force the intel driver this way
https://mxlinux.org/wiki/hardware/intel-video-driver/

[Member DaveW]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thank you all for your quick response and suggestions.
I tried them all (and a few similar ones found elsewhere online), but so far, it remains at 800×600. I guess that will work, but I’m used to the higher resolution under antiX 17.

rokytnji –
I’m not sure what you mean by putting no input for screen resolution.
Also, your graphics info shows intel driver active, with vesa unloaded. I haven’t figured out how to change the video driver.

sybok –
I have tried current kernels 4.9.0-xxx, 4.19.0-xxx, and 5.10.xxx (all are 486 non-pae).
I think the 32 bit antiX-21 live USB was using 5.10.xxx 686 pae, when I installed to computer SSD.
I’ve tried to put the antix-17 arandr parameters into the current system. But it is rejected.
(Perhaps, I’m not inserting the parameters in the right place.)

caprea –
I included the xorg.conf file text in my original post. Removing the file makes no difference.
I followed the suggested link and created the 20-intel.conf file (to change the video driver).
However, at next boot-up, there was a complaint, in the boot process, about missing sections in that file.
The boot process ended with no X display. So I used the CLI access to delete the file.
On reboot, the display worked (but still vesa and 800×600).

There were several sites online that offered suggestions for setting new modes in xrandr. These seemed promising, but always ended with xrandr complaining: “Failed to get size of gamma for output…” I followed a couple of suggestions for getting around that. But no go.

In any case, the computer is working nicely. It probably is easier to adjust my preferences, than to adjust the screen.

Thank you all for your quick response!

• This reply was modified 7 months ago by DaveW. Reason: relocated misplaced text line

[Forum Admin rokytnji]

Helpful

Up

1

::

Just so you know. Alt + left click will move the windows around for you. So you can get to the bottom button if needed.

Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.

Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

[Member DaveW]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I stumbled upon a way to get the desired 1024×600 resolution on my eeepc 900, running antiX-21/22, 32 bit.
However, it is a bit awkward, because on boot-up, the resolution is only 640×480. The desired resolution must be selected in arandr (but, at least, arandr now shows several possible resolutions, instead of only 640×480 and 800×600). Because the computer opens in low resolution, things need to be moved around on the desktop after the higher resolution is activated (such as program icons and conky, and the background is segmented).

To make the higher resolutions available, /etc/default/grub was edited
the bold text was added to: GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=”quiet insmod i915 i915.modeset=1” #(text in file is not bold)

On the boot-up grub menu, at the grub commandline, there is an option to run 915resolution, which shows available video modes (1024×768 is the closest to 1024×600). If “915resolution mode 34 1024×768” or “915resolution mode 34 1024×600” is put on the GRUB_CMDLINE in the grub file, the computer opens in 800×600 with no higher resolutions available).

There is probably a way to get the computer to boot into the desired video mode, but I haven’t figured it out.
EDIT: Actually, the present arrangement is very workable. I just discovered that: If the desktop session is restarted, after the desired resolution is set in arandr, the background, icons and conky all fall into place where they should. Also, I forgot to mention, that screen DPI was changed from 96 to 133 dpi (by editing ~/.Xresources file). The dpi count was calculated from resolution and screen size, using an online calculator.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by DaveW. Reason: added a line with new information
• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by DaveW. Reason: added another line of information

[Author]

Posts