14 Dec
2017
14 Dec
'17
1:50 p.m.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:11:49 +0100
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf-ZCLZIpdjs0kJGwgDXS7ZQA(a)public.gmane.org>
writes:
Thanks David.
Actually, it now occurs to me I've never had a computer with Intel graphics
It's always been Nvidia or AMD :o
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:27:37 +0000, Will Godfrey
wrote:
At least with the kind of laptops I work with (these days, mostly
Thinkpads), the troublefree graphics were onboard Intel. No problem
either suspending or hibernating, no "not-yet-serviced" or
"no-longer-serviced" problems, no binary blobs, no crashes, no black
screen of graphics death (Nvidia on Thinkpad T61), no gradual
deterioration until death (AMD on mainboard I think), no loss of support
(AMD on external card I think), no crashes for accelerated desktop.
Probably no useful gaming performance either, but then I wouldn't know.
I don't know whether Intel still deals in onboard graphics and
particularly not in relation to desktop computers.
But at least with laptops and over about a decade of experience, they
have by far been the least problematic with Linux for me. If you don't
need the kind of rendering performance graphics cards specialize in,
don't pay the price in stability and non-support the market leaders
exact.
On (say) an asus motherboard with on-board radeon
graphics. I'm not
really fussed about the graphics, but these seem to have better Linux
support than Nvidea ones (especially for RT kernels).
Hi,
AFAIK this even isn't true for the proprietary drivers [1], let alone
the FLOSS drivers. However, I migrated to Intel.