[LAU] Christmas present for self.

[Will Godfrey]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:11:49 +0100
David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> wrote:

>Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf-ZCLZIpdjs0kJGwgDXS7ZQA at public.gmane.org>
>writes:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:27:37 +0000, Will Godfrey wrote:  
>>>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.  
>
>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.
>
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.