Worst video chipset supported by current Ubuntu

[leilei]

What is it?

Windows 95 has the lowest of them all for supporting first-generation consumer grade 3D acceleration early on with ViRGE, PCX1, Rage and V1000, but what I want to know how low the current Ubuntu supports with OpenGL, even if it's something obscure.

It's more of a question toward game development as I want to support some of them, and make sure I 'play nice' with the unfortunate who don't have a dedicated video card.

[Lucradia]

Any intel video chipset, even on windows, the chipset is crap.

Development wise? Non-standard chipset makers. NVIDIA, AMD and Intel all give to the linux community. None of them can be considered "Worst" anymore.

[Bandit]

In the early and mid 90's there where so many chipsets. So great like the Voodoo that never managed to stay in the mark, but the biggest issue was the lack of consistantcy with those chipsets. You had seemed like 50 brands all with a dozen different chipsets of their own. It was utter pain to get real working drivers for each one. Then when it did work, chances are X11 didnt detect your monitor correctly like mine (19" Mag Innovision) and then you spent hours at the CLI editing your xserver.conf's section inputting the mode lines to get X to run above 640x480 resolution. And people complain these days about poor radeon support now.. LOL :lolflag:
But starting in early 2000 to present, nVidia and ATI have managed to stand out from the rest of the crowd and most would be chipmakers have stood down and took on another role to just purchasing their chip offering and putting together video cards based on NV and ATIs chip standards. Which really helps to keep thing more compatible.

[leilei]

John Carmack did help set things straight for the future with the GLQuake craze of '97 no doubt about that... every vendor wanted to have their hardware run on that 'hot' game and it overall lead to more mainstream OpenGL adoption since :)