[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Does KDE really support XRender?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 01:08:15PM +0200, Anders Ellenshøj Andersen wrote:

| Do you think it would be do any good to file these bugreports on XFree86:
| 1) Pointer shakes eraticaly when moved. On other operatingsystems the 
| mousepointer glides fairly seamlessly across the screen, but in XFree86 the 
| pointer feels different. It kind of shakes when you move it around. It hurts 
| my eyes, please fix it somehow.

This sounds like an issue with your mouse driver or video driver in
XFree86 - it's not something I've ever seen.  Certainly worth
complaining about until someone helps get it fixed!

| 2) When moving windows around a trail of window graphics always follows. It 
| looks ugly. Even on my Amiga1200 I can move windows opaquely, so what's the 
| problem? I mean really, how hard can it be to tell a window to move itself 
| 100 pixels to left and 200 pixels down?

I've only really noticed this when using the Vesa driver or other
chipsets that don't have proper XFree support for graphics acceleration.

(Other exceptions include dragging a window over something like Mozilla
which takes forever and a day to redraw itself; and also dragging a
window from one monitor to another in Xinerama mode, which I /suspect/
is slow because my graphics card either doesn't have some kind of
accelerated support for this, or because XFree86 isn't taking advantage
of it.  The latter I don't really care much about, and I suspect the
former needs to be fixed by the Mozilla people not the XFree86 people.)

| 3) Network transparency doesn't work on slow connections. It need's at least 
| 10kbit to be usable. And a lot of apps doesn't even work over a network 
| connection. Just tell it to put a button here, a drop down menu there and a 
| couple of text fields whereever. How hard can that be? There is absolutely no 
| reason to send 10kb pixel data over the network just to render a simple 
| button.

At least 10kbit?  It's incredibly bad at 64kbit! :-)  This is, I think,
a case of "broken as designed". (It works just fine over 10Mbit
ethernet... :-P)  I don't believe it's pixel data that's being sent
over the network - X is higher level than that - and in fact you can get
better performance over a slow connection using something like VNC which
/does/ send raw pixel data over the network.


Reply to: