Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 20:00, Erik Steffl wrote:
> why? it's true that in _some_ cases X isn't the _best_ performer but
> in general I find it much better than windows, mostly because of
> flexibility.
You've made better experiences than I did, then... On each and every system I
had the pleasure to work on so far (no, not all configured by myself...),
Windows beat X in terms of subjective responsiveness. It just *feels* quicker
to me. It's nothing to get really excited about.
> what do you mean native 3D acceleration? you need directX or openGL
> for 3d in windows, openGL (with DRI) in X. how is one more or less native?
OK, "native" was a bad choice of words. Let's just put this in the "bad
hardware vendor support" corner...
> font management: not sure what you mean. I have some fonts, I can
> pick which one I want to use (based on app). that describes both win and X.
- One word: -adobe-courier-medium-r-*-*-12-*-*-*-*-*-*-15
- QT seems to have some serious issues (google for "kde konsole fonts").
- Mozilla looks like something unspeakable unless you get it running with
FreeType. And then there's a lot of guesswork to do with the min, max and
gain settings until it's looking good. At least it looks better than anything
else I've seen so far.
There is no central font management. For some time now, X seems to support
truetype fonts and antialiasing, but for some strange reason nobody either
knows how or wants to use it.
> yeah, the real transparency is what we need.
But for efficiency reasons, the clipped content of windows isn't transmitted
so that's not so easy.
(Disclaimer: I'd never have thought I would write such stuff some day. I've
been using Linux/X for several years now and it has replaced my Windows
installation for productivity purposes, but as it is now, I would *not*
recommend it to a "standard user".)
--
Got Backup?
Reply to: