Nicos Gollan wrote:
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.
if you're using KDE and/or Gnome than yes, they are slow. Too slow. But we can expect them to get at least somewhat better as they mature, both of these systems are fairly complex and fairly early into development. compare the speed of mature WMs - pretty much all of them (except of enlightenment:-) are about the same or even faster than windows. provided you have 2d acceleration working, but that shouldn't be an issue on most cards.
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...
I agree on that, you have to choose your HW if you want 3D (openGL + DRI) support. I used to have voodoo III (fairly good), now I've got nvidia (I use nvidia drivers, so far no problems, but binary only)
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
most apps provide somewhat better interface to this, I mean you don't have to remember what that 12 stands for...
- QT seems to have some serious issues (google for "kde konsole fonts").
that's possible but is it X problem? I checked few email that google found, seems like kde bug. not a reason to throw X out.
- 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.
on solaris the netscape looked ugly. on debian mozilla looks great.BTW it's IE (or is it windows?) that has very strange font settings and then lot of stuff is too small in mozilla (netscape). don't remember the issue. but yes, you can set the minimum size of fonts to get rid of this fonts-too-small problem. but again, this is not an X issue but application issue and it's being sorted out.
There is no central font management. For some time now, X seems to support
what do you mean? you have font server (standalone or just use X server). how much more central can you get? BTW AFAIK there's no way to have standalone fontserver for windows.
truetype fonts and antialiasing, but for some strange reason nobody either knows how or wants to use it.
I've been using true type fonts since forever, it got much simpler over time (it used to be that you had to install special font server, now it's more or less out of the box)
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".)
neither would I:-) as long as by "standard user" you mean somebody who doesn't know and doesn't care to know much about computers (not a bad thing by itself). But the reason is not X - the reason is installation/setup/maintenance/configuration - and it's being worked on. All major distros are getting easier to install - Lindows is supposedly pretty much as easy to use as windows (=similar to windows), knoppix can be booted straight from CD, both redhat and madrake have very nice setup/install...
reminder: I was arguing that X is good, not that linux is for everybody or that all guis on top of X are good...
erik