Re: console resolution
On 2010-01-22 at 15:50:02 -0500, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:08:23PM EST, Stephen Powell wrote:
> > So then this is designed to work with framebuffer graphics mode
> > virtual consoles, right? That wouldn't help me. I prefer the
> > traditional hardware text mode virtual consoles.
>
> Just curious, but what's wrong with using a framebuffer console?
There's nothing "wrong" with using a framebuffer virtual console,
and there's nothing "right" about using a traditional hardware
text mode virtual console. It's a matter of preference.
I prefer a hardware text mode virtual console for a number of
reasons, but one of them is that it performs better, particularly
on the ancient under-powered hardware that I tend to use!
For example, screen scrolling is quite snappy on a text mode
virtual console, but on a framebuffer virtual console it can
be sluggish, depending on processor speed. Besides, if I am editing
text, doesn't it make sense to use text mode? Isn't that what
text mode was created to do? I'm not against GUI interfaces,
per se. They have their uses. And I do use them. But if
I'm going to be doing some serious text editing, I always
switch to a text mode virtual console and do my editing there.
I don't try to convert others to my way of thinking. If they
want to use a GUI interface for everything, that's fine with
me. But I do resent it when the movers and shakers try to
eliminate every last vestige of text mode from the system.
Text mode is simply the fastest and most efficient way to
edit and peruse text. Surprise, surprise! In fact, I support
quite a number of machines that don't even have X installed.
Why use a frame buffer virtual console under those conditions?
All it does is consume resources and slow things down.
Reply to: