Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?

• Previous message: Arnt Karlsen: "Re: how to add network support into installed kernel ?"
• In reply to: Neal Lippman: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Next in thread: Nicos Gollan: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Reply: Nicos Gollan: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:56:05 -0700
To: Debian-User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>

Neal Lippman wrote:
...
> Well, most replies to my posting have pinned the "blame" on KDE and
> Gnome rather than X per se. I'll have to reinstall on the laptop and see
> how it looks with a more minimal WM.

   I hope you're not reinstalling just to change the WM...

>
> This does still beg the question of how Win95/98/Me/NT, etc, managed to
> provide a reasonable "desktop" when KDE/Gnome could not, however. It

   both KDE and Gnome are under development, more effort is spent on
having things actually working, adding/changing features etc. than on
performance improvements.

   as others said if you don't have resources to waste just use
something else, there's number of other WMs. You can definitely have
more eye candy per buck in X than you can have in windows (because you
have different types of eye candy available). hey, sco unix had pretty
good X back on 40MHz 386 (certainly a lot better than win 3.0 or 3.1 or
whatever version was out in '90 - '91).

...
> From what little I know of X, I'd tend to agree that X is being
> overtaxed supporting a desktop environment that it was never designed to
> do. Aside from the present market penetration of X (which could also be
> used to argue to stick with Windows instead of ever having adopted
> Linux), what would be the obstacle (other than, of course, the
> time/effort for development) for a new graphics paradigm to sit atop
> Linux? [Yes, I know there'd be a lot of apps to redo and so forth as
> well, although if there were a Gtk+ compatibility layer...)

   X is GREAT. just because a particular combination of
software/hardware doesn't work well (too slow) doesn't mean there's a
need to throw out the baby with the...

   that's not to say that X is perfect, far from it, but it's being
worked on, it's very flexible and extensible and there is nothing
better, at least now.

   btw there's a relevant slashdot.org article about Xr/Cairo (Xr was
renamed Cairo), you can read something about how they plan to make
better support for eye candy (vectors instead of bitmaps, because
vectors are cheaper to transfer, easier to scale)

        erik

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

• Previous message: Arnt Karlsen: "Re: how to add network support into installed kernel ?"
• In reply to: Neal Lippman: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Next in thread: Nicos Gollan: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Reply: Nicos Gollan: "Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]