On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:37:40 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:55:46 GMT, ed wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:41:52 -0500
> > Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:33:18 GMT, ed wrote:
> >>>> You mean, another description of how to get stuff to work that
> >>>should > have worked out of the box...
> >>> not everyone has, or wants xgl. it's great eye candy, but for some
> >>> direct rendering is enough. some things with xgl i just thought
> >were >> over the top, sure it looks great, but it'd not want to use
> >it all >> the time.
> >> Everyone should want XGL, whether or not they have the effects
> >> enabled, because XGL is that much more efficient than normal X. So
> >> much smoother and more responsive.
> > directrendering has the same responses
> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of XGL and why it's more
> efficient. It's not direct rendering that does it.
i never said they were the same thing. direct rendering is far better
than software rendering. xgl uses the hardware more efficiently, but for
most general purposes direct rendering is sufficient.
Regards, Ed :: http://www.bsdwarez.net
proud java person
Vin Diesel consumed 16oz. of Chinese mustard, breathed fire, then
proceeded to climb the Empire State Building after watching the
1930's version of King Kong.