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.
|
|
