Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 30 October 2007 14:12 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ AHappyCamper on Tuesday 30 October 2007 10:14 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 29 October 2007 14:53 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>> Making Linux application user interfaces richer with OpenGL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote
>>>>>>> | At the start of the session, Müller explained the reasons why
>>>>>>> | developers might want to use OpenGL in GTK applications. Although
>>>>>>> | Compiz offers some significant aesthetic improvements for desktop
>>>>>>> | environments, it doesn't do much to improve the visual appearance of
>>>>>>> | application user interfaces. In order to expand the potential for
>>>>>>> | bling in open source software, developers will have to incorporate
>>>>>>> | hardware-accelerated 3D rendering into the underlying widget toolkits.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071028-making-linux-application-user-interfaces-richer-with-opengl.html
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqxgr3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KDE 4 appears to be doing this already, even without Compiz-Fusion.
>>>>>> It's all very impressive, but what about the carbon footprint of all
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could generalise the question to just ask about /any/ kind of use of
>>>>> the GPU. It's an interesting dilemma. It's like people who cruise in their
>>>>> cars just for fun, or install a set of neon lights in their car, or even
>>>>> drive a large van just to get to work (one person).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Running mostly olde iron, I find that using the *BSD and GNU/Linux
>>>> solutions that speed up that hardware are cost effective, in the
>>>> schools, businesses, and homes.
>>>>
>>>> It is also green, to keep older iron running with a modicum of hardware
>>>> upgrades, mostly of newer technology that is more efficient, using less
>>>> energy. Best is the switch to LCD (typically 40 Watts 'on', 10 watts
>>>> sleeping) from CRT monitors (typically 300 watts 'on', 40 watts
>>>> sleeping!).
>>>>
>>>> I convert older systems at the average rate of two per week. Also hand
>>>> out about a dozen Live CDroms each week. There is certainly a lot of
>>>> good in all that, I believe.
>>>
>>> Not for hardware manufacturers, but to the environment and the end users --
>>> yes, it's all good.
>>>
>>> My PCs are still specced like standard PCs from circa 2001/2.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you're doing something exceptional, there should be no need for
>> anything more recent. If you're prepared to use light-weight apps, a 15
>> year old machine is probably fine.
>
> Today's Web isn't quite so 'light', so for a desktop machine used for WWW
> surfing, such a PC might be useful *barely* as a thin client.
>
I think you could render most of the material on an old machine; it's
the heavyweight GUIs which are the killer. Consider that you can render
most of it on a 200MHz Arm machine!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
