Re: GNOME3 3D Compatibility [Was: Applications Compatibility]
On 5/25/2011 5:57 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: Allen, you would have noticed i gave examples as to where gnome-shell/mutter was anything BUT robust. One trip to youtube and watching gnome-shell reviews will show you that it isn't as robust as you think. I've watched you-tube videos and local videos in GNOME3 with no issues at all. Cheese also works without incident. It is important to note here that the built-in 3D effects in GNOME Shell is not the real issue, the issue is how the shell treat 3D applications regardless of the GPU driver it uses. But I am confident that any issues will be fixed in the future especially for users of 3D apps. Regards, Allan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:34AM -0400, jordan wrote: possibly biased benchmarks made by developers, who clearly want people I don't want such type of discussion on gnome-shell-list. If you cannot be polite then find some other place to discuss, not here. Ontopic: GNOME shell is slow with Nvidia binary drivers unless you use one of the latest version. -- Regards, Olav (moderator) ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
GNOME3 3D Compatibility [Was: Applications Compatibility]
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 00:20 -0400, jordan wrote: I've had the opposite experience. With compiz and multi-head (second display) acceleration usually got disabled and was at best hit-n-miss. I have 2 displays and am running compiz 0.9.5 (with nvidia), no problems at all - full hardware acceleration. Even with 0.8.6 running 2 displays, i didn't have any real issues. Which nVidia adapter? Are you using the proprietary or Open Source nVidia drivers? I'd love to see this fixed up to something consistent but, when researching, it seems it X/3D either works for people or people are told works-for-me. faster? - it's not... you can't even reduce/increase the speed of your effects with the click of a mouse. Maybe, I haven't tried. They seem fine to me, I have no need to adjust the effects. the defaults for transitions in gnome-shell have slow timing - smooth yes, but slow moving from start to finish time so what exactly are you basing this on??? - That I use it, and all the effects seem sub-second. possibly biased benchmarks made by developers, who clearly want people to use Mutter/gnome-shell and not compiz? your own eyes?? (in which Please don't insult people or question people's credibility. That is unfounded and rude. more robust? - if that was true -- then in any and all circumstances gnome-shell/mutter should have zero tearing, zero graphical errors, in situations that would break compiz. Really? How does more robust == perfect. More robust means m-o-r-e robust [fewer issues]. Please read text as what it means. Allen, you would have noticed i gave examples as to where gnome-shell/mutter was anything BUT robust. One trip to youtube and watching gnome-shell reviews will show you that it isn't as robust as you think. I've watched you-tube videos and local videos in GNOME3 with no issues at all. Cheese also works without incident. Also, Mutter doesn't even have much to compare with Compiz. I haven't seen mutter produce even a fraction of types of transitions/plugins/GFX that compiz can. Thank goodness! GNOME3 only needs to perform the effects that are part of the GNOME3 experience. Compiz is overly complicated; one of the advantages I see as *big* with GNOME3 is that a GNOME3 desktop is a GNOME3 desktop; unlike GNOME2+Compiz+GNOME-Do+ where every desktop you sit down at is wildly different. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
Jasper, This is FANTASTIC information ~ you should really consider posting such info in a blog :) i'm going to take a good look at this when i get home from work. i'll clarify what i meant by speed then. jordan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
hi Olav, possibly biased benchmarks made by developers, who clearly want people I don't want such type of discussion on gnome-shell-list. If you cannot be polite then find some other place to discuss, not here. I should have taken more time to explain what i meant. As i wrote to Adam, i wasn't attacking the developers credibility or the like. What i was getting at is that anytime you have 2 or more groups developing similiar software, each will have reasons and often data to back up why their implementation is better. (you see this everywhere, not just in software development). my sincerest apologies ~ i did not mean to offend anyone, or attack anyone. Ontopic: GNOME shell is slow with Nvidia binary drivers unless you use one of the latest version. you mean like 275.xx (which is the very latest). or possibly 270.41.19 (latest stable) which i have also used/tested. I hope that this clarifies thing Olav. jordan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 00:30 -0400, jordan wrote: This is one I think is a valid concern, I will also be using Multimedia apps for recording and it looks like GNOME Shell is not the right _desktop_ _shell_ at this rate. I remember one poster here who complains, but with no solution for the moment, and for sure he switch to another DE. So my question is, how is GNOME shell was designed from the ground-up with compatibility between applications especially for those 3D apps? Is this a valid concern? I hope for 3.2 things will get easier. I've had issues in with 3D acceleration, on my 2 desktop machines (nvidia)... Some applications i use, recommend not using compositors at all however, compiz plays quite nice and works, so i use it - I've had the opposite experience. With compiz and multi-head (second display) acceleration usually got disabled and was at best hit-n-miss. GNOME3 is now working with a second display [not in fail-over mode] which is much appreciated. For me GNOME3's OpenGL based shell seems both faster and more robust than compiz + GNOME2. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
I've had the opposite experience. With compiz and multi-head (second display) acceleration usually got disabled and was at best hit-n-miss. I have 2 displays and am running compiz 0.9.5 (with nvidia), no problems at all - full hardware acceleration. Even with 0.8.6 running 2 displays, i didn't have any real issues. GNOME3 is now working with a second display [not in fail-over mode] which is much appreciated. For me GNOME3's OpenGL based shell seems both faster and more robust than compiz + GNOME2. and what sort of heavy-duty 3D applications are you actually using with your setup? You know, the kinds of applications that can turn compositors on their head? ie: gaming, transgaming, 3d animation, etc... faster? - it's not... you can't even reduce/increase the speed of your effects with the click of a mouse. the defaults for transitions in gnome-shell have slow timing - smooth yes, but slow moving from start to finish time so what exactly are you basing this on??? - possibly biased benchmarks made by developers, who clearly want people to use Mutter/gnome-shell and not compiz? your own eyes?? (in which case, you have no way of being able to tell the difference, as you probably can't stress mutter, and test against compiz - frame for frame). more robust? - if that was true -- then in any and all circumstances gnome-shell/mutter should have zero tearing, zero graphical errors, in situations that would break compiz. If you had read my comments to Allen, you would have noticed i gave examples as to where gnome-shell/mutter was anything BUT robust. One trip to youtube and watching gnome-shell reviews will show you that it isn't as robust as you think. You've (im assuming) even saw my screenshots from Maya (that i posted a month or so ago on the list). Compiz handles all this stuff fine, gnome-shell/mutter does not I'm not saying it's not going to get there, it probably will - but it ain't there yet. Also, Mutter doesn't even have much to compare with Compiz. I haven't seen mutter produce even a fraction of types of transitions/plugins/GFX that compiz can. When Mutter starts doing more complicated types of effects (like 3D, not just scale/zoom) we will see how it performs then. until you can speed up the effects, and there are more hardcore transitions/effetcs to equally compare - i think it's pretty hard to compare mutter to anything but metacity, or possibly cairo-compmgr. fail-over mode..? lol. fallback is what has kept gnome on my desktops (and many other users), i would hardly associate that with failure. it potentially means, down-the-line if gnome-shell gets to be more to my liking (or other people who aren't using it with gnome3) ~ we won't have already moved on to something like KDE, and completely ditched gnome! ~ that to me, means fallback mode is a success, and a good thing. jordan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
First of all, Mutter is not the shell. Performance issues may be in either
Clutter/Cogl, Mutter, or the Shell/St, all things that didn't exist under
gnome2.
Mutter is now a library, but because of hysterical raisins, it also has its
own base WM that's extremely similar to metacity. If you're running F15, try
'mutter --replace' and see if your performance problems persist. It could
very well be a performance problem existing in Shell, but not in Mutter...
so, try there.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20 AM, jordan triplesquaredn...@gmail.comwrote:
I've had the opposite experience. With compiz and multi-head (second
display) acceleration usually got disabled and was at best hit-n-miss.
I have 2 displays and am running compiz 0.9.5 (with nvidia), no
problems at all - full hardware acceleration. Even with 0.8.6 running
2 displays, i didn't have any real issues.
GNOME3 is now working with a second display [not in fail-over mode]
which is much appreciated. For me GNOME3's OpenGL based shell seems
both faster and more robust than compiz + GNOME2.
and what sort of heavy-duty 3D applications are you actually using
with your setup? You know, the kinds of applications that can turn
compositors on their head? ie: gaming, transgaming, 3d animation,
etc...
faster? - it's not... you can't even reduce/increase the speed of your
effects with the click of a mouse. the defaults for transitions in
gnome-shell have slow timing - smooth yes, but slow moving from start
to finish time so what exactly are you basing this on??? -
possibly biased benchmarks made by developers, who clearly want people
to use Mutter/gnome-shell and not compiz? your own eyes?? (in which
case, you have no way of being able to tell the difference, as you
probably can't stress mutter, and test against compiz - frame for
frame).
OK, there's two things that people mean when they say fast or slow, and
I want to know which one you're thinking of.
Do the designed effects look smooth, but take too long to complete in your
mind? That's a design and UX issue, not at all a performance issue. With a
little hackery, you can see if this helps it a bit.
Alt+F2 'lg' to open the Looking Glass, and paste in:
St.set_slow_down_factor(0.5)
This is a developer tool to make animations slower for debugging cases where
they don't look right, but it's hard to see, but in your case it can make
animations faster. It will go away when you restart the shell... you can
make an extension that will run some code like this every time you start the
shell... or maybe it's worth making a gsetting for gnome-tweak-tool to pick
up (it's not a hard patch).
If the animations and effects look choppy, that's a performance issue, and I
truly apologize if you've experienced anything in the transitions like that.
more robust? - if that was true -- then in any and all circumstances
gnome-shell/mutter should have zero tearing, zero graphical errors, in
situations that would break compiz. If you had read my comments to
Allen, you would have noticed i gave examples as to where
gnome-shell/mutter was anything BUT robust. One trip to youtube and
watching gnome-shell reviews will show you that it isn't as robust as
you think. You've (im assuming) even saw my screenshots from Maya
(that i posted a month or so ago on the list). Compiz handles all this
stuff fine, gnome-shell/mutter does not I'm not saying it's not
going to get there, it probably will - but it ain't there yet.
I'm sorry. I haven't read up on many of your previous emails, and I've
probably asked this again before, but can you give some hardware and driver
details?
I read you are running on nvidia: what card or chipset, and I assume
you're running on the proprietary drivers here.
For something as simple as screen tearing, there's actually a lot of
complicated factors going into play here.
Also, Mutter doesn't even have much to compare with Compiz. I haven't
seen mutter produce even a fraction of types of
transitions/plugins/GFX that compiz can. When Mutter starts doing more
complicated types of effects (like 3D, not just scale/zoom) we will
see how it performs then. until you can speed up the effects, and
there are more hardcore transitions/effetcs to equally compare - i
think it's pretty hard to compare mutter to anything but metacity, or
possibly cairo-compmgr.
Both the Shell and Mutter are based on Clutter, which is OpenGL and has
pretty much supported 3D from day one.
Don't believe me? Alt+F2 'lg' to open the Looking Glass, and paste in:
global.get_window_actors().forEach(function(a) { a.rotation_angle_y =
a.rotation_angle_x = 5; });
To reset:
global.get_window_actors().forEach(function(a) { a.rotation_angle_y =
a.rotation_angle_x = 0; });
Feel free to try out something maybe a little more stressful:
Mainloop.timeout_add(1000/24, function() {
global.get_window_actors().forEach(function(a) { a.rotation_angle_y += 1;
}); return true; });
You can
Re: Applications Compatibility
On Monday, 23 May, 2011 01:32 AM, jordan wrote: Will you please stop this? I'm sorry, but you are refusing to give any good examples whatsoever of how it's harder to use the interface and this thread is going in circles because of it (which you blame on me, which isn't the case at all). You are just assuming that, because some people don't like it, that it*has* to be bad, when there are many, many happy GNOME 3 users that don't resort to fallback mode. Please do not respond to this until you stop repeating the same message over and over without examples. GNOME cannot move forward (for your definition of forward) without solid evidence that it would be better to do so; seriously, how can anybody expect GNOME to change without proper reasoning behind it? It would be illogical to do otherwise. I think it is important to point out that there have been just as many unhappy gnome-users as there are happy ones. Gnome has been completely dropped from UbuntuStudio (they don't like Unity or Gnome-Shell), because the gnome-shell workflow is incompatible with what most multimedia-desktop users require, as far as usability is concerned... Mint isn't using gnome-shell and many many many people have switched to Xfce or KDE. This is one I think is a valid concern, I will also be using Multimedia apps for recording and it looks like GNOME Shell is not the right _desktop_ _shell_ at this rate. I remember one poster here who complains, but with no solution for the moment, and for sure he switch to another DE. So my question is, how is GNOME shell was designed from the ground-up with compatibility between applications especially for those 3D apps? Is this a valid concern? I hope for 3.2 things will get easier. I don't plan on using gnome-shell anytime soon, and i know a ton of people who feel the exact same way. No one i work with likes it. My dad had me come over to his place this weekend to replace Gnome-Shell with a Gnome 3 compiz desktop - neither him or my step-mom liked using the shell - AT ALL! ~ they used it for a month - which was plenty of time to adjust - frankly if a DE takes any longer to adjust to - then there is a serious design problem - and cannot be passed of as being the user's own fault/problem My step-mom is your semi-average PC user, she obviously knows her way around windows - she knows her way around OSX, and has been using Linux for alomst a year, now My dad, like myself - works as a sys-admin, and has used most OSes, dating back to CPM. we've had to adjust to many interfaces over the years, and gnome-shell for us has been - by far, the worst DE to have to get used to (and in my case - it isn't even a viable option, currently). I still check in on gnome-shell's progress - ie: i have gnome-shell fully customized, some extensions, themes, etc. I use it every day or so, and also whenever an update comes through. I read blogs and find out about the latest stuff But or me, GS isn't good enough yet, not even close. Tablet/stylus support is terrible and the interraction with the interface can be quite limited, slow and that isn't including other problems (yes, nvidia still sucks in GS compared to compiz - and i am running the latest beta, and also had tried the latest release before moving to nvidia 275.xx) basically we are told that mice/pointing devices are a waste of time, and that we should be using the keyboard (how 1983ish). Then when the person gives an example of the types of applications, they actually are using for their argument/reasoning - it quickly becomes apparent as to why they think the keyboard is the only way to go...ie: they mainly use IDE's, Libre Office, etc. For that type of usage - i would agree the keyboard is probably the best way to go, but what about users who are not using these types of applications, nearly as much??? what about people who use applications like Ardour, Gimp, MyPaint, Firefox, rawstudio, cinepaint, blender, etc...and other types of applications that are actually EASIER and BETTER to use with a pointing device???(any device that isn't a keyboard, essentially) What about the majority of desktop users who aren''t all that interested in relying on a keyboard for every task??? (which happens to be the vast majority fo users)... the truth of the matter is that the best kinds of UI/GUIs are ones that integrate multiple ways of getting any single given task done - not only with a keyboard, but potentially mice, tablets, stylus, multitouch, voice, and hopefully camera's as well, sometime in the future... hopefully, GTK will eventually provide better integration for other types of interfaces, which could solve my issues anyway. In particular i would love to see proper stylus/tablet support... but currently Gnome doesn't provide such facility - and whenever i have seen someone bring up pointing devices - they are told they are wrong to be using their PC in this way - so i would argue some valid points definitely
Re: Applications Compatibility
hi Allen, This is one I think is a valid concern, I will also be using Multimedia apps for recording and it looks like GNOME Shell is not the right _desktop_ _shell_ at this rate. I remember one poster here who complains, but with no solution for the moment, and for sure he switch to another DE. So my question is, how is GNOME shell was designed from the ground-up with compatibility between applications especially for those 3D apps? Is this a valid concern? I hope for 3.2 things will get easier. I've had issues in with 3D acceleration, on my 2 desktop machines (nvidia)... Some applications i use, recommend not using compositors at all however, compiz plays quite nice and works, so i use it - while gnome-shell is hit and miss. I also have issues with screen-casting in gnome-shell - it causes weird visual distortions, searching around youtube, they are some gnome-shell reviews that have similar distortions...im sure it will all get worked out, eventually. That being said, i highly recommend investigating for yourself. You should try Gnome-shell out and see how it works for you, your workflow, and what you want/require out of your desktop... don't take my word or anyone else's on the subject. I think this point is an important one. In general gnome 3 is pretty good, gnome-shell has integrated some cool technologies, but for me it's just not ready though. depending on how you use your machine, your applications, hardware, etc - Gnome-shell might in fact be absolutely awesome, and work really well. so again, i would try it out - give yourself some time to get used to it and see how it works for you. jordan ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Applications Compatibility
On Monday, 23 May, 2011 12:30 PM, jordan wrote: hi Allen, This is one I think is a valid concern, I will also be using Multimedia apps for recording and it looks like GNOME Shell is not the right _desktop_ _shell_ at this rate. I remember one poster here who complains, but with no solution for the moment, and for sure he switch to another DE. So my question is, how is GNOME shell was designed from the ground-up with compatibility between applications especially for those 3D apps? Is this a valid concern? I hope for 3.2 things will get easier. I've had issues in with 3D acceleration, on my 2 desktop machines (nvidia)... Some applications i use, recommend not using compositors at all however, compiz plays quite nice and works, so i use it - while gnome-shell is hit and miss. I also have issues with screen-casting in gnome-shell - it causes weird visual distortions, searching around youtube, they are some gnome-shell reviews that have similar distortions...im sure it will all get worked out, eventually. Thank you for your thoughts. It is expected, and I am thankful to the developers who do the hardwork. That being said, i highly recommend investigating for yourself. You should try Gnome-shell out and see how it works for you, your workflow, and what you want/require out of your desktop... don't take my word or anyone else's on the subject. I think this point is an important one. Yes, I should. In general gnome 3 is pretty good, gnome-shell has integrated some cool technologies, but for me it's just not ready though. depending on how you use your machine, your applications, hardware, etc - Gnome-shell might in fact be absolutely awesome, and work really well. so again, i would try it out - give yourself some time to get used to it and see how it works for you. jordan Find Insurance on a car now! http://click.lavabit.com/ox6t3dat1tcwjrfkm6b96ekywaj5hwh85yofi44a5h648qz8dmiy/ ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
