On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:02:06 -0300 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbieri-at-profusion.mobi |enlightenment|" <...> wrote:
> > Instead, performance is much worse. > > Events scheduled for 0.1 sec are running at about 1 per sec, with the CPU > > maxed out > > (while images are being moved on the screen). > > > > When enabling framebuffer, have I forgotten to do something? > >> > x11-16 is sometimes 2 times faster than regular x11, it depends on > what you are doing. There is no fb-16 yet (willing to write it? ;-)). > > However in your case it's much slower, that shouldn't be the case. It > would be great to try "expedite" with -e x11 and x11-16 and report, > at least, the first 4 tests values. > > As for framebuffer an x11, they should be almost the same. We just > tested on Freescale's imx31 at 480x640 and it's not that difference. > X11 is not as bad as people claim. > > Willing to try expedite .. but I have all kinds of E17 stuff here, dont see any expedite. Where do I get it from? Not obviously in any snapshot. Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
