On Thursday 18 January 2007 23:47, Jan Stępień wrote: > On 18 Sty, 19:50, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > nope. It isn't. > > Xgl and direct rendering are exclusive. One or the other. > > Pity. That would be lovely. > > > Yes. > > > > Or you can start a second X with xinit. So you would have one > > desktop (on F7) > > with Xgl and one (F8) with 'normal' X. > > This method sounds interesting, but I have some doubts. Won't two > separate X servers be too big challenge for my box? I've got an Athlon > XP 3000+ (working at 2167 MHz) plus a GB of RAM. Having Xgl loaded in > the background could be deadly for performance in OpenGL apps on Xorg. > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
well, I played ut2004 on my amd64 3200+/gf6600. One instance of Xgl one with naked X (and a xterm). Worked well enough. > > > Any reason, you are using Xgl? No Aiglx with your card? > > Actually, I haven't though about it. I've got an ATI Radeon 9600XT > running on proprietary drivers (emerged ati-drivers). It works fine, as > long as you can tell that Radeon works fine on Linux; I haven't got any > experience with NVidia's hardware. Returning to the topic, I haven't got > an idea neither whether Aiglx works with my Radeon nor why I'm not using > Aiglx. When I've started to play with fancy 3D servers I was using > Debian, and I found an article describing quite precisely how to get Xgl > running on unstable Debian. Worked fine, so I've found Xgl a nice > choice. Am I mistaken? I don't know which drivers support AIGLX, but with aiglx (or nvidia), you can go from eye-candy-to-fast-to-eye-candy with two mouseclicks. (start beryl-manager, choose beryl from the menu for eye candy or your other wm, for speed). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
