On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 08:29 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Designing the Shell not in the way it would work best but in order to > > work with extremely limited (by modern standards) graphics drivers > > comes under 'severely cripple the Shell', in my chart. > > What is "best"? For one person, this may be "consistent look across all > systems." For another "maximum number of animations per minute of use." > I'm leaning towards the former. :-) > > Seriously for a second, if Apple managed to have a decent looking and > behaving desktop on an eMac (and I said before, I'm no big fan of OS X), > with no hardware acceleration whatsoever and so many years ago, things > can be done so that the fallback _resembles_ the new mode. It doesn't > have to be exactly the same, but at least similar.
I have precisely zero experience with Macs, but I read quite a lot of articles specifically bemoaning the performance of early lower-end OS X-running systems, particularly graphical performance, so I'm not sure this example is worth quite as much as you think. > And this is another problem with the overview. 3D is probably required > to all all those animations all the time, even when user really wants to > do something else. I don't really have the same perception you do here. Shell certainly doesn't look like an attempt to use as many animations as possible, to me; it uses them quite sparingly, really. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
