On 2008-05-23, Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Umm, I was curious about what the real memory consumption would be. For > instance, let's imagine having no less than 30 windows taking a full > 1024x768, 32-bit screen (a *really* bad case, I currently have 12 > windows, only three of them near-fullscreen: 30 * 1024 * 768 * 4 =3D 90 > Mib, 150 MiB for 1280x1024. That's not so much by today's standards, > given graphics memory size,
It's too much. It's better to use less resources than always add more memory/disk/power plants. But people seldom try to conserve anything, they always take the easy and wasteful way. (A study ordered by Greenpeace [so take it with a small grain of salt] published recently claims that with simple power-saving techniques it would be possible conserve energy in Finland (a country of 5Mpeople) up to the worth of two nuclear power plants capacity or the whole country's coal power plant capacity. Probably they'll actually just build two more nuke plants... there are already applications in. This place is becoming a nuke plant haven/colony.) > Nice, that slightly reminds me of the architecture of the NeWS window > system, which used PostScript as that drawing language (a very > interesting system and an also interesting read): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS Of course, Postscript is Turing-complete AFAIK, which is quite problematic since programs may halt the the server unless it employs hacky watchdog techniques, and is also likely more difficult to optimise for pipelines and so on. -- Tuomo
