On 12/4/05, Hugh Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: > > >>I also wonder whether it would make a noticeable difference > >>even if implemented. My opinion is that the volume of bitmap/ > >>image data from fonts in 2D GUIs or texture maps in 3D apps > >>will be much greater than the coordinate/vertex data. > > > > > > So, basically, for this design, if we're going to optimize anything, > > then compressing bitmaps is about the best we're going to do? > > Bitmapped fonts don't compress that well because there isn't > much repetition :-( And these days they are likely to be > antialiased pixmaps. > > I think we need somebody to sit down with a profiler for the > X server on a modern Linux distribution and find out what > really goes on.
Now, that would be an _excellent_ idea. Maybe another list member will volunteer to do it or contact GNOME and KDE people and have this done, just to see... I've dug very deeply into X for many years, so the results will make sense to me, although they may surprise me. :) Actually, I'm betting it's mostly PutImage and CopyArea. X lacks primitives to render many of the things people want to see in these GUIs. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
