When it comes to memory management and a lot of other things, EXA is way better than XAA, but EXA doesn't provide means to support many 2D functions, even if your hardware supports it. And when you try to bypass EXA or XAA altogether (gc-level), then certain things don't work right, like software cursor.
On 5/13/09, Luc Verhaegen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:16:19PM -0400, Timothy Normand Miller wrote: > > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/the_new_xorg_features > > > What a pathetic little write-up... no depth and he doesn't even get > his facts straight. > > * AMD was first with (as i was there, one of the three people suggesting > this to AMD). Intel only followed suit much later. Given, intel did have > stuff that could be called documentation. AMD just handed us and later > the whole planet a very dense and incomplete register document in the > vain hope that we wouldn't get it to work on that anyway. > > * EXA is not a required feature. Although many Xorg developers are > actively working on making XAA slower (paintwindow removal anyone?) so > XAA stops beating EXA so comprehensively. > > Now if only this mitch fellow had an email address i could dig up > easily... > > > Luc Verhaegen. > -- Timothy Normand Miller http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
