Bryan Sant wrote:
I do own a mac, and I dual boot linux and OS X on it. It may be that I
don't have enough RAM, but there is a very noticeable difference in
responsiveness - Linux w/ XFree86 is tons faster than OS X.
Does xfree86 do the cool things os x does like transparency and whatnot?
No. Does all that cool stuff work well in os x? Yes. Aqua itself is no
slower (nor faster) than xfree86, but os x eats so much ram that in my
case (256M, and yes I knew it would be this way) linux is the clear
winner in performance.
Wow. What am I doing wrong? I have an IBM T30 with an ATI Radeon
Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500], 2.0 GHz CPU, and 1 GB of RAM.
My card is not supported by the ATI binary drivers, but I've heard
that those drivers aren't that great anyway. My X11 isn't unbearable,
but Windows on the same laptop hardware (but with a superior driver)
is very responsive. My desktop system has an nVidia card and the
speed difference between Windows and Linux (with nvidia's binary
driver) is negligible.
Do the OSS or proprietary ATI drivers work better with some ATI
chipsets than others?
Hans, what ATI chipset is in your Mac? What is your FPS when running
glxgears (I know it is a bad benchmark, but my FPS is rediculous).
Thanks,
-Bryan
I would say the open source drivers work better on older hardware than
the proprietary ati drivers... As others have pointed out the newer
cards arn't fully supported by the open source driver.
I'm using the radeon driver included with X (x.org) in Core 3, and I get
~2600fps(from glxgears...) off my Radeon9100Pro 128MB AGP card (AMD
Athlon 2800+ and 512MB)
.===================================.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`==================================='
