On 21 Dec, Soeren Sandmann wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> - usable, fast text using non-AA fonts over 50/25 kbps with o(10)ms >> round trip. (I'm using client/server transmit speed notation. 50/25 >> could be a 56K modem or a low power wireless data.) >> - borderline, sluggish text using AA fonts over 50/25. >> - usable, fast text using AA fonts over 768/128 (e.g. DSL, cable, wireless) >> - immediate text, OK graphics and images over 10,000/10,000 >> - immediate text, fast graphics and images over 100,000/100,000. > > I am obviously missing something, so please enlighten me. > > Why should antialiasing make a difference with respect to bandwidth? I > thought Render cached glyphs on the server, and that a glyph was an > ARGB image. If that's the case, the client should only have to > transmit the index of the glyph is wants drawn, and this would also be > the case for non-antialiased text, so I don't see why there would be > any difference. >
It does, but there are two effects that need to be controlled: 1) Cache management. You still need to initially populate the cache for new fonts and sizes. You have cache removal for unreferenced fonts so you may need to repopulate. For a non-AA font glyphs are 1-bit per pixel. For AA and color AA glyphs are 8 or 32 bits per pixel. 2) References to glyph indices still consume several times more bits per character than strings using the old style. Since X is already just barely usable over 50/25 links, I reduced the performance goal. (xterm is fine over 50/25, Netscape gives new meaning to the term "badly behaved", most applications are somewhere in between.) Better performance is great, but I would accept a reduced performance over a slow link like that. R Horn _______________________________________________ Render mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/render
