Re: Xv MOX extensions multiple client overlays
Nearly all PC hardware has a single video (YUV) overlay engine. Which means it not possible to display more that one overlay video rectangle at a time. Most hardware also has non-overlay mechanisms for scaling and displaying YUV data, and many drivers expose these as Xv adaptors. For example, the driver I'm using exposes 1 overlay adaptor and 32 blit adaptors on my NVIDIA card. If the apps are smart enough to look for free adaptors, the first instance will use the overlay adaptor and subsequent ones will use the blit adaptors. Thanx very much for this info! I did not know that. This gives me a great opportunity to pester app developers to improve Xv usage. Is the number of blit adaptos hardware limited or is it determined by the xfree86 module? Furthermore is my understanding correct: a single window app will be able to use the hardware accelerated YUV video scaling engine. Others will have to use software (or is it hardware but non-overlay mechanism?) scaling/transfromation of YUV data that still can be visualized using Xv? What is the performance hit of using video overlay to non-overlay mechanism? And if someone wonders how my questions started: Sun Microsystems recently announced sth called Looking Glass (http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/xtreme/shows/lg_media.html) (WARNING - Quick Time movie!) I was wondering whether they were using video overlays for the movie apps and whether it would be possible to use many apps per a single overlay hardware. Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Xv MOX extensions multiple client overlays
Hi guys, I am interested whether it is possible for multiple clients to use a single overlay (possibly via the Xv extension)? I am not talking about multi head video cards that have several overlays - one for each monitor but instead normal cards. If one application uses Xv, does it occupy it exclusively? I am also interested whether this extension - MOX http://www.techsource.com/mox.htm#x11extension has been integrated or deprecated in Xfree86? Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Xv MOX extensions multiple client overlays
What about using a single overlay with multiple clients? (3 mplayers for example) Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Proposal for documentation patch - driver man pages, HWCursor, SWCursor
Hi guys, I checked driver man pages in xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/*/*.man Almost every driver implements the options: HWCursor, SWCursor however they are documented differently. From an end user perspective I would like: 1. Them being the same throughout docs 2. Them being as explicit as the best examples Should I prepare patches for this and enter them in Bugzilla? A patch per file? or a big patch containing all the changes? I will of course use MIT X11 license but are there any further intricate details I should know? (apart from http://www.xfree86.org/developer.html) Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: You suggest an upgrade, eh?
The _only_ answer that matters is the technical/scientific one. End users opinions about how things Technically and scientifically you are right and I agree with you, but not everyone has the patience for the scientific side. I as sorry as you are about this thing, but some magic some times is surely appreciated. It doesn't help anything. People will create rumours and spread them _always_ by the rules of human nature and the fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't understand deep technical issues in general. Maybe it will not help directly you but it will help me in several ways. I will not have to dispel the myth about the networking in X that slows it down. I will talk about RENDER or sth. else. And maybe people will stop pesting XFree86 developers to drop netwoking support. (Well they are sure to find sth else to unscientifically voice their opinion about, but let us make this one little step) Video gaming is a perfect example. Playing video games is indeed possible in Linux using XFree86. I would NOT advocate Linux/XFree86 to video gamers however, nor would I try to extoll the virtues of gaming in Linux with XFree86. It does work, but it is not a push and click painless experience yet for the masses out there. Actually you ARE dropping several variables from the equation. Real life example - we had recently in Bulgaria the following case: Microsoft told computer gaming clubs that they could not use their bought and paid up licenses for Windows 98 and let people hire the computers on a per hour basis. Microsoft's view was that they needed Windows XP Professional licenses. The clubs showed the letters they had with MS partners from which they bought the licenses in which MS distributors explicitly stated that Windows 98 is the necessary version that would suffice (the letters were written maybe 2 years before Win XP was on the market) What finally happened is that clubs got busted, non-compliance with licences was found (as well as tax avoidance) and a club had more than 200 computers confiscated. So - for the end user perspective - gaming in XFree86 is not painless, but for the point of perspective of game club manager - it is less painful to have to pay your network administrators to make the thing click than to have your machines confiscated. You are sayng that you need to make comparisons with things being equal. You mean - hardware configuration and so on. But there are people for whom what matters is the cost - so hardware specs can be left aside. You can invest what you save from licensing the OS in more games or better hardware. Sure, nobody said explaining these things is easy of course. Why bother explaining to people in the first place though? Their rumours/opinions/whatever don't really matter much to the technical/scientific/developmental side of things. It's not like Well times like when Bruno got burned are a thing of the past but people can get fired for voicing their scientific opinion which is not in line with the great line and path ahead. And as this thread gets way off the limits of the theme of the list, let me ask the quetsions in a very humble way: Will you help me show the magic in XFree86? The jaw dropping side of things? Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: You suggest an upgrade, eh?
Kernel modules are not inherently faster. the reason directx (and openGL) seem so fast on windows is because the manufacturers and MS tweak the drivers for every last bit of performance. Plus they are able to utilize interfaces that are not accessable in xfree86 due to IP concerns. Some xfree86 drivers actually are faster or support more features than their windows counterparts. Hi Alex, How can we prove this with real life data? I do realize XFree86 is VERY fast in some situations - for example I have seen Quake 3 running faster on GNU/Linux than on Windows - on the same hardware. I actually have made Windows Unreal Tournament run almost as fast on Linux as Windows. (I know UT 2003 comes with a Linux precompiled binary, I just wanted to test Wine+XFree86 efficiency in such a situation.) In both cases nVidia's non-free drivers were used. So at least I have an internal proof that X is not slow as people seem to think. I actually try to educate users here that X is good and networking is wonderful, and bottlenecks are elsewhere. Still - these are technical terms, and some people - not only gamers, are either unable or unwilling to grasp or listen to explanations. They need shiny things, FPS and white papers. What we did here a month ago during our OpenFest - festival for Free software, were some demonstrations. I was actually very amazed by XFree86 abilities. Here is a link to a shortish movie: http://ncbis.ue-varna.bg/vaso/of/mov/dscf1156.avi - 3,5?? It is my machine - AMD Athlon 1700+, 256 DDR SDRAM, nVidia GeForce 3 200, VIA KT266+ based motherboard with RedHat 9.0 demonstrating Gnome 2.4 What is seen is: 1. Top right - TOTEM playing Matrix 3 trailer (MPEG4 coded), local 2. Bottom right - GNOMEMEETING with a USB web cam showing some of the demonstrators as they try to demonstrate ;-), local (the bluish oval thing that rushes in is actually me ;-) 3. Bottom left - MPLAYER showing a DVD film, local 4. Top left - BB - a demonstration of aalib - rasterization using ASCII text. remote - this is run on another computer and just visualized via X networking abilities. 5. Middle - Windows Half-Life, run remotely under wine, using its OpenGL rasterizer, visualized via X networking abilities and running with hardware acceleration. None of the visitors believed me when I told them the hardware specs. They looked inside my box to check that I was not lying. So - I am talking about similar things: 1. Tests 2. Demos, 4. Games, 5. 3d heavy applications etc, etc. What can we really do to prove to infidels that XFree86 works great? Logic most of the times fails, explanation like usage of IPC, latency tests etc. also fails, people just scream Kernel graphics gd, X bd and it is demos like this that help me shut them up. What can we do? al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: You suggest an upgrade, eh?
I'm not quite convinced that that is an objective comparison however. Was Quake 3 running in both operating systems with the exact same 3D settings? Of course not! ;-) I am as skeptical as you are regarding similar tests. However - a demonstration like this helps me when proving that X is not slow. Furthermore - I can now challenge anyone to run Half Life accelerated remotely on Windows, when the same thing is easy to do with GNU/Linux. ;-) Still - what you get from current popular IT literature are very easily refutable tests that the public none the less believes in. Now - there are two things I can do - point that the test is unscientific, something that no one is interested in publishing as a proof is very boring (and people just love simple numbers pointing to the undisputable winner). The other thing is to actually make a simple demo and demonstrate in a flashy manner (everyone loves demos) that the test is obviously flawed. Scientific tests are a very important thing, I just want to make sure that unscientific ones are not used anti-XFree86-wise ;-) Quite frankly... random uninformed people making claims that X is slow, without any shred of a clue or properly deduced scientifically measured and reproduceable instrumented data, will always be out there. We can't stop people from spreading unfounded rumours nor from making random guesses as to why they or someone they know may be experiencing slowdowns in some application or another. Actually we can. Make a good demonstration, so that people see that the sentence X is slow is obviously and without any doubt flawed. I don't think trying to prove anything to people who will believe whatever they want to believe helps us any at all personally... I think it helps us prevent the stupid rumor propagating. A vaccine will not heal people, but it will prevent a disease from spreading. The best thing any of us can do, is continue to properly and scientifically analyze the X server, it's video drivers, and other related technologies, profile them, optimize them, etc. From a development perspective - yes, you are right. Popularization needs a more pro-active approach. Right now, the biggest hit on the desktop is probably unaccelerated RENDER operations. That's what most users likely see as desktop slowdowns currently. Over time, those things will improve as people write support. I know that, and people on the list know that. However I find it difficult to explain it to people that do not know what RENDER is, people that do not want to know what RENDER is, and people that just trust the old saying: seeing is believing Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: You suggest an upgrade, eh?
It does no such thing. It demonstrates that OpenGL on Linux is not slow, but to run those applications you essentially shut down X. You've demonstrated nothing about X's performance. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. To the best of my knowledge - I used the OpenGL drivers that nVidia provides. Thay use X infrastrucrure, they have two parts - one for XFree86, the other one - kernel module for direct low level access. They use X infrastructure, things like GLX, DRI etc. All of these are clearly within the boundaries of XFree86. Maybe my application did not use Xlib - so what. It is still an X app. The other example I gave - running Half Life remotely and still having it accelerated - this further shows that X is fast. In one case I am using direct rendering, in the other one - I go through the OpenGL protocol encoder. What is the difference? And in the Quake 3 case - I ran the application both full screen and in windowed mode. How and when did I shut the X server down? I do not get your point, please correct me if I am wrong. Best regards: al_shopov -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Help with the docs for the coming 4.4. release
Hi guys, As I know XFree86 4.4 is coming in december. Will you be needing some help with documentation updates, documentation preparation, pressreleases etc. non-coding work? I would volunteer to do some things. Best regards: al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Help for documentation of XFree86 4.4
Hi guys, I know XFree 4.4 is coming in December. Is there any need of Documentation updates, pressrelease preparation etc.? Anything that I can help with in this aspect? al_shopov ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
