Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 00:04, Paul J.Y. Lahaie wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating point).
The X protocol has no way to display to this kind of device. Which
means that fpu
Allen Akin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:08PM +, Ian Molton wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:17:33 -0800
| Allen Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|
| Then there are the arguments for deeper color channels based on the
| need for higher-precision intermediate results -- for
Around 20 o'clock on Mar 2, Keith Whitwell wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating point).
The X protocol has no way to display to this kind of device. Which
Yes, it would be relatively easy
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:22PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice that the DRI drivers don't do anything like
mode setting and
such, they depend on the X drivers for that. So if
you take away the X
driver, you will not be able to get anything
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 04:39:58 +0100
Bernhard Kaindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
Long ago I loved the command line. I was an expert at
it. When Window 1.0 came out I got my first exposure
to a mouse. For about a year I wouldn't get one, but
now I can't
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:04:36PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see, XFree86 supports 2D for about 50
different chips, and it
supports 3D for about 5. MS might be in a position
to cast way support
for older hardware, but I don't think that
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 08:25, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, before you speak about unifying the 2D and 3D drivers
you need to look at how a 3D desktop would work.
I would assume roughly like the Apple renders seem to work now, or how
the opengl accelerated canvas works in E. That bit is hardly rocket
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:14:09PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 08:25, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, before you speak about unifying the 2D and 3D drivers
you need to look at how a 3D desktop would work.
I would assume roughly like the Apple renders seem to work now, or how
the
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:19, Sven Luther wrote:
So, No 2D windows on the face of rotating cubes ?
Once your 2D windows are textures the rest is very much free, including
scaling, rotation occlusion and alpha blending. You can use it to build
the base X interfaces then worry about exposing the
On Don, 2003-02-27 at 23:01, Jon Smirl wrote:
-- Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice that the DRI drivers don't do anything like
mode setting and
such, they depend on the X drivers for that. So if
you take away the X
driver, you will not be able to get anything
outputed on
On Don, 2003-02-27 at 20:52, Martin Spott wrote:
Michel D?nzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The radeon driver uses the DRM for 2D acceleration when DRI is enabled,
Is the radeon driver the only one doing so ?
I think all drivers supporting the DRI have to deal with 2D and 3D
concurrency one
On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 10:11, Felix Kühling wrote:
I think this discussion is getting off track. We have to make clear what
we are talking about here. From the first mail on this subject I got the
impression, the goal was
- to implement accelerated 2D primitives using the 3D graphics
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:17:33 -0800
Allen Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there are the arguments for deeper color channels based on the
need for higher-precision intermediate results -- for transparency,
antialiasing, multipass rendering, etc.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:20:19 -0800
Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
64-bpp or 128-bpp isn't useful for display, but
is useful.
Since you're talking intermediate, yes, agreed.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to
--- Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be simple to lift the mode setting and
hardware identification code out of the fb drivers
But what would be the advantage over leaving it as a
framebuffer device
or whatever in the first place?
The X philosophy is to ship a
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:08PM +, Ian Molton wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:17:33 -0800
| Allen Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|
| Then there are the arguments for deeper color channels based on the
| need for higher-precision intermediate results -- for transparency,
|
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:25:56AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
| On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:22PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
|... Moore's law
| means that everyone is going to have super 3D hardware
| in a couple of years.
|
| Even Embeded or handheld
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:29:51PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 10:11, Felix Kühling wrote:
I think this discussion is getting off track. We have to make clear what
we are talking about here. From the first mail on this subject I got the
impression, the goal was
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:06:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I haven't look at this but if the DRM modules know
about setting up the hardware and changing resolutions
then there may be no need for framebuffer any more.
You could write a generic framebuffer driver that was
implemented
On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 23:11, Philip Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:06:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I haven't look at this but if the DRM modules know
about setting up the hardware and changing resolutions
then there may be no need for framebuffer any more.
You could write
Has anyone done any work on using DRI to implement a
2D X driver? The basic idea would be to eliminate the
need for a separate 2D hardware driver and have a
single DRI one. The replacement 2D driver would use
the DRI API instead of directly manipulating the
hardware.
How does performance compare
On Don, 2003-02-27 at 18:59, Jon Smirl wrote:
Has anyone done any work on using DRI to implement a
2D X driver? The basic idea would be to eliminate the
need for a separate 2D hardware driver and have a
single DRI one. The replacement 2D driver would use
the DRI API instead of directly
--- Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that what you're looking for?
X has been with for a long time. I was just thinking
about doing some experiments with using OpenGL/DRI for
the base graphics interface.
The idea would be to bring up DRI/OpenGL standalone
first and then run the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:46:49AM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Michel D?nzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that what you're looking for?
X has been with for a long time. I was just thinking
about doing some experiments with using OpenGL/DRI for
the base graphics interface.
The idea would
Michel D?nzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The radeon driver uses the DRM for 2D acceleration when DRI is enabled,
Is the radeon driver the only one doing so ? Is it possible that heavy
simultaneous use of 2D and 3D graphics is responsible for the DRM freezing
the X server with FlightGear ? You
--- Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice that the DRI drivers don't do anything like
mode setting and
such, they depend on the X drivers for that. So if
you take away the X
driver, you will not be able to get anything
outputed on your monitor.
Unless you use the fbdev drivers for
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:22PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
| I'm not really looking for an X alternative. I was
| just thinking about how to improve X over the next
| five to ten years. Both the Mac and Windows Longhorn
| are using new 3D enabled GUIs. This is more of a
| response to these new
Heh, offtopic.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
IMO it may as well be ignored. There's no sense in keeping up with the
Jones's if the Jones's aren't doing anything fundamentally worthwhile. What
great new advantage does Longhorn tout to provide?
I think the great advantage
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 18:11, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
IMO it may as well be ignored. There's no sense in keeping up with the
Jones's if the Jones's aren't doing anything fundamentally worthwhile. What
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think it's inevitable that people _will_ want to use the 3D
engine to minimize and maximize windows. Dismissing it because it
isn't useful is short-sighted. The desktop experience is to a large
degree
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:15:25AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
| I never understood why the 2D engine and 3D engine were ever seperate...
History. 2D techniques were well-established and beginning to be
commoditized in hardware long before 3D issues were well-enough
understood to do the same. It
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 00:04, Paul J.Y. Lahaie wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating point).
The X protocol has no way to display to this kind of device. Which
means that fpu color
On 27 Feb 2003 19:04:15 -0500
Paul J.Y. Lahaie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating
point).
The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensitive
Ian Molton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think it's inevitable that people _will_ want to use the 3D
engine to minimize and maximize windows. Dismissing it because it
isn't useful is short-sighted. The desktop experience is to a large
Ian Molton wrote:
On 27 Feb 2003 19:04:15 -0500
Paul J.Y. Lahaie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating
point).
The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most
--- Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see, XFree86 supports 2D for about 50
different chips, and it
supports 3D for about 5. MS might be in a position
to cast way support
for older hardware, but I don't think that we are.
This is backwards thinking. In five years a Radeon
9700
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Ian Molton wrote:
The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensitive
colour, green.
That wasn't true the last time somebody claimed this, and it's not true
now.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
No, the human eye may not be able to
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:04:59AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
|
| The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensitive
| colour, green.
The human eye can see boundaries between colors that differ in intensity
by less than 1 part in 512, particularly at low intensities. This
--- Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And dammit, it just would look _cool_ if a window
rotated away into the
distance when you close them.
.
Richer experience, leaving the old flat look
looking very dated indeed.
So don't dismiss it. Rich interfaces can
potentially make
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
Long ago I loved the command line. I was an expert at
it. When Window 1.0 came out I got my first exposure
to a mouse. For about a year I wouldn't get one, but
now I can't live without it.
Similar for me. And as I've read about a 3D Window System,
my
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
If 3D isn't important to a desktop, then why are my
windows stacked on top of each other? Why do my
buttons depress and my windows look like they have
raised borders? Edit boxes have shadows and menus look
like they raise when the
41 matches
Mail list logo
