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 e
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 transp
Sven Luther wrote:
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 a
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 col
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
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
> > impl
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
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 sys
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 Fre, 2003-02-28 at 17:02, Jon Smirl wrote:
> --- 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
>
--- 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 sh
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
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 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 e
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
concurre
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
> >
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 wa
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 ho
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 rocke
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
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
> > n
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
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
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
--- 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
> potentiall
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
resu
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 dist
--- 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 Radeo
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 mo
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 lar
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 sensiti
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 applic
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 tu
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
> deg
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
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 advanta
On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:01 pm, you wrote:
> Without starting starting to think about 3D now, what
> will Linux's response to Longhorn be when it ships in
> a year or two?
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 f
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 GUI
--- 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
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 r
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
--- 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 exis
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 ma
43 matches
Mail list logo
