On 5 January 2012 22:22, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote:
I wonder how Windows XP does remote GUI without an x11 architecture. In
windows XP they have something called Remote Assistance which is
something like VNC I think (faster? I don't know). So without an x11
architecture I wonder how they
On 5 January 2012 22:25, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote:
Since MAC is BSD based now, does Mac not use X11? How does it get it's
snappyness? Or does it have that slower feel to it?
No, MacOSX doesn't use X11. Apple implemented a completely new GUI on
top of FreeBSD (just like Wayland wants to do).
On Thursday 05 January 2012 19.29:57 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg stated that his goal was that every frame is
perfect, by which he mean that applications will be able to control
the rendering enough that we'll never see tearing, lag, redrawing or
flicker.
So I take it
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 21.50:19 nore...@z505.com wrote:
Same here. I found linux to be slower than Windows XP and Windows 2000
sadly, I think part of it is the X11 being slower than win32 gui calls,
but I am not sure since I have never profiled to see what is slowing it
down. Even mozilla
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 22.33:23 IvankoB for-mse wrote:
From my short LINUX C/C++ experience, it looks really difficult to
write resourse-relaxed apps for LINUX. Just look into GTK2+, KDE4+ etc
application bricks. Also all they're C++ based thus a lot of dynamic
memory fragmentation which
On 3 January 2012 22:50, nore...@z505.com wrote:
down. Even mozilla firefox seems to load web pages slower and less snappy
than MS Windows.
That the snappy-ness under MS Windows could be because most recent web
browsers (Firefox, Chrome, IE9) are hardware accelerated. No such
hardware
On 3 January 2012 23:42, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote:
i find it is X11 that
is actually slowing things down. But since I have no evidence or proof it
is the X11 bandwidth or wrappers or code indirection
X11 has a lot of latency issues - mostly due to its client/server
(network) based design.
On 4 January 2012 10:55, Martin Schreiber mse00...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think so. MSEgui X11 applications are as fast as gdi32 applications if
they are not slowed down by a modern compositing window manager. From my
point of view as GUI toolkit developer the X11 API is well designed,
As a
KDE 4.x and installed KDE 3.5.x instead. A huge speed increase
on the desktop!
AFAIK, KDE4 was obeyed to switch to per-application single
window/message queue :) May be, not polished enough.
2012/1/3, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
On 31 December 2011 09:04, Martin Schreiber
IvankoB for-mse wrote:
From my short LINUX C/C++ experience, it looks really difficult to
write resourse-relaxed apps for LINUX. Just look into GTK2+, KDE4+ etc
application bricks. Also all they're C++ based thus a lot of dynamic
memory fragmentation which means 1000s times as worse usage of
Hallo IvankoB,
Du schriebst am Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:39:56 +0500:
AFAIK, KDE4 was obeyed to switch to per-application single
Did you mean to say obliged here? Obeyed doesn't make sense here to me.
(And if this should be obliged, by whom?)
window/message queue :) May be, not polished enough.
Hallo nore...@z505.com,
Du schriebst am Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:50:19 -0600:
find it less snappy than win32. So the only common thing between bsd and
linux, is X11 window system - so x11 may be slowing things down vs win32.
Win32 is much more interwoven into the basic system than X11 is even now,
In plain C you have a lot of heap allocation using pchars, right?
==
Yes, and it's a nightmare that a C-function can't return a string or
pointer without pre/post memory issues.
So why would C++ slow it down?
===
Moved to background pchar/pointer issues + object
13 matches
Mail list logo
