> Out of curiosity, is the difficulty in switching depths or visual types?
> It might be useful, for example, to switch applications between a 16-bit
> TrueColor visual on a laptop with a limited amount of video memory and a
> 32-bit TrueColor visual on a nearby desktop. This seems like it would be
> far less complicated than emulating PseudoColor.
>
Rendering to different depths is a bit tricky, though doable (or we wouldn't
have done the design work). Pseudocolor writable colormaps are a serious
pain.
But by the time it was implemented and deployed, your laptop will likely
no longer have this memory limit.
I had this argument with Keith; and I think his claim Moore's law
is making this moot pretty fast is probably correct.
So it might be still worth doing if someone *really* wants to do it, and
do it quickly, but so far, we've not identified such a person with that
interest and ability.
Barring that person, (which isn't me, given the recent developments in
modern toolkits, and the applications I use), it seems safest to deploy
what we *know* works correctly and is useful to everyone sooner than hoping
it happens someday, and have the functionality never be standard.
And all my instincts and experience are to avoid making "standard" anything
that isn't *fully* tested.
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
HP Labs, Hewlett-Packard Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
