>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Stefan Mars wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > Please do so. This mail was mostly meant as 'some people have valid
> > > objections to ggi' :-).
> >
> > No, that would be "Some people have valid objections to the current state
> > of ggi without knowing what is being worked on in the project :)"
>
> IMHO, GGI still has no strong concepts to support accelerated operations
> on PC GX cards. XFree86 has a strong concept, XAA. Not using acceleration
> puts us back into graphics stone-age .. (for windowing that is, some cool
> games like Quake do their own stuff).
>
> just compare XGGI and XFree86 xbench numbers on an accelerated card...
This is hardly a valid criticism of GGI/KGI as a whole! XGGI is
merely a GGI-using application that currently used a dumb framebuffer and
hasn't been recoded to use copybox() and friends. This is supposed to
happen sometime soon, and when it does XGGI will be accelerated if the
underlying KGI driver being used is accelerated.
> just look at how Win95 and NT have ducked this problem, Win95 gives full
> access to user code, NT 4.0 has put the graphics code into the kernel. GGI
> would be something like NT 3.51, dead slow doing graphics, and no games
> would run on it at sane speeds ...
GGI Descent now runs as fast in 640x480 as DOS Descent did in
320x200. This is with NO acceleration. You were saying?
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu