From: Richard R. <sf...@ol...> - 2004-04-19 16:43:11
|
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 10:57:35AM -0500, Fay John F Contr AAC/WMG wrote: [...] > I didn't hear any objections to printing the warning. I was saving that for mulling over. I would rather it not be done. I think that most users will know if their system is able to do direct rendering. If done, it should be port-dependant, and overridable with a ./configure flag. On GNU/LINUX and perhaps FreeBSD, the norm may be direct rendering. On NetBSD, OpenBSD, and perhaps others, the norm is not to have direct rendering. (So on GNU/LINUX and FreeBSD---at least for the i386---warn UNLESS there's a compile-time option to disable it. On all other systems, never warn unless a compile-time option ENabled it.) As an example when the OS may not be provide enough of a clue, consider an ATI card I have. When I installed SuSE GNU/LINUX on this one box, the X server could only get up to 4 colors and was so slow I could almost see lines drawn pixel-by-pixel. I saw the same terrible performance on NetBSD, but I knew where to find /etc/XF86config on NetBSD and after some poking around got it running with the "vesa" driver. This was okay; with software rendering I was able to get about 1100 fps in glxgears. However, with XFree86 upgrades, that frame rate has dropped off... Again, I hardly need every program I run to remind me that I'm not getting direct rendering. --=20 "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/ |