From: <go...@ww...> - 2000-02-24 22:10:11
|
Hello! Is it possible to create a DRI like stuff that improves 2D acceleration. Because as I experienced the current X technology is still noticeable slower than GUIs using direct access (example Windows GUI). Thank you Laci |
From: Daryll S. <da...@pr...> - 2000-02-24 22:49:34
|
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 09:36:46PM +0200, László Késmárki wrote: > Is it possible to create a DRI like stuff that improves 2D acceleration. > Because as I experienced the current X technology is still noticeable > slower than GUIs using direct access (example Windows GUI). Possible, sure. The DRI is meant to be agnostic about what API is run on top of it. OpenGL still has a few special hooks into the DRI that it shouldn't, but those can and should be removed. Beyond that I'm not sure it is really a good idea. You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare X and Windows. You need to be very careful in analyzing where the performance difference is coming from. I haven't done that so, I can't say for sure, but my gut feeling is that it isn't the performance of getting commands onto the graphics card, so changing to a DRI solution may not make a difference. - |Daryll |
From: A V N. M. R. <nm...@sa...> - 2000-02-25 04:34:05
|
> Hello! > > Is it possible to create a DRI like stuff that improves 2D acceleration. > Because as I experienced the current X technology is still noticeable > slower than GUIs using direct access (example Windows GUI). use frame buffer devices > > Thank you > > Laci > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Doug R. <df...@ca...> - 2000-02-25 11:39:07
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, [iso-8859-2] László Késmárki wrote: > Hello! > > Is it possible to create a DRI like stuff that improves 2D acceleration. > Because as I experienced the current X technology is still noticeable > slower than GUIs using direct access (example Windows GUI). You could always use the OpenGL api to render your 2D stuff as well as 3D. This has certain advantages but also some drawbacks (no good high-level toolkit support). -- Doug Rabson Mail: df...@ca... Technical Director, Qube Software Ltd. Phone: +44 171 431 9995 |
From: teunis <te...@co...> - 2000-02-28 20:40:23
|
On using OpenGL for rendering 2D stuff.... Is it possible to implement an accelerated X this way? I've seen an unaccelerated X run like this... (actually, XGGI running under glide. :) ... wondering if this is even worth doing and with the high calibur of people present... G'day, eh? :) - Teunis |
From: <ak...@po...> - 2000-02-28 21:47:51
|
On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:50:12PM -0500, teunis wrote: | On using OpenGL for rendering 2D stuff.... | | Is it possible to implement an accelerated X this way? It's certainly possible, but it's not obvious that it's worth the effort. Some things probably would work well (e.g., using texturing hardware to implement tiling). Other things probably would work poorly (e.g., OpenGL's wide-line semantics aren't the same as X11's) or would have to be emulated in software. Things that aren't related to drawing probably would be roughly the same. Using direct rendering would introduce some interesting implementation problems, since some X operations (window-tree management, X resource manipulation) still need to be centralized. A direct-rendering version of X might be a good project even if it's not based on OpenGL. One would have to do a careful job of separating pure rendering operations from all the other operations that would still need to be centralized in the server. Allen |
From: teunis <te...@co...> - 2000-02-29 16:50:01
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 ak...@po... wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:50:12PM -0500, teunis wrote: > | On using OpenGL for rendering 2D stuff.... > | > | Is it possible to implement an accelerated X this way? > > It's certainly possible, but it's not obvious that it's worth the > effort. Some things probably would work well (e.g., using texturing > hardware to implement tiling). Other things probably would work > poorly (e.g., OpenGL's wide-line semantics aren't the same as X11's) > or would have to be emulated in software. Things that aren't related > to drawing probably would be roughly the same. > > Using direct rendering would introduce some interesting implementation > problems, since some X operations (window-tree management, X resource > manipulation) still need to be centralized. A direct-rendering > version of X might be a good project even if it's not based on OpenGL. > One would have to do a careful job of separating pure rendering > operations from all the other operations that would still need to be > centralized in the server. Okay, I can see that. I've been looking at some odd ways of doing things lately.... OpenGL has superior methods for dealing with multiple display wrapping and the like so... (handy for goggles, monitor arrays, ... :) (aside) ... why does X have to be centralized? Is only one person supposed to use a computer at a time? -> no this doesn't really apply other than DRI is supporting this philosophy And CAN multiple versions of X/DRI/... be loaded simultaneously for multiple displays? :) ... okay maybe I shouldn't ask this until X 4.0 is released and DRI has stablized.... Thanks for the answer - it really helped. G'day, eh? :) - Teunis |
From: <ak...@po...> - 2000-02-29 17:31:32
|
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 11:59:43AM -0500, teunis wrote: | ... why does X have to be centralized? ... Maybe I shouldn't have used the word ``centralized.'' I had in mind the shared data structures that the X server maintains today -- things like the layout of video memory, clip lists, properties on windows, colormaps, etc. These things don't have to be centralized literally, but since they're shared you do need to interlock changes to them. Today that's handled by rules in the X protocol that are enforced by the server. | And CAN multiple versions of X/DRI/... be loaded simultaneously for | multiple displays? :) You can run different X servers on different displays attached to the same system, so the answer is at least partially yes. :-) Allen |
From: Dan M. <dm...@dc...> - 2000-02-29 19:55:07
|
I wanted to ask a similar question so I'll add it to this thread while it's still on-topic... How hard would it be to get OpenGL going without X? I'd like to be able to switch my graphics card from the console into an appropriate video mode, say, 1024x768x32, and then start calling OpenGL as if I'd asked X for a full-screen rendering context (but without involving X at all). I suspect I might be able to hack this together from the XFree and dri sources, but if it's going to be impossible I'd like to know before I get too immersed =). (if you're wondering "why," I have this dream of writing a windowing system in pure OpenGL, running on the bare 3D hardware, without any X or Win32 cruft in sight...) Dan > On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:50:12PM -0500, teunis wrote: > | On using OpenGL for rendering 2D stuff.... > | > | Is it possible to implement an accelerated X this way? > > It's certainly possible, but it's not obvious that it's worth the > effort. Some things probably would work well (e.g., using texturing > hardware to implement tiling). Other things probably would work > poorly (e.g., OpenGL's wide-line semantics aren't the same as X11's) > or would have to be emulated in software. Things that aren't related > to drawing probably would be roughly the same. |
From: <ak...@po...> - 2000-02-29 20:31:59
|
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:48:49PM -0500, Dan Maas wrote: | | How hard would it be to get OpenGL going without X? I don't know. There are plans to make direct-rendering OpenGL work with the DGA extension, which essentially asks the X server to step out of the way; that might be the easiest solution in the short term. X does an awful lot of useful stuff, from probing the hardware during installation to providing 3D infrastructure (like Visual selection) to handling user input. It would be a lot of work to start completely from scratch. Allen |
From: Kostas G. <gew...@im...> - 2000-02-29 21:01:24
|
I was thinking about this some time ago, from what i've seen in the glide sources it shouldn't be too hard to make it work with fbdev. For other cards or if you aren't using linux you might need a lot more work though. Kostas On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Dan Maas wrote: > I wanted to ask a similar question so I'll add it to this thread while > it's still on-topic... > > How hard would it be to get OpenGL going without X? > > I'd like to be able to switch my graphics card from the console into an > appropriate video mode, say, 1024x768x32, and then start calling OpenGL as > if I'd asked X for a full-screen rendering context (but without involving > X at all). > > I suspect I might be able to hack this together from the XFree and dri > sources, but if it's going to be impossible I'd like to know before I get > too immersed =). > > (if you're wondering "why," I have this dream of writing a windowing > system in pure OpenGL, running on the bare 3D hardware, without any X or > Win32 cruft in sight...) > > Dan > |