From: Christian B. <don...@fr...> - 2012-03-22 14:30:19
|
Am Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:17:38 -0500 schrieb DRC <dco...@us...>: > On 3/22/12 9:06 AM, Christian Beier wrote: > > But then we would get into what you mentioned: People would complain > > about CPU usage and performance on their LAN. They should only get > > turbo-CL 3 when they selected a high tight CL (like 8 or 9). My > > reasoning is that 1 == fast CPU-wise and little compression, 5 == > > still fast, but good compression (turbo CL2 - which should be the > > default for most cases), 8 and 9 == really tight compression but > > quite high CPU usage in return. So that CLs 8 and 9 are really for > > the low-bandwidth case. Tight CL 8 or 9 is in no VNC client the > > default setting AFAIK. Goes along with > > http://www.tightvnc.com/vncviewer.1.php for instance. > > Fair enough. We'll just need to make sure we document the behavior. > To be clear, though, do you want 8 to also map to the new mode or > just 9? Your previous message said that you proposed to map just 9 to > the new level. I saif 8 and 9 to get something of a compromise. High CL meaning high compression (even in the corner cases) but also high CPU load. Turbo-CL 3 is actually such a mode handling corner cases that I really would make it only map to the really high tight-CLs. Maybe tight-CL 8 could map to a less strict turbo-CL 2.5, but let's not make things overly complicated ;-) Well then let's say we map turbo-CL 3 to tight-CL 8 and 9, but actually it's not making a big difference... |