xgl

[Olivier Fourdan]

Aaron wrote:

> well, i did, and i would doubt that you read through the xgl docs.
> most of the xgl features are inacessible without the use of compiz.
> compiz replaces xfwm4. i like xfwm4, and i think compiz sucks in
> general, which is why i was asking about the inclusion of those
> features in xfwm4.

Rewriting Compiz in xfwm4 does not make much sense. If you want Compiz' 
features, use Compiz. But did you try to run xfwm4 on top of XGL?

You say Compiz "sucks in general", well, did you try it? What "sucks"? 
Did you try to post on the relevant mailing lists about what you found 
wrong in Compiz? Maybe you could help fixing Compiz?

> because as i said, my graphics card is decent, and has as much onboard
> memory as my computer, which speeds things up quite a bit as its
> accessing the stored textures and sending them to the screen, instead
> of my cpu.

Well, I have a rather old NVidia GeForce 4 MX440 card and it works 
equally well with HW accelerated render and OpenGL with XGL. That's not 
because of OpenGL, it's because NVidia provides decent drivers. Without 
these drivers, neither OpenGL not accelerated render would make the 
compositor usable.

As of onboard memory, when using compositing, all windows contents are 
stored in pixmaps. No need for Xgl for that.

> im on a slower system, livecd's are quite unusable here.

But the point is, does it make the display any faster? The point is not 
how fast apps start, but how fast is the rendering.

Oh, and you are running Gentoo? You have everything you need to try 
XGL/Compiz in Gentoo.

> i would sugest reading my whole post next time you wish to attempt to
> flame me, or accuse me of not reading.

I'm not flaming you, sorry if that sounded like that.

Cheers,
Olivier.