https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455521
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Pereira <pereira.a...@gmail.com> --- Hi, > Alexandre, may I ask how you have perceived the speed of the old > implementation of Present Windows (pre-Overview) until Plasma 5.24? The previous speed of Present Windows were fine, and it was when I switched to it as an alt tab replacement. I also checked the code: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/kwin/-/blob/v5.23.0/src/effects/presentwindows/presentwindows.cpp#L164 > Could you test with a live CD? In my perception, this new values are just a > touch slower than the old, 300 ms feels just a bit closer to my eye. But like > my whole bug report and the Reddit thread with dozens of upvotes found, 200 > ms is definitely way too fast. I will test a live iso later on. Like I said on my previous comment, I use the 1 tick slider speed anim to the left, which makes ALL animations smooth and consistent. Overview seems smooth, but now noticeable slow, and others super fast. Also, the speed can be related to the bug I mentioned on the previous commit, when it was changed from kwinrc to kdeglobals, and the speed was reset (making it faster to those that had a slower speed factor on kwinrc. I am speculating here, could be, probably isn't). > If you have used it like an Alt + Tab replacement, maybe look into the Alt + > Tab window switcher settings, there is a grid layout you can chose. hum... I actually prefer the present windows/overview effect to the grid layout, but I know the effect you mention, since I use the small grid as alt tab. I just don't like alt tab as much as I prefer to see all windows scaled on the screen. > Present Windows, Overview and the actual Grid should have another speed with > more elegance, signaling also your current window positions. That’s how this > effect series worked since Plasma 4, Compiz and on their origins in OS X. > Plasma 5.25’s speeds just were a shortsighted fault of the reimplemetation. I don't think 5.25's speeds are faster. Looking at the code, they are slower. But in my mind, some effects shouldn't have more "elegance" than others, they all should have elegance (especially no frame skipping). That is why, again, I used the 1.4 factor, which would probably put the timings around 300ms from the 200ms (and with it, all the effects were buttery smooth). Maybe 300ms is a good middle ground, if you also feel it is a touch slower. But as to how it should be, that isn't for me to say, nor I am part of the VDG nor a "usability expert". If the goal is to have some effects fast and some slow, and I am the only one with an issue to it, then nevermind, I will adapt to it some way. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
