* Owain Ainsworth <[email protected]> [2009-07-14 18:33]: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 04:19:28PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Owain Ainsworth <[email protected]> [2009-07-14 16:12]: > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 03:23:09PM +0200, Nido wrote: > > > > According to the xclock man page, under options, at '-render', it > > > > claims using Xrender is default when xclock is compiled with Xrender > > > > support. > > > > > > > > However; running xclock without arguments looks the same as when ran > > > > with the -norender option. Running xclock with the -render gives > > > > smooth clock hands, so it seems reasonable to me to assume Xrender > > > > support is built in and works. > > > > > > > > This is tested on my laptop with a -current snapshot from 07/07. The > > > > video card is an Intel GM965 builtin (8086 2a03). > > > > > > You are correct. However, xclock is part of the X.org project and thus > > > it would be best if you could report this bug upstream at > > > http://bugs.freedesktop.org. > > > > if memory serves we changed the default locally tho. > > Ah. > > Personally, i don't mind either changing the manpage, or switching the > default back. > > I can't remember the reason why it was changed, can anyone remind me?
the render version was awfully slow and ulgy. -- Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
