On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
>> If 3D isn't important to a desktop, then why are my
>> windows stacked on top of each other? Why do my
>> buttons depress and my windows look like they have
>> raised borders? Edit boxes have shadows and menus look
>> like they raise when the mouse if ov
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> If 3D isn't important to a desktop, then why are my
> windows stacked on top of each other? Why do my
> buttons depress and my windows look like they have
> raised borders? Edit boxes have shadows and menus look
> like they raise when
José Fonseca wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:19:46AM +, José Fonseca wrote:
In the meanwhile I'm going to look to Utah-GLX Savage4 driver to get a
grasp of what DMA works there so that, een though they just use MMIO
internally, we get the DRM interfaces right from the beginning.
Ok.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Long ago I loved the command line. I was an expert at
> it. When Window 1.0 came out I got my first exposure
> to a mouse. For about a year I wouldn't get one, but
> now I can't live without it.
Similar for me. And as I've read about a 3D Window System,
my
--- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And dammit, it just would look _cool_ if a window
> rotated away into the
> distance when you close them.
> .
> Richer experience, leaving the "old flat look"
> looking very dated indeed.
>
> So don't dismiss it. Rich interfaces can
> potentiall
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:04:59AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
|
| The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensitive
| colour, green.
The human eye can see boundaries between colors that differ in intensity
by less than 1 part in 512, particularly at low intensities. This
resu
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Ian Molton wrote:
>
> The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensitive
> colour, green.
That wasn't true the last time somebody claimed this, and it's not true
now.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
No, the human eye may not be able to dist
--- Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's see, XFree86 supports 2D for about 50
> different chips, and it
> supports 3D for about 5. MS might be in a position
> to cast way support
> for older hardware, but I don't think that we are.
>
This is backwards thinking. In five years a Radeo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:47:14PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> José Fonseca wrote:
> >Multiple inheritance and virtual inheritance is, IMHO, essential to
> >design reusable objects for the drivers. Without this and no templates,
> >there wouldn't be much difference between were we stand now.
Corr
Ian Molton wrote:
On 27 Feb 2003 19:04:15 -0500
"Paul J.Y. Lahaie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating
point).
The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its mo
Ian Molton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I think it's inevitable that people _will_ want to use the 3D
engine to minimize and maximize windows. Dismissing it because it
isn't "useful" is short-sighted. The desktop experience is to a lar
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:47:14PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> José Fonseca wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:24:22AM -0500, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> >
> >>You also don't really get to use constructors, you only have the
> >>default constructor and then you call a regular function to do
On 27 Feb 2003 19:04:15 -0500
"Paul J.Y. Lahaie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
> me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating
> point).
The human eye cant do better than 9bpp, and thats in its most sensiti
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 00:04, Paul J.Y. Lahaie wrote:
> There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
> me) but R300 and GFX level cards support 128bpp (32bpp floating point).
> The X protocol has no way to display to this kind of device. Which
> means that fpu color applic
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:15:25AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
| I never understood why the 2D engine and 3D engine were ever seperate...
History. 2D techniques were well-established and beginning to be
commoditized in hardware long before 3D issues were well-enough
understood to do the same. It tu
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I think it's inevitable that people _will_ want to use the 3D
> engine to minimize and maximize windows. Dismissing it because it
> isn't "useful" is short-sighted. The desktop experience is to a large
> deg
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 18:11, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> IMO it may as well be ignored. There's no sense in keeping up with the
> Jones's if the Jones's aren't doing anything fundamentally worthwhile. What
There are areas where X11 doesn't fit in well. (Feel free to correct
me) but R300 and GFX
Heh, offtopic.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
>
> IMO it may as well be ignored. There's no sense in keeping up with the
> Jones's if the Jones's aren't doing anything fundamentally worthwhile. What
> great new advantage does Longhorn tout to provide?
I think the "great advanta
José Fonseca wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:24:22AM -0500, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
You also don't really get to use constructors, you only have the default
constructor and then you call a regular function to do the real
initialization, so it can return an error code instead of throwing an
On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:01 pm, you wrote:
> Without starting starting to think about 3D now, what
> will Linux's response to Longhorn be when it ships in
> a year or two?
IMO it may as well be ignored. There's no sense in keeping up with the
Jones's if the Jones's aren't doing anything f
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:22PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
| I'm not really looking for an X alternative. I was
| just thinking about how to improve X over the next
| five to ten years. Both the Mac and Windows Longhorn
| are using new 3D enabled GUIs. This is more of a
| response to these new GUI
--- Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice that the DRI drivers don't do anything like
> mode setting and
> such, they depend on the X drivers for that. So if
> you take away the X
> driver, you will not be able to get anything
> outputed on your monitor.
> Unless you use the fbdev drivers
Michel D?nzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The radeon driver uses the DRM for 2D acceleration when DRI is enabled,
Is the radeon driver the only one doing so ? Is it possible that heavy
simultaneous use of 2D and 3D graphics is responsible for the DRM freezing
the X server with FlightGear ? You r
[RANDOMIZE]-[RANDOMIZE]
[RANDOMIZE]-[RANDOMIZE]
[RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE]
N¬±ùÞµéX¬²'²Þu¼)äç¤Yé\¢g¢½éá¶ÚþØbH zG(û ¸z÷¥¨¥x%ËC®'^½éeËl²«qç讧zØm¶?þX¬¶Ë(º· ~àzwþX¬¶ÏåËbú?v¸z÷¥
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:46:49AM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
> --- Michel D?nzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is that what you're looking for?
>
> X has been with for a long time. I was just thinking
> about doing some experiments with using OpenGL/DRI for
> the base graphics interface.
>
> The
--- Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that what you're looking for?
X has been with for a long time. I was just thinking
about doing some experiments with using OpenGL/DRI for
the base graphics interface.
The idea would be to bring up DRI/OpenGL standalone
first and then run the exis
On Don, 2003-02-27 at 18:59, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Has anyone done any work on using DRI to implement a
> 2D X driver? The basic idea would be to eliminate the
> need for a separate 2D hardware driver and have a
> single DRI one. The replacement 2D driver would use
> the DRI API instead of directly ma
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:58:42PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2003-02-27 at 09:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:14:37AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Mit, 2003-02-26 at 18:16, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > > -- Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
Has anyone done any work on using DRI to implement a
2D X driver? The basic idea would be to eliminate the
need for a separate 2D hardware driver and have a
single DRI one. The replacement 2D driver would use
the DRI API instead of directly manipulating the
hardware.
How does performance compare
On Don, 2003-02-27 at 09:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:14:37AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2003-02-26 at 18:16, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > -- Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [ video memory management ]
> >
> > > > How is it done right now ? Is a pa
dri-devel,dri-develdri-devel
+,~wzf¢+,¦ì¢·o$áyyézW(ëhç¤
æ¯zxm¶ÿ¶§Ê&þÇî'^½éfj)b b²ÐëׯzYb²Û,¢êÜyú+éÞ¶m¦Ïÿ+-²Ê.Ç¢¸ ë+-³ùb²Ø§~Ý®'^½é
Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:21 schrieb Charl P. Botha:
> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 16:09, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:06 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> > > Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 20:59 schrieb Keith Whitwell:
> > > > OK, here's a patch, first attempt at doing this
Michael,
Thanks for your post - it was real education for me.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:24:22AM -0500, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> Mac OS X' drivers are written in C++. I don't know whether this includes
> the video, but most likely. You've probably heard that OS X is based on
> FreeBSD on
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 16:09, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:06 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> > Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 20:59 schrieb Keith Whitwell:
> > > OK, here's a patch, first attempt at doing this. It's not ready to
> > > commit yet, unless we start a branch for th
Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:09 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:06 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> > Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 20:59 schrieb Keith Whitwell:
> > > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > >>What about processes that
Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2003 16:06 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 20:59 schrieb Keith Whitwell:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > >>What about processes that *don't* do a close - that just use an fd and
> > >> exit.
>
> [-]
>
>
Am Sonntag, 23. Februar 2003 20:59 schrieb Keith Whitwell:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >>What about processes that *don't* do a close - that just use an fd and
> >> exit.
[-]
> > The answer really is that you shouldn't care about the pid at all.
>
> OK
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:19:46AM +, José Fonseca wrote:
> In the meanwhile I'm going to look to Utah-GLX Savage4 driver to get a
> grasp of what DMA works there so that, een though they just use MMIO
> internally, we get the DRM interfaces right from the beginning.
Ok. I've been through the
Mac OS X' drivers are written in C++. I don't know whether this includes the
video, but most likely. You've probably heard that OS X is based on FreeBSD on
top of the Mach microkernel. That's the case but it has a driver architecture
all its own.
A google search for "iokit" will turn up a lo
Jose, I'm with you, in my opinion an OO approach will increase the speed of
driver development dramatically. Performance could be the only problem,
because I'm not sure about the code generation of the gnu c++ compiler, but
it's more important do have something earlier and maybe slower than some
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:29:57PM +0100, Andreas Karrenbauer wrote:
> José Fonseca wrote:
>
> As a second task, I bootstrapped a kernel module from the tdfx driver by
> simply replacing every (hopefully ;-) occurence of 'tdfx' with 'savage'.
> The two files are attached. I also added the pci id
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:12:24AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2003-02-26 at 21:11, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > [...] because the DRI is just rendering to the framebuffer, it doesn't
> > know if you are displaying it or not, and doesn't even care. The only
> > issue is with size limits of
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:14:37AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2003-02-26 at 18:16, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > --- Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ video memory management ]
>
> > > How is it done right now ? Is a part of the onchip memory reserved
> > > for framebuffer and XAA
43 matches
Mail list logo
