On Thu, 14 May 2015 00:43:53 -0700 "R ." <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, so my test drive hasn't really been "fair", as I only tested Weston and > not other Wayland implementations. But if you guys could suggest a less buggy > and faster implementation, then please what is it? It'll save me the time, > rather than trying each and every one. > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Can speed of Wayland overtake the toll of emulating X? > Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:04:42 -0700 > > So I've been test driving Wayland and it has more lag than LXDE > (understandably), and, of course, will get better... But, I'm more concerned > with backwards compatibility (and speed) with old X clients (until, of course > they eventually, port to Wayland). Since XWayland is another layer, so will > inherently will add toll, but can that be completely overtaken by the > lightness and speed of Wayland? I really need a minimalistic and fast desktop > environment, you see... > Bryce is right. As for Weston particularly, the experience you get depends heavily on the hardware platform and software platform (graphics stack / drivers) you tested it on. For instance, if you happened to be relying software GL, I can bet it would feel sluggish. This is even quite likely, if you tried it in a virtual machine. It really is not a measure of Wayland's perfomance in general. Wayland is an enabler, not a silver-bullet implementation you could benchmark in isolation. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
