Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
Linux We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Permalink for comment 364389
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by pcunite
by steviant on Tue 19th May 2009 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by pcunite"
steviant
Member since:
2006-01-11

I'm not sure what kind of special third-eye allows you to see differences in rendering infrastructure, but I suspect it might be the one in your arse.

I'm prepared to accept on face value your notion that Linux looks like shit. But that is not the fault of the rendering system.

I find it bizarre that you should be so focused on double-buffering on the desktop, as it's something that only came to Windows with Aero, and Windows is the only operating system which requires hardware acceleration for double-buffering.

If you're trying to claim Windows XP is unsuitable for the desktop, I think about 70% of the world would disagree.

Around 2005 "indirect rendering" provided double-buffering and the ability to perform transforms in the offscreen buffer allowing for "compositing managers" and alpha-blending. - That is the rough equivalent of Mac OS X's Quartz (10.0) rendering, and slightly technologically ahead of Windows GDI (2000/XP).

More recently XGL and AIGLX have come along offering accelerated transforms on windows between the offscreen buffer and the screen allowing for distractions like wobbly windows and more practical applications like hardware accelerated live-zooming, - The rough equivalent of Windows Aero (Vista/7) and Mac OS X's Quartz Extreme (10.2).

Reply Parent Score: 2