Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 12:58 UTC, submitted by Rahul
X11, Window Managers The cooperation between the XGL and AIGLX projects to bring better interfaces for the Linux desktop continues as David Reveman (Novell) of XGL has agreed to adopt many changes from the AIGLX project sent in by Kristian Hogsberg (Red Hat).
Thread beginning with comment 100816
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Too little too late
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little too late"
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

GDI+ uses hardware acceleration for many things, so yeah, I'd say that Linux is behind it currently as well.

Vista is something like 8-9 months away from shipping, and is already feature-complete. The betas that have been released so far are quite usable, just buggy.

Whether you like it or not, Linux *is* currently behind, and will be behind for the next while.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little too late
by iserlohn on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 21:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
iserlohn Member since:
2006-02-24

If you are using Ubuntu dapper, Xgl is in the universe repo, and is available now. Having been using it for the past few weeks, I can vouch that the technology is complete and *stable*.

I have used Vista builds in the past few months and honestly, the Aero glass interface not only has inferior effects than what is provided in compiz, but the destop performance was also inferior as well (Apart from window resizing performance, which aero handles better).

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[4]: Too little too late
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 23:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
RE[4]: Too little too late
by JMcCarthy on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 23:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

It is *far* from complete.

That said, I haven't had any stability problems whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little too late
by siride on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 22:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

So many Linux folks continue to ignore this reality. X11 is just plain slower than Windows. I have yet to use a Linux desktop that is snappier than Windows, even XP with all the eye candy turned on. I've used a multitude of different configurations and not one has even matched Windows in terms of snappiness and lack of flicker. I'm typing this right now on a nice new shiny ThinkPad T43 with 1 gig of RAM, 2 GHz Pentium-M and a 64 MB ATI Mobility x300. And when I drag windows, trails get left behind. I see flicker with Qt apps and sometimes with GTK apps. There is flicker when flipping desktops. Windows on the same machine is very snappy and there's never flicker and slowness. Add to that the fact that half of the features of X don't work, or require hours of hacking around with config files, drivers, CVS builds and such to get working, I think I can safely say that Windows just plain does a better job than X11. It's sad too, because X11 has a nice protocol, just the implementation sucks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Too little too late
by sbergman27 on Fri 3rd Mar 2006 00:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

> So many Linux folks continue to ignore this reality.

Siride,

I hope you believe me when I say that I am sincerely baffled when I hear people say this.

I use Linux/X on my own desktop. My machine is pretty respectable and the card is a pretty nice AGP card. So it's not surprising that I find my own desktop to be pretty snappy.

However, my major business is supporting clients running Linux terminals running off of Linux desktop servers via XDMCP sessions over 100mbit ethernet and over WAN connections using the Nomachine NX protocol.

The remote clients are usually configured to use the vesa driver for a number of reasons. (My custom CentOS kickstart CD set uses very conservative settings for maximum compatibility, since I want my clients to be able to install on new workstations without my help.)

At any rate, with the vesa driver there is no hardware acceleration for 2d, let alone 3d. A number of the Linux boxes I have out there are converted win98 machines with 64mb RAM and whatever crufty old video chipset that came installed in them. Others are new machines.

We run Gnome desktops from a CentOS 4.2 server.

And screen update performance has simply never been an issue. In fact, the only comments that I have gotten from users wrt performance regard how much *faster* they are after the conversion. (This is not a gui issue, but a result of the server being faster than their machine.) I would consider this a worst case scenario for X.

On the remote boxes, I can tell that I am not running on the server console. But I would hardly say that there is any usablility problem.

It is simply not an issue for me and my customers.

I've come to the conclusion that people must mean that with X you can sometimes notice that something was not absolutely instant.

All I care about is that everyone has usable desktops. "Improve screen update performance" is item 137 on my todo list. Why do people nitpick so?

Is there some combination of hardware and software out there in which X responsiveness is a significant problem that I have simply never run across? I'd have thought that the vesa driver on an old machine via remote XDMCP would be about as bad as it could get.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Too little too late
by Finalzone on Fri 3rd Mar 2006 06:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

So many Linux folks continue to ignore this reality. X11 is just plain slower than Windows. I have yet to use a Linux desktop that is snappier than Windows, even XP with all the eye candy turned on.
Did you use ATI driver on both Windows XP and a desktop manager to validate the comparison?

And when I drag windows, trails get left behind. I see flicker with Qt apps and sometimes with GTK apps.
Sound like a driver issue. Did you use generic or ATI driver?

Just to experiment, use only generic driver on both Windows XP and your favorite DE on your Linux distro and see if you statement is valid. Seen your laptops, it is clear vendors already include proprietary driver for hardware acceleration. Also, specify what kind of distro did you use on your laptop.


Addendum: ATI drivers for Linux distros users are known to perform poorly due to ATI lethargy AFAIR.

Edited 2006-03-03 06:53

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Too little too late
by Ookaze on Fri 3rd Mar 2006 12:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

So many Linux folks continue to ignore this reality. X11 is just plain slower than Windows

You mean, the windowing system that worked on 386 PCs ? And you think you're credible ?
So many trolls continue to ignore this reality : Windows is just plain slower than X11.

I have yet to use a Linux desktop that is snappier than Windows, even XP with all the eye candy turned on

Let me tell you a story : despite years of using Windows 9x, I understood what was a snappy desktop when I saw some Unix guy use twm on Linux and XFree86.
In the time it took you to move your mouse and launch an app, he had launched 3 and started working in one.

I've used a multitude of different configurations and not one has even matched Windows in terms of snappiness and lack of flicker

So, given my experience, I can tell you you're wrong. Anyway, when I see the locks I have on WinXP SP2 right now on a P4 3+ GHz 1 GB RAM I use at work, as soon as Windows experience a little CPU or memory load (with 1 GB RAM, amazing), or sometimes without any load, I would not brag about Windows if I were you.
You claim Windows is snappy and have no flicker, while even moving notepad right now shows tearing, adn some apps show trails.
My Linux desktop experience at home is constant even with big loads (2 simultaneous compilation, given that I always have 3 different desktops loaded, and only 1 GB RAM), and all the desktops I run are 1600x1200 desktops.

I'm typing this right now on a nice new shiny ThinkPad T43 with 1 gig of RAM, 2 GHz Pentium-M and a 64 MB ATI Mobility x300. And when I drag windows, trails get left behind. I see flicker with Qt apps and sometimes with GTK apps

Stop lying please. BTW, Gnome is double buffered, so you can't see tearing or flicker on Gnome. And the apps you talk about are very specific apps that take time to redraw part of their screen.

There is flicker when flipping desktops. Windows on the same machine is very snappy and there's never flicker and slowness

You're right not to talk about Windows flipping desktop ability, you're better not.
The truth is that flicker when flipping desktop is at worst not noticeable, that it is not even a real problem. Dragging Windows is not even something people do constantly, only unproductive trolls move windows all day long. The fact is that in Windows, most people run apps fullscreen, few people actually use drag and drop, and most use cut and paste.
And people do the same when they move to Linux, that's why people complained when Gnome moved to spatial : it involved using more drag and drop instead of cut and paste.
The fact is that in Gnome or KDE, when you log in, the desktop is there how you left it, and so, people never need to move windows around. So your tired straw man of why X11 is inadequate/slow/whatever is just stupid, but you want people to think it's a real problem.
Before trolls told me that moving OOo on Firefox would make trail (if you move the windows fast to add to the stupidity of this test), I would never have realised it did, because I NEVER had any incentive to do that, so this is not even a real problem.

Add to that the fact that half of the features of X don't work, or require hours of hacking around with config files, drivers, CVS builds and such to get working, I think I can safely say that Windows just plain does a better job than X11. It's sad too, because X11 has a nice protocol, just the implementation sucks

But mostly you're just a moron. Of course, because all you say there is just false. That's your problem you lose hours with CVS builds as a user. Even I don't do that, and I made my own Linux OS at home. And sure enough all the features of X work at home, and on all the Mandriva I installed for my users, without losing hours in config files and CVS builds.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Too little too late
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 22:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

GDI+ uses hardware acceleration for many things, so yeah, I'd say that Linux is behind it currently as well.

Errr, anything using OpenGL can be hardware accelerated on a Linux system. Hardware acceleration is transparent to GDI and applications using OpenGL.

Vista is something like 8-9 months away from shipping, and is already feature-complete. The betas that have been released so far are quite usable, just buggy.

Whether you like it or not, Linux *is* currently behind, and will be behind for the next while.


Windows Vista is Windows XP with a 3D desktop that will require some pretty hefty 3D hardware, and I know, because we have MSDN subscriptions and we get the releases. The only other thing it seems to have is some multimedia stuff, and the interface is obviously as a result of a great deal of soul searching within Microsoft as they wish for something that Apple has and they haven't got - style.

Goodness knows what it will consume when people use the full 3D, hardware accelerated desktop and then run a full 3D game on top of it. There is absolutely nothing that is revolutionary or different about it from a usability or functionality point of view. It's the same old update to Windows, and when it gets released people will say "Oh right" and then carry on with what they were doing before, just like they did with Windows XP and just like they did with Windows 2000 when that was promised as an uber advanced OS for the next ten years.

I'd actually say that Linux is going to end up being ahead, because the approach of XGL and AIGLX is to be able to use compositing in an efficient manner so you won't need full hardware acceleration for everything.

Windows Me

"Windows Me: PC Health Features Keep PCs Stable, Secure and Reliable -- and Take the Frustration Out of Computing for Home Users"

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/sept00/09-05winme....

Windows 2000

"Our primary goal is to improve security and safety for all our customers -- consumers and businesses, regardless of size -- through a balance of technology innovation, guidance and industry leadership," Gates said. "We're committed to continued innovation that addresses the threats of today and anticipates those that will undoubtedly emerge in the future."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/feb05/02-15RSA05Keyno...

Windows XP

"Windows XP is the most secure and dependable operating system we have ever produced."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/aug02/08-30WinXPSP1PR...

Windows Vista

"In Vista, it should be much more difficult for unauthorized programs (like Viruses and Trojans) to affect the core of the OS and secretly harm your system."

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931914,00.asp

If you're lucky, all of the stuff in there may work by the next version of Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Too little too late
by aanund on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 22:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
aanund Member since:
2005-09-30

I enjoy Linux just as much as the next guy, but honestly...

Vista is out, I have it on one of my computers, albeit it is a "beta" release.

XGL (and the like) is also out, I have it on one of my other computers, and just like Vista, it is a beta release.

I would like someone to step forward and make the claim that XGL (and the like) are stable and/or "finished", and I will easily point out an idiot.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Too little too late
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 22:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Please.

Will you people drop the "hefty requirements" argument already? Refuting it is getting to be too painful to bear.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little too late
by abraxas on Thu 2nd Mar 2006 23:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

GDI+ uses hardware acceleration for many things, so yeah, I'd say that Linux is behind it currently as well.

I said hardware acceleration/3D. Those are not available for Windows yet and that is what XGL/AIGLX provides.

Vista is something like 8-9 months away from shipping, and is already feature-complete. The betas that have been released so far are quite usable, just buggy.

Well it is a lot easier to get your hands on XGL and is probably less buggy and more usable than Vista is right now.

Whether you like it or not, Linux *is* currently behind, and will be behind for the next while.

That's a pretty poor attempt at disguising your opinion as an authoritative response on this matter.

Reply Parent Score: 4