Username or EmailPassword
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.