"We thought it was already clear what graphics processors and drivers work and don't work with Linux desktop eye candy such as Beryl and Compiz, but it seems based upon the number of e-mails we have been receiving along with messages in community bulletin boards that the line isn't so clear after all."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-13
If 20fps is the absolute minimum, I would think that would be all right. Movies only run at 25fps and that seems to be enough to be invisible to the human eye. On the other hand, if that is more like an average and it dips down lower than that it would be pretty annoying.
I'm curious about whether the GMA950 is good enough - that's the onboard graphics Dell is shipping in their new linux lineup (with a nvidia upgrade possible). The conclusion seems to suggest it isn't, but they didn't show any test results.
Member since:2006-07-13
I am using GMA950 with absolutely fine FPS, also note that it is the same chip that is in the MacBook series, and Quartz is running fine there too... So is Guild Wars, World of Warcraft and other games, all on this "horrible" GMA950. Seriously, it's not great, but it's not THAT bad.
Edited 2007-05-27 21:41
Member since:2005-08-31
The laptops my company preinstalls Kubuntu on have GMA950 cards in them and whilst we don't officially support or recommend Beryl or Compiz just yet, I can tell you that it runs just fine and with open source drivers.
Don't expect blazing performance if you enable effect and constantly move the windows, but under normal circumstances it works very nicely.
http://www.linuxlaptops.eu
Member since:2005-07-06
In my experience, as soon as you get a heavy load, things start to get really horid in terms of performance with Intel GMA950. This is the reason I avoided buying a Mac laptop altogether, the ones with a dedicated graphics card are too expensive, and those with GMA950 are terrible when running under a heavy load.
With that being said, I think most of the problems lay with people trying to enable effects that would otherwise be disabled on Windows Vista; If people choose to run highly graphical effects on an extremely low end, the blame lays squarely with those who choose those effects - not the technology itself.
As for what to go with; personally, you're better off to go with a Nvidia graphics chipset; for me, I'm sitting on a Nvidia go 7400, and when running on Ubuntu, it is extremely smooth - same goes for Windows Vista (both using Nvidia proprietary drivers).
With that being said, there needs to be a pratical use for these capabilities to be developed; there is no use adding awesome features if they don't actually yield a usability and productivity improvement in the process.
Member since:2005-07-06
> Movies only run at 25fps and that seems to be enough
> to be invisible to the human eye.
It only seems that way because most movie makers (or at least most camerapersons) know a thing or two about perceptions of continuity. If you shoot a movie with 1/1000 s shutter times any non-minimal movement of something in focus will look quite jerky.
For anything below 60 fps not to be jerky it'd have to have some motion blur. At least if the moving objects are crisp and high-contrast, like mouse pointers, program windows, scrollable lists/pages etc. usually are.
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2005-12-04
I was building up a new system for Linux - budget style. I decided to try onboard GeForce 6100 for Beryl. It works pretty good - until you move a window - then it goes down to 20fps.