Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 18th Jul 2008 01:19 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 323564
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Fluxbox and xcompmgr
by theTSF on Fri 18th Jul 2008 11:09
in reply to "RE: Fluxbox and xcompmgr"
Fancy effects don't always have to eat up your system. For most systems now (at least mid-range and up) the graphic card for non-gamers is underutilized. Things like transparency 3d rotations etc. Actually touch the CPU less and less and the work is done by the video card. I found that Ubuntu runs slower when I turned effects to basic vs. advanced with the wobbly windows and spinning cubes. Because the effects it does do semi-transparency fading... Is done via the CPU rendering not the GPU.
RE[2]: Fluxbox and xcompmgr
by marafaka on Fri 18th Jul 2008 11:12
in reply to "RE: Fluxbox and xcompmgr"
RE[2]: Fluxbox and xcompmgr
by Isolationist on Fri 18th Jul 2008 11:52
in reply to "RE: Fluxbox and xcompmgr"
What?
Isn't Fluxbox' appeal that it's minimalistic, elegant and relatively light?
Fancy effects witch compiz-delivers kinda goes against all that.
Isn't Fluxbox' appeal that it's minimalistic, elegant and relatively light?
Fancy effects witch compiz-delivers kinda goes against all that.
I have found the fancy effects to be both elegant and relatively light on resources - albeit unstable at times depending on the video card in use, but IMHO this wouldn't go against the Fluxbox appeal.
Anyway as both are window managers I doubt it will ever be possible.






Member since:
2006-05-28
Absolutely love fluxbox for its simplicity. If you like eye candy then you should seriously consider fluxbox and xcompmgr for the true transparency and subtle fade effects.
If only fluxbox would work with compiz-fusion ....