Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Feb 2006 07:10 UTC, submitted by fsmdave
X11, Window Managers 3D graphics on X11: XGL vs AIGLX. This article delves into the inner workings of XGL and AIGLX. It shows that there are many similarities between these two competing/co-operating "rivals" and plenty of room for growth.
Thread beginning with comment 99838
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Inaccurate
by siki_miki on Mon 27th Feb 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Inaccurate"
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

I think X protocol extensions don't have much to do with 3D driver specifics (it's another layer).

Maybe there already is some sort of GPU request scheduling in DRI or some proprietary linux drivers and I'm just too ignorant to find out (I surely know Microsoft proposed something like that in Vista driver model - because they need it for Avalon).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Inaccurate
by somebody on Mon 27th Feb 2006 23:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Inaccurate"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I think X protocol extensions don't have much to do with 3D driver specifics (it's another layer).

They do provide limiting requests on redraws. But, you're probably right, they are probably to high to provide support for direct GL legacy apps.

Maybe there already is some sort of GPU request scheduling in DRI or some proprietary linux drivers and I'm just too ignorant to find out (I surely know Microsoft proposed something like that in Vista driver model - because they need it for Avalon).

Now, this might be my blind shot:) As I recall NVidia was proposing something like that on XDevConf, but I was too lazy to carefuly read complete SPEC. So in my blurry vision this would fit the needs.

Reply Parent Score: 1