Centralization of graphical awesomeness
DJDAS
djdas at djdas.net
Tue Oct 27 11:47:22 CET 2009
Xavier Cremaschi wrote:
> I beg to differ, your personal experience is not mine (E17 being damn
> fast comparing to xfce). E17 is fuck**g fast on limited hardware.
>
World is beautiful because it's various ;)
> I think you miss the point :
> - qtmoko/qtopia is pretty because of good skin and good uniformity
>
Because it's well studied and designed
> - qt in qtmoko is very simple (for example no transparency, no fancy
> controls...)
>
I prefer to not have transparency if this would result in more than
10fps in GUI responsiveness (not calculated but perceived which is what
end user counts on)
> - E17 as used in shr/om200x uses more advanced things than qt in QtMoko
>
At which cost?
> - E17 as used in shr/om200x is not as pretty as qt in qtmoko (well done
> qtopia team !)
>
You answered yourself ;)
> If you put the same things in both qt and E17 -- for example if you try
> to mimic qtmoko gui with E17 and if you disable everything in E17 that
> is useless in order to produce qtmoko gui-- E17 will be faster.
>
My experience in embedded devices is "don't disable something, REMOVE it
because it costs CPU, memory and can cause more bugs, or better rewrite
it in order to squeeze that fuc*ing hardware"
>
> A fast FR means a simple GUI and QtMoko is simple and pretty... I would
> say it's well balanced indeed, it fits well the FR. But E17 displaying
> same simple gui controls would be faster, no doubt.
>
>
This doesn't mean E17 is written better than qt, but the exactly opposite ;)
Please consider I don't want to start a flame war, listen to my previous
answer to Raster for many comments to my previous words :)
Bye
More information about the community
mailing list