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