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 :)

More information about the community mailing list