x in om2007.2
max at sparkymat.net
Tue Jul 29 12:21:52 CEST 2008
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Tilman Baumann <tilman at baumann.name> wrote:
> sparky mat wrote:
> > kinda new here. i noticed that om2007.2 and asu are slower than qtopia
> > (the one from trolltech, not the x11 port). i presume its partly
> > because X is being used.
> > would it make sense to alter gtk+ for om2007.2 to directly write to
> > screen? and prolly add some window management i guess.. or make X a
> > lot lighter.. are we using X.org or X11. what about TinyX?
> Not so easy. Many processes one framebuffer. Who writes the framebuffer??
> possible solution: one virtual framebuffer for each app. But then there
> is that ugly layer thing again. And this layer would do much the same as
> x does now...
> There where many attempts made to solve this. Qtopia is the only one
> that is at least still relevant today.
> X as a screen multiplexer is not too bad. Why bother?
I gathered from this thread that its GTK+ that could use some optimizations?
Esp. image caching?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel