<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Tilman Baumann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tilman@baumann.name">tilman@baumann.name</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">sparky mat wrote:<br>
> kinda new here. i noticed that om2007.2 and asu are slower than qtopia<br>
> (the one from trolltech, not the x11 port). i presume its partly<br>
> because X is being used.<br>
><br>
> would it make sense to alter gtk+ for om2007.2 to directly write to<br>
> screen? and prolly add some window management i guess.. or make X a<br>
> lot lighter.. are we using X.org or X11. what about TinyX?<br>
<br>
</div>Not so easy. Many processes one framebuffer. Who writes the framebuffer??<br>
possible solution: one virtual framebuffer for each app. But then there<br>
is that ugly layer thing again. And this layer would do much the same as<br>
x does now...<br>
<br>
There where many attempts made to solve this. Qtopia is the only one<br>
that is at least still relevant today.<br>
<br>
X as a screen multiplexer is not too bad. Why bother?<br>
</blockquote></div><br>I gathered from this thread that its GTK+ that could use some optimizations? Esp. image caching?<br></div>