| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
what about....what about....Posted Feb 12, 2008 2:31 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159)In reply to: what about.... by nix Parent article: LCA: Two talks on the state of X
Well, running an application locally against an old RENDER-less X server gives reasonable performance, so it isn't clear that always disabling anti-aliasing is the best default on such servers -- it really depends on the bandwidth and latency. I guess the real answer to your question is that it isn't a high priority of the developers. They are putting their effort into improving performance when used against non-obsolete X servers (effort that helps in the remote X case as well). Given that there is only so much they can do, I don't blame them.
(Log in to post comments)
what about.... Posted Feb 12, 2008 8:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Oh yes, agreed: this is a whinge that's getting rapidly less important over time. Probably against the installed base of X servers it's entirely insignificant by now, not least because exceed and other incredibly obsolete X11R4/5 Windows-based X servers have been comprehensively outcompeted by Cygwin's X server :)
|
|
||||||||||||