Thread: aiglx vs xgl
View Single Post
Old 11-17-06, 04:11 PM   #7
macemoneta
Registered User
 
macemoneta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 159
Default Re: aiglx vs xgl

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSlow
Not using GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is not very wise. This avoids sharing the memory used by a windows pixmap between X11 and GL, thus doubling memory-usage. That's the main motivation for developing this extension in the first place, to avoid this waste of video-memory. The people behind beryl don't always think thoroughly (due to lack of experience with X11?) about the stuff they do. They tend to prefer quick&dirty solutions in order to gain some questionable merits (e.g. hacking input-transformation into beryl without the proper X11-extension done by Keith Packard).
What you say may be true, but I don't think it's significant. By using Beryl, I was able to enable many more desktop effects than Compiz allows, while using the 8776 driver. I need to use the older driver, because the 9xxx series won't work on my laptop. The GeForce 440Go I'm using only has 32MB of memory, so the wasted memory doesn't appear to be a significant issue.

The Fedora Extras team is in the process of adding the Beryl packages to the Fedora Extras repository. When they are done you will be able to use Beryl with a simple 'yum install beryl-gnome' (or beryl-kde, or just beryl for both).
macemoneta is offline   Reply With Quote