On 04/12/2011 09:12 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics > drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*. > > In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support > (radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want all the > older drivers you have to install mesa-dri-drivers-dri1. This list is: > > i810, mga, r128, savage, sis, tdfx, unichrome > > Basically all of this hardware is, ahem, inept. The most featureful > device supported by these drivers would be the MGA G550, which just > barely manages to do DirectX 7 (comparable to a Radeon 7000 or GeForce > 2, both ~1999 vintage). All the others are back in the DX6 stone age. My r128 card (Rage Mobility M3 AGP 2X; pci 1002:4c46) is running DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) on Windows ME. The main driver ATI2DRAI.DRV says "DDI Version 7". The machine also runs Fedora 12 using: xorg-x11-server-Xorg.1.7.6-4.fc12.i686 xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.13.0-0.21.20100219gite68d3a389.fc12.i686 xorg-x11-drv-r128-6.8.1-2.fc12.i686 Such a machine is quite usable. > For comparison, the baseline for the GPU in the phone in your pocket - > and that platform layers like clutter more or less expect - is GLES 2.0, > which is roughly comparable to DirectX 9. We're rapidly approaching the > point where the software renderer is going to be a more satisfying > experience than hardware 3d support for these chips, both for features > and for performance. How rapidly? Today, which one leads in "satisfying experience", and by how much? > [snip] > So in my ideal world, we would simply drop the -dri1 subpackage (and for > that matter, DRI1 support in the X server). Such a wish would be better justified by statistics on usage (smolt, at least) and support effort (size and rate of change in source commits, number of maintainers with relevant experience, ...) -- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
