On Thu, 3 May 2012, Bodhi Zazen wrote:
Just thought I would weigh in on this issue ...
I use the gma500 and, yes g3 is a bit slow, but performance has been improving.
I follow your blog closely, I have 1.33GHz Atom and compared to fallback
it is a big difference. With fallback it flies.
It is on my to do list to take one of the F17 daily spins for a test drive.
I am testing F17 TC2.
If you find g3 slow, use another window manager, but I sort of like G3 on my netbook ;)
Of cousrse I can, but booting F17 Live on any netbook with poulsbo atom
1.3GHz, makes clear decision - no way.
In discussing the issue I think you need to be more specific , are you talking kernel ? The 3.4 kernel should be even better. Or are you talking llvmpipe ?
OK.. This was just a simple question, I do not want to complicate things.
Just wanted to point out, that software render is a double edge sword.
Personally I can live with small gsettings set.
Of course the best would be to have gma500 speed up - thats
upstream work, but as gma500 is aging I doubt. But I may be wrong.
Adam Pribyl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Pribyl" <pribyl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:21:06 AM
Subject: GMA500 vs. G3 software render
While I consider the latest development on gma500, present in many Atom
base netbooks, a great success and would like to say thank you to
developer(s), G3 software render negates all this for gnome shell as this
is extremely slow on Atom. With the fallback mode the G3 is working very
well on gma500. But the obvious question is, beside the questionable
future of acceleration on gma500 - what is the future of the fallback? Is
there still a list of devices that should use fallback "by default"? If
yes, then I would nominate the gma500 for it, as this is really horrible
experience, making many users scared, just after live CD/USB boot.
Adam Pribyl
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
