Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 at 12:33pm, "Mike A. Harris" <mharris@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 3/17/06, Gilboa Davara <gilboad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What alternative are you offering to power our Xgl/Bling/what-ever
desktops? (Let alone running Quake4 at 1600x1200...)
Doesn't the intel graphics sets now provide enough open support for
bling?
So, everyone who wants to have Bling is then forced to purchase an
Intel motherboard with Intel CPU? Thanks, but no thanks. What if
I can't believe I'm the first to point this out, but working, stable 3D
support isn't all about bling.
You're right, but then nobody has claimed that OpenGL support was all
about bling.
Just try to run something like
Pro/Engineer (a high-end, professional CAD/CAM package) or AVS Express
(for scientific visualization) on a non-accelerated system. It's
*painful*. More and more high end packages like those are being ported
to Linux. But corporations aren't going to migrate their users'
desktops to Linux if they can't run the apps with decent performance and
stability. IMO, *that's* why 3D is important.
Sure, that's one of the reasons why accelerated 3D is important. Bling
is another separate reason. The thread you're replying to wasn't
suggesting that bling bling eye-candy is the only reason for 3D. It
was suggesting that 3D acceleration is necessary in order for bling
bling eye candy to be viable. Under that context, having proper 3D
support is necessary.
Your statement is also true, but it is orthagonal to bling.
--
Mike A. Harris * Open Source Advocate * http://mharris.ca
Proud Canadian.
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list