On Monday 26 September 2005 18:01, Nicolas Huillard wrote:
> Jan Ekholm a ?crit :
> > Can one run DirectFB with a card that doesn't have a direct driver? AFAIK
>
> You can still use vesafb with the generic software renderer, but you
> will lack most hardware optimizations, specialy pixel format conversions.
Meaning that it's fast and good if there is a driver for the used card and a
bit useless if there isn't?
> > only Matrox cards and some Epias really work with DirectFB, others have
> > no drivers. I fought quite a lot with DirectFB about a year and a half
> > ago when it was investigated for another purpose, but in the end DFB
>
> There is an ATI driver since this time, I think. And DirectFB improves
> regularly.
Ah, ok. I'll have a look. Back then DFB didn't really move at all, I think it
was stuck on the same release for half a year or something, and the
mailing-list I was on was dead for months.
> > didn't really work too well (and that was with a more or less supported
> > CLE266 chip). Somehow DFB also felt a bit heavy and CPU intensive
> > compared to using normal X11.
>
> DFB must be way lighter than X. In my case, it is nearly 80MB RAM less
> (counting X + Xine - softdevice). CPU utilization depends on hardware
> acceleration, WTR MPEG2. Nothing should impact CPU in DFB per se.
I meant that it felt heavy and slow. Sure it is lighter when looking at raw
software, there is just so many layers less and so much less memory used, but
still X felt snappier at drawing stuff.
But, I'll believe someone who actually uses in and give it try. Thanks for the
encouragement. :)
--
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
-- Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
