Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.7.2 Kills The GNOME Fallback Mode

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    People wanting 95 redo can use LXDE XFCE, Enlightenment or a ton of other environments.
    Not so sure Enlightenment fits, or E17 at least, fits that category. I mean it can emulate a Win 95 style but you make it sound like it inheriently looks old, but in my experience E17 can look like anything. And it's "Run Everything" program can do what the Unity dash does and more, whilst being a lot faster. Seriously underrated desktop is E17, IMO. Just hope the damn thing hits a truly stable release soon.

    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
    KDE is the best desktop I've ever seen
    While a lot would not agree, I do agree with you. For me it is anyway.
    It's quite amazing, and due to the nature of Plasma as soon as this tablet stuff rolled in they were able to quickly morph a tablet UI without writing an entirely new thing. Not to mention the netbook version. And these environments can function perfectly without graphic acceleration. That's power and flexibility if I've ever seen it and you have to admire the foresight of the KDE folks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by F i L View Post
      With Windows 8 (I believe), there's no "CPU fallback mode" like with Windows 7 and prior. All rendering relies on Directx 11 which, in turn, supports a CPU backend (and DX9/10 modes for legacy hardware)... so your statements are pretty invalid seeing as how the most popular Desktop OS on the market is doing the same thing as Gnome & Unity. It makes a whole lot of sense (from a developers perspective) to remove these "fallback" code paths... LLVM OpenGL backend mean cleaner code, less bugs, and faster DE development.
      Nope. Any DX9 capable card with a WDDM capable driver can run Win8. Same requirements as Vista/7 (makes sense; same base kernel version (NT 6.1)).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        Nope. Any DX9 capable card with a WDDM capable driver can run Win8. Same requirements as Vista/7 (makes sense; same base kernel version (NT 6.1)).
        Yes I know. DirectX 11 has a legacy 9/10 modes with support for older hardware. What I meant is that there's now no longer a CPU specific fallback mode in Windows 8's DE (so I've been told).. it's part of Directx 11 instead, and all DE code targets Directx 11 for rendering, the same way Gnome/Unity are only targeting OpenGL (indirectly) for rendering now. There's no more "Oops, OpenGL didn't load, gotta run a completely different rendering API.." in the DE code because OpenGL (and Directx 11) are guaranteed to load, even without GPU hardware support. At least that's the idea.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by F i L View Post
          Yes I know. DirectX 11 has a legacy 9/10 modes with support for older hardware. What I meant is that there's now no longer a CPU specific fallback mode in Windows 8's DE (so I've been told).. it's part of Directx 11 instead, and all DE code targets Directx 11 for rendering, the same way Gnome/Unity are only targeting OpenGL (indirectly) for rendering now. There's no more "Oops, OpenGL didn't load, gotta run a completely different rendering API.." in the DE code because OpenGL (and Directx 11) are guaranteed to load, even without GPU hardware support. At least that's the idea.
          Oops, your OpenGL don't support extension X; drop down to decellerated mode.
          Oops, your card is blacklisted; drop down to decellerated mode.

          Or what really happens in Windows:

          Oops, AMD has classified your video card as Legacy. There is no support for Aero.
          Oops, there is only a reference driver for your old graphics card. Welcome basic VGA mode. Upgrade soon.

          Comment


          • #20
            They make me feel better about my recent switch to other DE.





            Comment


            • #21
              Not a big deal

              I don't understand why dropping fallback mode is so big deal?

              If one's computer does not have graphics card or driver capable of running opengl OR computer cpu is not fast enough to use llvmpipe, then the one should probably not run modern full-blown desktop like Gnome or Kde, the changes are that it is too slow anyway. There is plenty of more suitable lightweight DE options to choose for.

              I have virtual machine which has Gnome 3. It runs llvmpipe, and the speed is ok, although it is not "fluid". I have desktop computer I use heavily via vino. And using Gnome3 via vino seems to be fast enough even when running it over ~1Mbit line. And of course on my laptop, I am using Gnome 3 with open source intel driver, and that is fluid. So, all of my use cases are covered by just normal Gnome 3, I have no use for the fallback mode. I did try it on my vino remote use case, but I did found it lacking.

              Comment


              • #22
                I am slowly changing my opinion about gnome3


                don't get me wrong it still looks like ass, fat and bloated and stupid...


                but

                if you dig thru devianart and that extensions gnome site you are actually able to make gnome3 look half way decent.


                I'd say this theme and setup make it look ok even compared to elementary os.


                the gnome devs are ok, just a little misguided and lacking refinement

                Comment


                • #23
                  I must admit that I can't stand this 'if your computer can't run Gnome 3, then maybe you shouldn't be running a DE on it' attitude some people have. I had a fluid desktop experience in the previous millenium. How is it that more than a decade later I'm having so much trouble getting a smooth multi-monitor desktop experience on a PC that's not even 5 years old, with an order of magnitude more processing power? I love eye candy, I really do, but a few fancy window animations and drop shadows aren't worth the abysmal performance I'm getting with my radeon GPU. Sometimes I feel (I know it's not really true) like little progress has been made in the last 10 years w.r.t. desktop environments.

                  For now I went to XFCE4, I do like GNOME3, and I may start using it again some day when the radeon driver's performance is improved. I also understand why they killed fallback mode - it wasn't getting enough attention and worked somewhat differently from the normal composited desktop. It would be better to just have a 2D mode that worked just like the 3D one without any of the demanding effects (which can't really be rendered efficiently in software)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Now they can concentrate work on making gnome-shell even more awesome (I love it, really speeded up my work flow )

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Aphax View Post
                      I must admit that I can't stand this 'if your computer can't run Gnome 3, then maybe you shouldn't be running a DE on it' attitude some people have. I had a fluid desktop experience in the previous millenium. How is it that more than a decade later I'm having so much trouble getting a smooth multi-monitor desktop experience on a PC that's not even 5 years old, with an order of magnitude more processing power? I love eye candy, I really do, but a few fancy window animations and drop shadows aren't worth the abysmal performance I'm getting with my radeon GPU. Sometimes I feel (I know it's not really true) like little progress has been made in the last 10 years w.r.t. desktop environments.

                      For now I went to XFCE4, I do like GNOME3, and I may start using it again some day when the radeon driver's performance is improved. I also understand why they killed fallback mode - it wasn't getting enough attention and worked somewhat differently from the normal composited desktop. It would be better to just have a 2D mode that worked just like the 3D one without any of the demanding effects (which can't really be rendered efficiently in software)
                      Please don't blame GNOME of that your graphics drivers suck.

                      Signed by "a very happy and all the time more happy GNOME user since Gnome 1.4."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Do...p_Environments


                        KDE and Xfce let you run without effects. Why doesn't GNOME?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Aphax View Post
                          I must admit that I can't stand this 'if your computer can't run Gnome 3, then maybe you shouldn't be running a DE on it' attitude some people have. I had a fluid desktop experience in the previous millenium. How is it that more than a decade later I'm having so much trouble getting a smooth multi-monitor desktop experience on a PC that's not even 5 years old, with an order of magnitude more processing power? I love eye candy, I really do, but a few fancy window animations and drop shadows aren't worth the abysmal performance I'm getting with my radeon GPU. Sometimes I feel (I know it's not really true) like little progress has been made in the last 10 years w.r.t. desktop environments.
                          I had a 2004 LG Tablet XNOTE running Gnome-Shell running smoothly as long there is no heavily GPU intensive around at the same due to CPU limitation (Intel Centrino). The issue in this case is related to videocard driver. Even the Radeon R200 on 2007 HP Pavillon Media Center runs it too without problem.
                          Last edited by finalzone; 11-29-2012, 02:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Aphax View Post
                            I do like GNOME3, and I may start using it again some day when the radeon driver's performance is improved.
                            If you have really bad performance with GnomeShell and Radeon Catalyst drivers, make sure to add 'export CLUTTER_VBLANK=none' to '/etc/profile', it helps a lot. You can still enable VSync and everything from the AMD Catalyst Control Center.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by moilami View Post
                              Please don't blame GNOME of that your graphics drivers suck.

                              Signed by "a very happy and all the time more happy GNOME user since Gnome 1.4."
                              And yet the radeon and other FOSS drivers are supposed to be the best thing to use with Gnome Shell...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                                And yet the radeon and other FOSS drivers are supposed to be the best thing to use with Gnome Shell...
                                Who said so? With libre radeon driver you don't have any 3D acceleration because of the missing binary blob (firmware).

                                3D acceleration works with ATI cards only if you want to use the binary blob.

                                Use Intel graphics if you want 3D acceleration to work with truly libre system without binary blobs.

                                Gnome Shell worked great with Intel Graphics in Gnome 3.0.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X