Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Comments On The Unity 2D Defenestration

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    Unity is the slowest desktop environment I've ever used, just like Ubuntu Software Center. Even on a high-end machine the "lens" takes a second or two to load, USC takes forever to load, as does switching between multiple open windows of the same program zoom effect thing. Sad that you can no longer recommend Ubuntu as a cure for older computers (older distros don't count, the newest version of Firefox and other programs are needed). While I agree that DEs can afford to look nicer now days, not having the ability to "turn off" (drop to Metacity or whatever) the shinies like you can on Windows 7 is fail since they are dropping Unity 2D. You can't compare Win7 to Unity though because even with the desktop shinies on, Win7 is infinitely times faster since Win7's start menu opens instantly. What part of pre-loading all the DE's graphics libraries doesn't Unity understand? Maybe when Unity isn't such a bloated pig will more users actually like it.
    You stole my words. I've been using unity for too long and the removal of Unity 2D was the last straw. I'm currently on Openbox (it loads instantly) and not very happy with the situation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      What about when hardware-accelerated rendering does not work, it falls back to a limited Unity where certain graphical features are removed, such as shadows?
      Thats what XFCE does. The compositor is optional, which is not the case with gnome3 based projects.
      I switched to Xubuntu right before Unity became Ubuntu's default.

      The 32 bit architecture should simply be avoided, unless the hardware demands it, or you have less than 2g of ram. If you are in that scenario, you probably need to use Xubuntu or Lubuntu anyway.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
        "systems with decently modern CPU architectures and non-GPU accelerated hardware should be able to run Unity"

        Which exactly are those? Pentium 4/Pentium M definitely not. It's too old and doesn't provide proper GPU, let alone CPU acceleration. Core Duo neither. It's too modern and pretty capable for hardware GPU acceleration. The same can be said about contemporary AMD offers. So what CPUs is he talking about?
        Virtual Machines. KVM/XEN can only provide GPU acceleration through PCI pass-through, but that means having a GPU for each VM + eventually one for the host. Also Vmware ESX, for example, does not provide GPU acceleration.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ansla View Post
          Virtual Machines. KVM/XEN can only provide GPU acceleration through PCI pass-through, but that means having a GPU for each VM + eventually one for the host. Also Vmware ESX, for example, does not provide GPU acceleration.
          This is definitely not the main reason why they created Unity 2D in the first place and how they sold it to the public. It was intended _mainly_ for old hardware. I don't think the purpose of LLVMpipe is _mainly_ virtual machines, although you're right that's a use case that will benefit from it.

          I still hope someone from Canonical clears this up.

          Comment

          Working...
          X