Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: GNOME 3.7.2 Kills The GNOME Fallback Mode

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default

    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)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote 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."

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    49

    Default

    http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Do...p_Environments


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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote 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 at 02:13 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote 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...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •