Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon Gallium3D: A Half-Decade Behind Catalyst?

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

  • dungeon
    replied
    Is there a plan to remove radeon and r200 from mesa? Today mesa-git needs explicit shared dricore - dricore never worked for me.

    Athlon XP 2200+ 1.8GHz Radeon 9250 128MB 128-bit, mesa git KMS with kernel 3.1.10 vs mesa 7.5.2 UMS kernel 2.6.32.54.

    Code:
    Open Arena 0.8.5
     
              640x480 800x600 1024x600 1024x768 1280x720 1280x768 1280x800 1366x768 1280x960 1440x900 1280x1024 1600x900 1400x1050 1680x1050 1920x1080
    
    UMS         77.3   76.3     76.1     72.4     66.8     64.0     62.2     61.0     54.5     51.9      47.6      52.0     48.4     40.7      35.2
    
    KMS         51.8   51.9     52.1     51.3     50.2     49.2     48.3     47.8     44.0     42.2      42.2      39.2     38.3     33.3      29.5
    
    
    Urban Terror 4.1
    
              640x480 800x600 1024x600 1024x768 1280x720 1280x768 1280x800 1366x768 1280x960 1440x900 1280x1024 1600x900 1400x1050 1680x1050 1920x1080
    
    UMS        141.7   115.2    96.9     80.0     70.6     67.0     64.8     63.3     55.5     54.7      52.6      49.8     48.9     41.3      35.4   
    
    KMS        107.8   100.2    89.6     74.0     66.4                                                                      45.2               33.3

    Leave a comment:


  • agd5f
    replied
    Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    Unless you are running a distro that doesn't support it or are running Solaris/BSD. I mean, why not just leave the code in a branch as unmaintained. I mean, it would just be nice to have if you are running said older hardware.
    But they won't build and no one is updating them. Why keep it in the tree? They are readily accessible locally via git or old tarballs or on the web via cgit. Keeping them around, even if they are not being built just causes problems when things are changed or new features are added since you end up having to wade through extra confusing deprecated crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    IIRC the thinking was "the code is in a CM system, so you can go back and create a branch from any point you want if needed", ie the branch doesn't have to be created today. All previous versions of the code are in the CM system and available by rolling back to an earlier commit.
    Really, all I want is not to have what happened to Catalyst (to the R300 and earlier stuff) to happen to the old Mesa drivers. IDK, silly really.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    Unless you are running a distro that doesn't support it or are running Solaris/BSD. I mean, why not just leave the code in a branch as unmaintained. I mean, it would just be nice to have if you are running said older hardware.
    IIRC the thinking was "the code is in a CM system, so you can go back and create a branch from any point you want if needed", ie the branch doesn't have to be created today. All previous versions of the code are in the CM system and available by rolling back to an earlier commit.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Just use an older Mesa and older xorg.

    It's all still there.
    Unless you are running a distro that doesn't support it or are running Solaris/BSD. I mean, why not just leave the code in a branch as unmaintained. I mean, it would just be nice to have if you are running said older hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    This may sound silly, but I would rather they not strip old drivers out. I mean, I would rather have old bitrotted support than NO support.
    Just use an older Mesa and older xorg.

    It's all still there.

    Leave a comment:


  • AnonymousCoward
    replied
    Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    It is a damn shame devs don't think about the users anymore (see Unity and Gnome 3.)
    Or maybe it is a shame that there aren't enough devs to care about all the old hardware, in addition to the current. The solution: Learn programming, or pay someone to maintain the stuff you want maintained.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    This may sound silly, but I would rather they not strip old drivers out. I mean, I would rather have old bitrotted support than NO support. Think about it. Plenty of people run computers that are older than 5 years old. I think it is just silly. Hell, one great reason to run linux is that it supports older hardware so well. It is a damn shame devs don't think about the users anymore (see Unity and Gnome 3.)

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Catabuntu, LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • jltyper
    replied
    Looks like a ripe opportunity to make a linux distro. Catabuntu.

    There. No more complaints. Low tech people can just run catabuntu. Old xorg , old kernel but have everything else updated.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X