Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Today Marks 30 Years Since The Release Of X11

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by hussam View Post

    Have you used macOS before? Literally none of the lag or jitter you get with X11 compositors. Pretty much everything follows the desktop theme correctly. Very fluid animations even with integrated intel graphics. Everything is pixel perfect. A large portion of this is what Wayland is supposed to offer, correct?
    Apart from the initial memory allocations, base memory usage somewhat static and you desktop remains responsive after a whole week.

    Look, don't turn this into a argument. Go try different operating systems yourself and give your own review.
    The only problem I see in your post is that what you are talking about is not the problem of window system (X11 in this case), but problem of anything from graphic drivers/hardware to the compositor itself. Another advantage of MacOS is that it works on limited variants of hardware, so the focus is to make it work properly for that hardware alone, anything other than that is pure coincidence.

    Also, to add my experience with MacOS, from half a decade or more now..., using Mac with Core2Quad I think it was and 9600GT (or 9500/400 I can't remmember), it was terrible experience, and those machines were expensive at the time (about 2000$ or something), display also had terrible image quality, and it wasn't that smooth at all, to compare that machine with Core2Duo with low end nvidia or ati GPU now on Linux, it's night and day difference how much better C2D feels, and how smoother it is. I'm sure MacOS in general became much better since then, but still, it have that advantage of limited hardware so it is not real "competition" and "same gorund" comparison.

    Actually it was not Core2Quad, it was exact same C2D as the one on Linux, Apple iMac 27-inch (Core 2 Duo).
    Last edited by leipero; 16 September 2017, 04:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by leipero View Post

      The only problem I see in your post is that what you are talking about is not the problem of window system (X11 in this case), but problem of anything from graphic drivers/hardware to the compositor itself. Another advantage of MacOS is that it works on limited variants of hardware, so the focus is to make it work properly for that hardware alone, anything other than that is pure coincidence.
      Good point. The first time I've used a mac was in 2016 and it's corei5 with 8GB ram and 1.6GB intel graphics so it's a powerful machine already. Yes, I understand the compositor issue better now. Thank you for pointing that out. Obviously my experience on that platform is no where near yours.
      Yes, Apple focuses on particular hardware. That helps of course.
      It's just that the only time I've seen that kind of consistent timing in desktop animations and operations such as resizing were on macOS and Wayland on Linux. But perhaps Linux operates faster on similar hardware.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by hussam View Post
        Good point. The first time I've used a mac was in 2016 and it's corei5 with 8GB ram and 1.6GB intel graphics so it's a powerful machine already. Yes, I understand the compositor issue better now. Thank you for pointing that out. Obviously my experience on that platform is no where near yours.
        Yes, Apple focuses on particular hardware. That helps of course.
        It's just that the only time I've seen that kind of consistent timing in desktop animations and operations such as resizing were on macOS and Wayland on Linux. But perhaps Linux operates faster on similar hardware.
        1.6GB Intel Graphics? Care to explain what chip that is?

        EDIT: The fact that MacOS only works on Apple hardware is the whole entire reason "hackintosh" exists. It's really not that bad of an OS. It probably would have done better if Apple refused to even get into the hardware business. But they are stuck forever at 3% marketshare because that's about the same percentage of elitist snobs. (That don't realize they just paid over a thousand dollars too much for hardware technology that was last top of the line more than a decade ago.) (And for a GPU architecture so ancient that it's the sole survivor of it's kind. Intel's GPU is kinda like the platypus of GPU's.)
        Last edited by duby229; 16 September 2017, 06:32 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          The fact is that Mac OS combines an adequate (certainly isn't the fastest) kernel, a sensible display stack that supports multiple GPU vendors and families, and a fairly consistent UI. Sure, the graphics drivers aren't as fast as the Windows graphics drivers, but they work.

          MacOS has been offloading 2D UI operations to the GPU for over a decade already, IIRC it was called Quartz 2D Extreme back then, in MacOS X Tiger. Composition offload on the GPU resulting in a mostly tear/jank-free experience. It was doing a lot of what Wayland promises back then. TBF Xorg gained extensions to do a lot of the same fairly quickly too.

          Intel's GPUs are poor, yes, in comparison with Nvidia/AMD GPUs. But for 2D UI composition using Metal/OpenGL they are more than adequate. That's because it is 2017 now and even the weakest mobile Intel GPU offers hundreds of GFLOPS of power. There are discrete AMD GPU options on most Mac lines if you absolutely need that.

          MacOS is only 5% or so of the market these days because Macs are expensive (or rather, there are no bargain bucket Macs unlike Windows machines). Of course, sometimes a Mac is a bargain because it's surprisingly cheaper than the component costs at the time (some Mac Pros for example, or 27" iMacs at one point).

          Anyway, 30 years already eh? I think I first used it in 1996.

          Comment


          • #25
            X11 has been around for 30 years and Canonical thought they could write a replacement in 5.. smh

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by hussam View Post
              Good point. The first time I've used a mac was in 2016 and it's corei5 with 8GB ram and 1.6GB intel graphics so it's a powerful machine already. Yes, I understand the compositor issue better now. Thank you for pointing that out. Obviously my experience on that platform is no where near yours.
              Yes, Apple focuses on particular hardware. That helps of course.
              It's just that the only time I've seen that kind of consistent timing in desktop animations and operations such as resizing were on macOS and Wayland on Linux. But perhaps Linux operates faster on similar hardware.
              I don't have that much experience with Apple products, but from what I did try, that was what I've faced, however, to be fair GNU/Linux back then wasn't even close to what it is now, so I made unfair comparison, still, advantage of limited hardware does not allow direct comparison.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                1.6GB Intel Graphics? Care to explain what chip that is?

                EDIT: The fact that MacOS only works on Apple hardware is the whole entire reason "hackintosh" exists. It's really not that bad of an OS. It probably would have done better if Apple refused to even get into the hardware business. But they are stuck forever at 3% marketshare because that's about the same percentage of elitist snobs. (That don't realize they just paid over a thousand dollars too much for hardware technology that was last top of the line more than a decade ago.) (And for a GPU architecture so ancient that it's the sole survivor of it's kind. Intel's GPU is kinda like the platypus of GPU's.)
                It's this model. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/m.../A&step=config I'm at my personal computer now at home now (arch linux). I can check tomorrow at work for the specific chip specs of the mac. Just tell me where to look
                But if I understand correctly, 1.6GB of the ram are allocated for the onboard intel graphics.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by hussam View Post

                  It's this model. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/m.../A&step=config I'm at my personal computer now at home now (arch linux). I can check tomorrow at work for the specific chip specs of the mac. Just tell me where to look
                  But if I understand correctly, 1.6GB of the ram are allocated for the onboard intel graphics.
                  That's ok, I know what it is. It's a Intel HD 620. The hardware driver allocates as much RAM as needed through an aperture usually 128MB wide. It's not a fixed size, and can be whatever the driver needs. (Funny enough, if it was windows with those specs it'd only be about 200 dollars. 800 bucks too much imo.) (But I suppose it means Apple makes about 800 dollars per copy of their operating system.....So fwiw)
                  Last edited by duby229; 17 September 2017, 04:25 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post
                    Had it not been for the license change that caused a huge uproar, XFree86 would of probably still been the dominate X implementation.
                    This was a kneejerk reaction the political fun and games and the impending fork. David Dawes his actions were wholly wrong, but he was pushed there by the likes of Keithp, who had lost his core team commit access after he committed a huge new subsystem, without discussion or review, hours before the RC phase.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                      That's ok, I know what it is. It's a Intel HD 620. The hardware driver allocates as much RAM as needed through an aperture usually 128MB wide. It's not a fixed size, and can be whatever the driver needs. (Funny enough, if it was windows with those specs it'd only be about 200 dollars. 800 bucks too much imo.) (But I suppose it means Apple makes about 800 dollars per copy of their operating system.....So fwiw)
                      Yes, and usually those Windows machines are the same hardware quality.
                      We've had only one issue with the Apple machine where it was turning off wifi scanning when a usb disk was inserted.
                      Apart from that, I feel the reason Apple prices are high is that they have a user group who enjoy the mac desktop experience. I didn't like the global menu bar but I liked how fluid resizing windows was.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X