Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 40's Shell Theme Code Is Rather Expensive But Optimization Pursued

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bple2137 View Post

    Using desktop Linux with high res screen equals dealing with a lot of compromises. I learned that by purchasing one. X11 didn't even allow me to set up [email protected] and manually setting modelines or forcing it using XRandr just caused it to glitch very badly. It works very well right away with any Wayland session, but then there are bugs in KDE or lack of SSD on Gnome or Xwayland scaling issue on KDE/Sway/everything besides Gnome I think, or other quirks here and there. No matter how much I'd criticize GNOME devs for their design choices or lack of features in the shell, for now it is the only option for me if I don't want to use Windows.
    Windows is better on hi-res? LOL. On other tech sites, I constantly read complaint after complaint because people can't get Windows to work well on hi-res screens.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hax0r View Post
      Compiz was always smoother and a better optimized compositor. Also Unity was a better DE than gnomeshell.
      In my years of experience, Compiz was nice, but also buggy. I do agree that Unity was better, though.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

        So that solves the issue (maybe) for those with accellerated GPUs. I am sure he will also overconsume shader features requiring the very latest GLSL revision (version 460) or Vulkan.

        However mobile's, VM and tablets rarely have accellerated GPU access due to missing drivers. Is mobile platforms not one of the main reasons Gnome 3 is so... awkward in terms of usability? Surely due to the focus, they want to keep them fast and usable. This will be very difficult with LLVMpipe.
        And here I thought you were going to comment that DE's shouldn't need GPU acceleration in the first place

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

          Windows is better on hi-res? LOL. On other tech sites, I constantly read complaint after complaint because people can't get Windows to work well on hi-res screens.
          Windows has problems with high res and it can break after upgrades, but last time I checked, it worked even with multi-dpi configuration without any issue for me and all apps were properly scaled. Besides, that really wasn't my point to compare two independent systems and I don't see how Windows' flaws make the whole mess we've got on GNU/Linux side perfectly fine.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by xnor View Post

            A new generation of (lazy?) developers that jumped on hip web technologies have infected lots of products and companies. A messenger that used 40 MB memory was considered bloated a few years ago, now we got messengers that use gigabytes of memory with basically the same or even less functionality thanks to hip new web technologies.
            I agree with that.

            I mean JavaScript in the desktop? What an amazing idea... the benefits are outweighed by all the performance issues and image damage it caused to Gnome.
            But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using JS on a desktop. It would be a little crazy to make the platform in JS, but writing the fundamentals in C and directing it with JS is quite alright. It adds a bit to startup, but that's not noticeable in such a long-lived process as a desktop shell.

            I'm not discussing the implementation, mind you.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by s_j_newbury View Post
              Most GNOME image damage is due to the complete disregard of the users by the project management. They're more interested GNOME being familiar to users of Mac OS and Windows, than their actual user base.
              Users should use it because they like it, or use something else. Designers should design what they want to design. Saying that Gnome is designed to be familiar to Windows users, is … How do I respond to that?

              Comment


              • #37
                Just dump, abandon gnome shell and write a new DE from scratch. It is not worth fixing.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

                  In my years of experience, Compiz was nice, but also buggy. I do agree that Unity was better, though.
                  There are two different products named Compiz. It's the 0.8 version and the 0.9-based version. 0.9 is a reimplementation in C++. It took a while to get there, but in my opinion, it did.

                  Unity _is_ good. Why the past tense? It will never support Wayland and will never be suitable for a containerized desktop system, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Unity can remain a shell for traditional non-container desktops. It'll sort of be like a Windows XP for the Linux world and that's not a bad thing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by arun54321 View Post
                    Just dump, abandon gnome shell and write a new DE from scratch. It is not worth fixing.
                    Gnome Shell works very well and it allows for constructive divergence in the form of OS differentiation without forks and community splits. I think it's great.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lumks View Post
                      Considering that Shell40 is noticeable faster/more fluent on all of my systems compared to 3.38, I wonder how this is possible.

                      That's strange. 40 is significantly slower than 3.38. Here are some numbers. Overview animation, 20 windows, with !1441

                      Code:
                      mutter 3.38.4+9+g607803c4b / gnome-shell 3.38.4
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 60.04 FPS, average: 8.0ms, peak: 15.1ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 60.02 FPS, average: 12.9ms, peak: 13.6ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 59.99 FPS, average: 12.8ms, peak: 14.2ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 59.97 FPS, average: 12.8ms, peak: 13.9ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 60.00 FPS, average: 12.8ms, peak: 13.6ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 60.02 FPS, average: 12.7ms, peak: 13.6ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 57.73 FPS, average: 12.5ms, peak: 18.0ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 60.26 FPS, average: 13.0ms, peak: 14.6ms
                      *** X11 screen performance over 1.0s: 57.89 FPS, average: 13.0ms, peak: 18.4ms
                      Code:
                      mutter 40.0+51+gcf8efb582 / gnome-shell 40.0+37+g1f0ef7fb4
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 36,14 FPS, average: 19,6ms, peak: 23,9ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 35,87 FPS, average: 17,8ms, peak: 24,1ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 35,48 FPS, average: 18,1ms, peak: 25,5ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 35,46 FPS, average: 17,7ms, peak: 26,0ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 34,39 FPS, average: 20,0ms, peak: 27,2ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 32,93 FPS, average: 20,4ms, peak: 28,3ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 32,56 FPS, average: 20,9ms, peak: 28,7ms
                      *** X11 screen frame timings over 1,0s: 33,33 FPS, average: 19,1ms, peak: 28,1ms


                      Originally posted by arun54321 View Post
                      [...] write a new DE from scratch. It is not worth fixing.
                      Yes, you do that!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X