Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Dynamic Triple Buffering Can 2x The Desktop Performance For Intel Graphics, Raspberry Pi

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
    I'm not even sure how useful sorting things in alphabetical order would be. If I'm looking for a specific application and I can't remember where I put it, I just type it in and launch from that.
    It's not for you to decide what would be useful for others.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

      There is a very good reason to stop using MB in many places it been historically used.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
      It has 3 defined sizes. MB=MiB MB=1000000 bytes and MB=1024000 bytes. Mac OS and IOS commonly uses MB=1000000 bytes everywhere. MS Windows depending on where are either uses MB=MIB or MB=1000000 bytes.

      MB=1024000 mostly does not exist any more and hopefully stays that way.

      MIB only has one size 1,048,576 bytes. Please be aware a lot of cases that Gnome and KDE changes from being MB to MiB were in fact MiB byte size measurement so this change was more truthful reporting so removing ambiguity.

      Android for file management and other things always uses MiB has had bugs where its use MB symbol instead of MiB.

      Yes MB=MiB need to disappear. I was doing one of my collage courses when the ISO standard making MiB yes the fun of studing in 1998/2000 and have exam questions where you were not quite sure what MB valve the person writing the question used. Yes this problem of what size MB is that still can come up in different exam questions yes where the results are auto processed. So I would prefer to see the raw byte count than see MB. I would have been great if the decimal byte sizes had also got new symbols with megabyte and so on sent off as legacy never to be used again.
      MB is 1024kB, regardless of what hard drive manufacturers pay ISO to say. It's a failure of computer science in general to say it's 1000. Just.. shame.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Mez' View Post
        You linking to an extension is the proof that it doesn't and someone had to create an extension to circumvent the missing feature.
        Please read the post I responded to. "GNOME does not do that and it does not even allow the user to do that."

        I pointed to the extension that allows the user to do that. Extensions are an official part of gnome. It is the same as arguing "gnome does not allow configuration and extensiability if you ignore all the methods of configuration and extensibility that it provides."

        It doesnt provide that option by default. However it does not prevent that option being provided as shown by the extension.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Mez' View Post
          It's not for you to decide what would be useful for others.
          For those that prefer this, there is an extension. For everyone else there is the default.

          I suspect most actual users of gnome prefer the default because I dont want to scroll to page 5 to click on a commonly used application and I doubt many others do either.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

            There is a very good reason to stop using MB in many places it been historically used.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
            It has 3 defined sizes. MB=MiB MB=1000000 bytes and MB=1024000 bytes. Mac OS and IOS commonly uses MB=1000000 bytes everywhere. MS Windows depending on where are either uses MB=MIB or MB=1000000 bytes.

            MB=1024000 mostly does not exist any more and hopefully stays that way.

            MIB only has one size 1,048,576 bytes. Please be aware a lot of cases that Gnome and KDE changes from being MB to MiB were in fact MiB byte size measurement so this change was more truthful reporting so removing ambiguity.

            Android for file management and other things always uses MiB has had bugs where its use MB symbol instead of MiB.

            Yes MB=MiB need to disappear. I was doing one of my collage courses when the ISO standard making MiB yes the fun of studing in 1998/2000 and have exam questions where you were not quite sure what MB valve the person writing the question used. Yes this problem of what size MB is that still can come up in different exam questions yes where the results are auto processed. So I would prefer to see the raw byte count than see MB. I would have been great if the decimal byte sizes had also got new symbols with megabyte and so on sent off as legacy never to be used again.
            Originally posted by gens View Post

            MB is 1024kB, regardless of what hard drive manufacturers pay ISO to say. It's a failure of computer science in general to say it's 1000. Just.. shame.
            Just for fun:

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

              Those fixed-function 2D accelerators we had back then were really fast.
              The desktops felt much faster than they do today.

              I for one would not mind seeing the return of those fixed-function 2D accelerators without any 3D capabilities.

              I want a 3D GPU only in my gaming PC.
              On my laptop and all other machines: quiet, cool, power efficient performance is much more important than 3D capability.
              Same. I actually have a little console-only netbook that I try to use for distraction free programming (for the hobby projects, for work I have an employer issued computer). It doesn't really make sense to have an OpenGL capable card there, and simpler hardware could make it even more power efficient.

              Originally posted by jacob View Post

              Right. I can't wait to see people working with Blender, Ardour or Inkscape using Fluxbox... </sarcasm>
              What's so special about those applications that makes Fluxbox a bad choice to use with them? What did people do before GPU accelerated desktops?
              Note I _do_ think a compositor using basic GPU features is the way to go nowadays. GPUs are so commonplace that it's practically impossible to find anything newer than 2005 without at least an iGPU, and properly implemented it could save memory, CPU and energy compared to non-compositing managers for same number of frame buffers. But I fail to see how programs that predate compositing WMs would become problematic under non-compositing WMs.

              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

              That is part of it but not quite. Yes intel reclocking heuristics do cause some problems but GPU like the Raspberry PI one that don't have the reclocking problem as also helped by this. Yes raspberry pi gpu is light on in processing power so not using it effectively by using normal double buffering really does not work out well. The issue is the time the GPU is being left idle waiting for v-sync with the raspberry pi of course this is lower with triple buffering to the point of being basically reduced to zero.

              Both sub-optimial reclocking of the intel igpu and the raspberry pi gpu(and other embedded gpu) have the same fix better utilisation. Ok intel case you could say work around but the lighter embedded gpu this is truly the fix. Yes as noted this help AMD and Nvidia GPU in case of high load. Same reason better utilisation options with triple buffering than double buffering.
              I get it that this is a reasonable fix to improve utilization (it's been done by games for ages), but wouldn't it be better to fix Intel driver's heuristics for that case? It's open source, so that's a real option. Not that they're mutually exclusive or anyone owes me fixing that, of course, but if the two biggest desktops and probably some others had to work around that, maybe it's be a good idea to finally fix it at the source.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post



                Just for fun:

                Nah. Computer are binary, so I declare a kilobyte is 8 bytes. (edit: wrote 64 but that is for megabyte)

                In reality, it's stupid. kB being 1000B is because of hard drive manufacturers, at least in ISO. It makes absolutely no sense for it to be 1000 as computers just don't work that way and it doesn't matter for users.
                That JEDEC defines it as 1024 shows that is how computers work (CPU cache is also base 2, so my cpu would have 2097.152 kB of L3 cache..).
                The more ways i can think of looking at it, the more stupid it is. Only reason to have it 1000, that i can think of, is so you can more precisely figure out the size of a file when looking at it in units of bytes, and even then ~60MB file looks like 61733496 bytes so it's easier to use the computer to turn it into human readable then counting how many digits it has.

                And "kibibyte" just sounds stupid and smaller then "kilobyte".

                PS https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...-your-programs
                Last edited by gens; 14 February 2022, 01:22 PM.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by You- View Post

                  For those that prefer this, there is an extension. For everyone else there is the default.

                  I suspect most actual users of gnome prefer the default because I dont want to scroll to page 5 to click on a commonly used application and I doubt many others do either.
                  The thing is at least you'd know where to find it approximately.
                  I don't have any extension activating alphabetical order, and I have literally no clue where my app will be positioned in the grid, which makes it very hard to find within my eight scroll worth of apps.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by You- View Post

                    Please read the post I responded to. "GNOME does not do that and it does not even allow the user to do that."

                    I pointed to the extension that allows the user to do that. Extensions are an official part of gnome. It is the same as arguing "gnome does not allow configuration and extensiability if you ignore all the methods of configuration and extensibility that it provides."

                    It doesnt provide that option by default. However it does not prevent that option being provided as shown by the extension.
                    Extensions are not an official part of Gnome, which is the reason why they are developed by the community (3rd parties) while Gnome is mostly developed by corporation employees with little to no community around.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Mez' View Post
                      I don't have any extension activating alphabetical order, and I have literally no clue where my app will be positioned in the grid, which makes it very hard to find within my eight scroll worth of apps.
                      you just press a single key and suddenly the app list is much smaller. Have you used gnome-shell? It almost seems like you havent.

                      Gnome-shell is used predominantly (or pretty much exclusively) on pcs and laptops that have full keyboards. The first time you log in it goes through, or atleast used to, an animation telling you how to find apps. You press the windows key and press the first letter of the app. Its fast, its easy, its convenient.

                      Even if you wanted to scroll to find your app, it is convenient - your distro will come with around 1 page of apps pre-installed and the rest appear pretty much earliest installed first. If you still find the placement inconvenient, you can move the icon to which ever panel you want.

                      You make it sound like its not a system you have used at all.

                      Extensions are not an official part of Gnome
                      Extension support is built into gnome-shell. It is officially supported. Extensions are reviewed and available through gnome infrastructure. They may not be part of the gnome core, but they are part of gnome.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X