Michael J. Hußmann wrote:
> Eckhart Koeppen (eck1000_at_gmx.net) wrote:
>
>
>> But seriously, I think that the 2D imaging model of Quartz is a big
>> step forward from the simple schemes of event-driven display models
>> like X and Windows with their refresh-on-demand. Surely, it does
>> put a lot of load on the CPU and the memory (a pixel on the
>> screen does not belong to one application at a time anymore but
>> is the outcome of blending the all stacked windows together), but
>> I think it is worth it.
>>
>
> Who needs this, and for what?
It would enable me to put more information on the screen (like taking it
from 2D to 2.5D). If stuff like alpha-blending would not be available,
there's no way I'd go through the troubles implementing it for myself,
probably only available in my apps. If it is there, I might play around
with it and eventually come up with something nice.
The availabilitiy of a vector-based GUI with alpha-blending and a new
imaging scheme makes my life as a programmer easier. If I use these
tools in a useful manner is a completely different story.
And another thing: I have not seen a detailed performance analysis of
the Quartz layer, just claims that "it is slow." Sorry, but that's a bit
too general for me. Is the GUI slow? Is the code slow that feeds the
GUI? Is some other app taking away my resources? Is the system itself
slow? Do I have networking/IPC overhead? What about the framworks the
app uses?
I myself have a number of other things besides Quartz on the list of
things that cause OS X to appear slow. OS X and OS 9 are just too
different, there's much more going on in OS X that has to be accounted
for in any performance analysis.
Eckhart
--
-- eck_at_40hz.org -- www.40hz.org ----
--
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:03:35 EST