4 ms·

> perfectly possible with X11 because the pitch information is exposed via the Xrandr extention Only the "Windows" kind of scaling where the app works in non-s

> perfectly possible with X11 because the pitch information is exposed via the Xrandr extention Only the "Windows" kind of scaling where the app works in non-scaled, real pixels and does everything by itself. Not the "Apple" kind of scaling that Wayland supports, where you have logical pixels backed by 2x/3x/… the physical pixels. (Like many things Apple does, this was invented for good reasons. Positioning a window to be on both a 1x and a 2x monitor just works with that kind of scaling, without the app ever having to consider the displays it touches.) > Solved since ages. Just enable Tearfree in your Xorg.conf. That's a driver-specific hack that kinda maybe works sometimes. Sometimes you need to juggle compositor options combined with that and nothing works anyway. > X11 runs even on 386's and beats Wayland in every performance metric, especially latency. Any composited X11 desktop is slower than a Wayland one, with the Xorg server acting as a bloated IPC broker in between the compositor and the client. Yeah, you can get really low latency if you just don't composite at all. Go back to Windows 95 if you think that's acceptable :) > X11 is capable of using hardware layers that has the effect that you can smoothly move your mouse even on heavy load and OOM events. Wayland still completely craps out in that regard. I'm sure pretty much all production Wayland compositors use the cursor layer. wlroots for sure does. (But I don't think it's a big deal under heavy load, there the problem is the display server even processing the mouse events at all first.) Weston goes further and can use HW layers for actual surface compositing when possible. wlroots is going to gain that power soon-ish with libliftoff. > The wrong philosophy ("every frame is perfect") Again, feel free to use Windows 95. For anyone used to current commercial desktop and mobile UIs, any imperfect frames are unacceptable, artifacts like tearing make your system look like a complete joke. Apple computers didn't show imperfect frames since the early early 2000s PowerPC era. Not matching that is a complete shame.

sprash 5y ago
> logical pixels backed by 2x/3x/… the physical pixels. This is not fractional scaling. Fractional scaling has to be done by the application itself (even on Wayland). > That's a driver-specific hack It is not a hack. It is a solution and a very good one because DDX drivers can make use of vendor specific 2D acceleration and therefore achieve much better latency with the tearfree option on X11 than Wayland ever will where everything runs through the 3D pipeline by default. > Any composited X11 desktop is slower than a Wayland one If you enable Tearfree you don't need a compositor if the driver works properly. Of course X11 compositors with fancy blur effects have bad performance. I always turn them off. > Go back to Windows 95 if you think that's acceptable :) Why don't you switch to Android? Android already does everything that Wayland fans want and better. > I'm sure pretty much all production Wayland compositors use the cursor layer. I get severe mouse stuttering on high CPU or GPU load. A problem that was solved on X11 20 years ago. I have no idea what wlroots really does but it does it definitely wrong. > Go back to Windows 95 if you think that's acceptable :) The value of X11 is the ecosystem and platform it provides. If you want Linux with a compositor switch to Android. There you also have your sandboxing and whatnot. Don't turn the Linux Desktop into a Phone OS. As Desktop OS I genuinely prefer Windows 95 over Android. > Apple computers didn't show imperfect frames since the early early 2000s PowerPC era. Ever used OS X on those? They are barely usable because of severe lag and stuttering. But yeah the frames were so perfect that most people decided to switch back to MacOS 9 to do real work.
- floatboth 5y ago
  > Fractional scaling has to be done by the application itself (even on Wayland). No, fractional is handled by applications just rendering at 2x and getting downscaled to 1.5x or whatever. Yeah, the "Windows" way looks sharper on fractional, but the "Apple" downscaling is easier to handle and it looks fine – there were iPhones that did everything like that. > DDX drivers can make use of vendor specific 2D acceleration Ah, I remember Intel's various native 2D accelerations (UXA, SNA) – each with its own unique horrific bugs (artifacts all over the screen, all text turning into junk), all eventually sorta deprecated in favor of glamor (OpenGL) with the generic modesetting driver. There's not much to 2D accelerate with modern applications that all do their own rendering. Compositing acceleration is possible in a vendor-agnostic way via KMS planes and we'll have that in wlroots. > Ever used OS X on those? They are barely usable because of severe lag and stuttering. I have an iBook G4 :) Leopard runs perfectly smoothly. Yeah, the very first generation of hardware when OS X was just introduced wasn't ready. The next one was.
  - Conan_Kudo 5y ago
    > There's not much to 2D accelerate with modern applications that all do their own rendering. Compositing acceleration is possible in a vendor-agnostic way via KMS planes and we'll have that in wlroots. It's even more fun when your realize no GPU in the last decade has shipped 2D acceleration capabilities. Wayland uses 3D acceleration because that's what GPUs offer, because that's what the other platforms exclusively offer now.

sprash 5y ago

> logical pixels backed by 2x/3x/… the physical pixels. This is not fractional scaling. Fractional scaling has to be done by the application itself (even on Wayland). > That's a driver-specific hack It is not a hack. It is a solution and a very good one because DDX drivers can make use of vendor specific 2D acceleration and therefore achieve much better latency with the tearfree option on X11 than Wayland ever will where everything runs through the 3D pipeline by default. > Any composited X11 desktop is slower than a Wayland one If you enable Tearfree you don't need a compositor if the driver works properly. Of course X11 compositors with fancy blur effects have bad performance. I always turn them off. > Go back to Windows 95 if you think that's acceptable :) Why don't you switch to Android? Android already does everything that Wayland fans want and better. > I'm sure pretty much all production Wayland compositors use the cursor layer. I get severe mouse stuttering on high CPU or GPU load. A problem that was solved on X11 20 years ago. I have no idea what wlroots really does but it does it definitely wrong. > Go back to Windows 95 if you think that's acceptable :) The value of X11 is the ecosystem and platform it provides. If you want Linux with a compositor switch to Android. There you also have your sandboxing and whatnot. Don't turn the Linux Desktop into a Phone OS. As Desktop OS I genuinely prefer Windows 95 over Android. > Apple computers didn't show imperfect frames since the early early 2000s PowerPC era. Ever used OS X on those? They are barely usable because of severe lag and stuttering. But yeah the frames were so perfect that most people decided to switch back to MacOS 9 to do real work.

floatboth 5y ago
> Fractional scaling has to be done by the application itself (even on Wayland). No, fractional is handled by applications just rendering at 2x and getting downscaled to 1.5x or whatever. Yeah, the "Windows" way looks sharper on fractional, but the "Apple" downscaling is easier to handle and it looks fine – there were iPhones that did everything like that. > DDX drivers can make use of vendor specific 2D acceleration Ah, I remember Intel's various native 2D accelerations (UXA, SNA) – each with its own unique horrific bugs (artifacts all over the screen, all text turning into junk), all eventually sorta deprecated in favor of glamor (OpenGL) with the generic modesetting driver. There's not much to 2D accelerate with modern applications that all do their own rendering. Compositing acceleration is possible in a vendor-agnostic way via KMS planes and we'll have that in wlroots. > Ever used OS X on those? They are barely usable because of severe lag and stuttering. I have an iBook G4 :) Leopard runs perfectly smoothly. Yeah, the very first generation of hardware when OS X was just introduced wasn't ready. The next one was.
- Conan_Kudo 5y ago
  > There's not much to 2D accelerate with modern applications that all do their own rendering. Compositing acceleration is possible in a vendor-agnostic way via KMS planes and we'll have that in wlroots. It's even more fun when your realize no GPU in the last decade has shipped 2D acceleration capabilities. Wayland uses 3D acceleration because that's what GPUs offer, because that's what the other platforms exclusively offer now.