4 ms·

That's a great approach. Not sure on the current state of Alacritty, but a few years back the suggested solution for users interested in battery performance wa

by imron 2y ago

That's a great approach. Not sure on the current state of Alacritty, but a few years back the suggested solution for users interested in battery performance was to switch to a different terminal emulator: https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/3473#issuecomment-602140675 https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/3473#issuecomm...

indemnity 2y ago
This is the Alacritty answer to a lot of queries. I took the advice, eventually.
- imron 2y ago
  Yep. That comment was when I stopped using Alacritty.
diggan 2y ago
I, a person who don't care about battery performance one iota (because my computer has no battery), love this answer and approach. Not every software is for everyone, and authors drawing a line in the sand like that works out better for everyone in the long-term, instead of software that kind of works OK for everything.
- mitchellh 2y ago
  In some cases yes. In this case, in my opinion it can be strictly wrong. The GPU requirements of a terminal are _minuscule_ even under heavy load. We're not building AAA games here, we're building a thing that draws a text grid. There is no integrated GPU on the planet that wouldn't be able to keep a terminal going at an associated monitor's refresh rate. From a technical standpoint, there is zero downside whatsoever to always using the integrated GPU (the stance Ghostty takes) and plenty of upside.
- imron 2y ago
  More than happy for software authors to draw a line in the sand - I’ve done that myself too. I just find myself on the other side of the line for Alacritty.
- Fnoord 2y ago
  Because _my_ computer has no battery. There is a plethora of computers out there with batteries who can run Linux, Windows, and macOS. These computers can, on paper, run Alacritty. Cherry on top is me being a former user of a MBP 2010 who'd crash when using discrete GPU (it was _the_ reason Apple went with AMD later on). And some apps insisted on using it, even when I disabled it. I like Rust applications but I don't like this response. The dev sounds worn out; whereas the dev of Ghostty seems to be a pleasure to deal with.

by imron 2y ago

indemnity 2y ago

This is the Alacritty answer to a lot of queries. I took the advice, eventually.

imron 2y ago
Yep. That comment was when I stopped using Alacritty.

diggan 2y ago

I, a person who don't care about battery performance one iota (because my computer has no battery), love this answer and approach. Not every software is for everyone, and authors drawing a line in the sand like that works out better for everyone in the long-term, instead of software that kind of works OK for everything.

mitchellh 2y ago
In some cases yes. In this case, in my opinion it can be strictly wrong. The GPU requirements of a terminal are _minuscule_ even under heavy load. We're not building AAA games here, we're building a thing that draws a text grid. There is no integrated GPU on the planet that wouldn't be able to keep a terminal going at an associated monitor's refresh rate. From a technical standpoint, there is zero downside whatsoever to always using the integrated GPU (the stance Ghostty takes) and plenty of upside.
imron 2y ago
More than happy for software authors to draw a line in the sand - I’ve done that myself too. I just find myself on the other side of the line for Alacritty.
Fnoord 2y ago
Because _my_ computer has no battery. There is a plethora of computers out there with batteries who can run Linux, Windows, and macOS. These computers can, on paper, run Alacritty. Cherry on top is me being a former user of a MBP 2010 who'd crash when using discrete GPU (it was _the_ reason Apple went with AMD later on). And some apps insisted on using it, even when I disabled it. I like Rust applications but I don't like this response. The dev sounds worn out; whereas the dev of Ghostty seems to be a pleasure to deal with.