[Kst] What do view objects really need?

[Barth Netterfield]

On July 19, 2004 10:50 pm, George Staikos wrote:
> As far as the pixmap goes, what do view objects really need?  I just
> committed a change that makes them 16bpp, and I was even considering going
> as low as 8bpp.  Does this make sense?  Are we even making use of this much
> colour space in each individual view object?  I think we can survive with
> 8bpp in most cases, especially once labels are turned into proper view
> objects.  Then I would consider making the depth of the buffer a parameter
> to the backbuffer class (labels will want something more than 8bpp to have
> cleaner antialiasing I think).

I'm guessing 8bpp is OK as long as we don't end up with color map swapping 
when we enter and leave the window (ancient effect on old low memory 8bpp X 
displays), esp if it speeds things up.

> Also, Barth, does the MemoryOptim make a difference for you on the machine
> that experiences pixmap pressure?  

Don't know.  It may have been an ATI bug; since I moved from ATI's binary to 
the OSS driver, all has been well.  I can try again with the ATI driver.

> Trying to reduce the pixmaps was the 
> best that Jim Gettys could come up with when we talked about it for a few
> minutes. He doesn't think hoping for client side rendering to help is very
> realistic (or ideal).  If MemoryOptim doesn't help, I'd like to convert it
> to something more buffered.

Or we can warn against ATI's driver and get on with our lives (?).

cbn