I really believe we should go ahead and put this change in and see what the actual impact on some systems is before dismissing it out of hand. If it becomes an efficiency issue we can make it conditional on some machines or make it a default.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009, David Chisnall <thera...@sucs.org> wrote: > Running this in my VM, with remote X11, there is slight lag (as I'd expect > from remote X11) and resizing the splitview makes my CPU usage jump to a > massive 1.9%. > > I realise that this is a massive overhead, and suggest that we consider very > carefully whether it is worth the extra cost. > > David > > On 14 May 2009, at 21:49, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > > > Hmm, > > I prefer not to have them live... it disturbs me. > Besides, 1ghz is slow for a desktop perhaps, but for some netbook it is not. > > --Riccardo > > > > Hi, > > I'm ready to commit this patch, but I wanted to give the heads up > > before... > > This basically remove the reverse splitview bar we draw to instead do > live resizing. > It's reasonably fast, tested on slow-ish machines (~1ghz x86 & ppc), > and makes things much nicer from a UI point of view. > Comments before I submit ? :) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > Gnustep-dev@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > Gnustep-dev@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
