On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 07:47:29PM +0100, Wouter Coene wrote:
> According to James Mastros ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > (I say X and not SDL because X is probably more popular, and better
> > defined. And hell, that way speed would be closer together <G>.)
>
> SDL is more portable, and it separates you from the display method
> implementation, so that if for instance you'd like to use GGI for your
> Plex86 display, you only have to port SDL to get Plex86 to support that.
However, SDL is a very _simple_ directmedia layer. It's basicly not much
more then a dumb framebuffer, as far as I can see. Now, this is perfect at
first. However, it means that we can't take advantage of the acceleration
features of the hw. X has a richer set of primitives. And for systems that
don't use X, we can either scale down the set of primitives avaliable to the
guest's driver, or we can emulate them -- writing line-drawing code in terms
of a framebuffer is dead easy.
-=- James Mastros
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU>CS d->-- s-:- a20 C++ UL+++@ P+++>+++++ L++@ E-() N o? K? w@ M-- !V
PS++ PE Y+ PGP(-) t++@ 5+ X+++ R+ tv+ b+++ DI+ D+ G e>++ h! r- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
