> I do own a mac, and I dual boot linux and OS X on it. It may be that I > don't have enough RAM, but there is a very noticeable difference in > responsiveness - Linux w/ XFree86 is tons faster than OS X. > > Does xfree86 do the cool things os x does like transparency and whatnot? > No. Does all that cool stuff work well in os x? Yes. Aqua itself is no > slower (nor faster) than xfree86, but os x eats so much ram that in my > case (256M, and yes I knew it would be this way) linux is the clear > winner in performance.
Wow. What am I doing wrong? I have an IBM T30 with an ATI Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500], 2.0 GHz CPU, and 1 GB of RAM. My card is not supported by the ATI binary drivers, but I've heard that those drivers aren't that great anyway. My X11 isn't unbearable, but Windows on the same laptop hardware (but with a superior driver) is very responsive. My desktop system has an nVidia card and the speed difference between Windows and Linux (with nvidia's binary driver) is negligible. Do the OSS or proprietary ATI drivers work better with some ATI chipsets than others? Hans, what ATI chipset is in your Mac? What is your FPS when running glxgears (I know it is a bad benchmark, but my FPS is rediculous). Thanks, -Bryan .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
