[gentoo-user] ggi is low level library (lower then SDL)?
Being dumb again. I really know nothing about graphic libraries. I noticed many packages can be compiled with ggi or sdl USE flag, and libsdl can be compiled with ggi USE flag, but libggi cannot be compiled with sdl USE flag. Then I come to guess, since SDL can use GGI for rendering, GGI should be some lowever level graphic engine. Thus, if an application can be compiled to work with either ggi or sdl, then it should be faster using ggi. I am using ultra-sparc U2 with a very normal video card, what should I choose if an application (game or video player) support both SDL and GGI? And should I compile libsdl with ggi USE flag? -- Real SoftService http://www.realss.com : 0086 592 2086411 Technical Contact: 0086 592 2086411 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] ggi is low level library (lower then SDL)?
Hi, On Wednesday 06 April 2005 10:22, wrote: Being dumb again. I really know nothing about graphic libraries. I noticed many packages can be compiled with ggi or sdl USE flag, and libsdl can be compiled with ggi USE flag, but libggi cannot be compiled with sdl USE flag. Then I come to guess, since SDL can use GGI for rendering, GGI should be some lowever level graphic engine. Thus, if an application can be compiled to work with either ggi or sdl, then it should be faster using ggi. I am using ultra-sparc U2 with a very normal video card, what should I choose if an application (game or video player) support both SDL and GGI? And should I compile libsdl with ggi USE flag? you are comparing apples with peas ;o) ggi is a lowlevel graphics system, to replace X or svgalib. SDL is an abstraction for ogl/X/svgalib/directX and a lot of other stuff. And SDL is A GOOD THING, because sdl-apps are very portable and do not care much, what graphics-subsys is used, as long as it is supported by sdl ;) And what is faster? I do not know, but with SDL you are able to choose the best supported/the fastesd mode that you need at the moment. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] ggi is low level library (lower then SDL)?
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 15:26 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann a crit : ggi is a lowlevel graphics system, to replace X or svgalib. SDL is an abstraction for ogl/X/svgalib/directX and a lot of other stuff. Not quite. GGI is an abstraction as well. You can run ggi apps over X, framebuffer, directX, Aqua, across multiple displays or over the network. It is much more flexible than SDL with respect to universality. But it is only an abstraction for graphics and input. SDL aims more at portable games. So it offers abstractions for network communications, sound, etc... In this regard it is much like a cross-platform directX. SDL can use GGI for its graphics, but has to rely on other interfaces for sound or network. GGI could very well use the graphics part of SDL to do its rendering. They probably just need someone to write the corresponding target... mode imagination on You could for example use an SDL game over X, with the X server using a ggi driver instead of direct hardware (it is called XGGI). GGI in turn could be using its framebuffer target... I am not talking about speed here! mode imagination off Aurlien -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] ggi is low level library (lower then SDL)?
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 16:38, Aurlien Reynaud wrote: Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 15:26 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann a crit : ggi is a lowlevel graphics system, to replace X or svgalib. SDL is an abstraction for ogl/X/svgalib/directX and a lot of other stuff. Not quite. GGI is an abstraction as well. You can run ggi apps over X, framebuffer, directX, Aqua, across multiple displays or over the network. It is much more flexible than SDL with respect to universality. But it is only an abstraction for graphics and input. you are correct, I were not, thank you. I just visited their hp (god was that a long time) and found some interessting stuff, but were do they hide the supported grakas *cough* -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
