Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-02 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote: > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote: > > > > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos > > > > without png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that. > > > > > >

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-02 Thread Marco Martin
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote: > > > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos without > > > png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that. > > > > to be really portable is enough as is now that assumes argb

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-02 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote: > > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos without > > png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that. > > to be really portable is enough as is now that assumes argb32 images or an > overcomplication like galago? assuming 3

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-02 Thread Marco Martin
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Dario Freddi wrote: > > Hi Marco, > > > > Just my 2 cents here. > > > > If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast, > > I'd go for it for the simple fact that having to > > compress->transmit-

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-01 Thread Rob Scheepmaker
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 11:09:52 Marco Martin wrote: > On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Rob Scheepmaker wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote: > > > these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a > > > really gross idea.. > > > i measured the time elase

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-04-01 Thread Marco Martin
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Rob Scheepmaker wrote: > On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote: > > these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a > > really gross idea.. > > i measured the time elased to convert to pass 1000 icons 32x32 argb32 > > I'm interested: c

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-03-31 Thread Rob Scheepmaker
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote: > these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a really > gross idea.. > i measured the time elased to convert to pass 1000 icons 32x32 argb32 I'm interested: could you also run this benchmark for 96x96 icons, which is of

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-03-31 Thread Aaron J. Seigo
On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Dario Freddi wrote: > Hi Marco, > > Just my 2 cents here. > > If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast, > I'd go for it for the simple fact that having to > compress->transmit->decompress could be not so handy and sounds more like a > hack. I

Re: Systemtray benchmarks

2009-03-31 Thread Dario Freddi
Hi Marco, Just my 2 cents here. If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast, I'd go for it for the simple fact that having to compress->transmit->decompress could be not so handy and sounds more like a hack. If I got you right: decompress means back to raw data? If

Systemtray benchmarks

2009-03-31 Thread Marco Martin
these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a really gross idea.. i measured the time elased to convert to pass 1000 icons 32x32 argb32 a) converting to png passing the data over dbus and uncompressing again, 10 runs: 3.442 3.404 3.474 3.262 3.254 3.474 3.354 3.584 3.415 3.