<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from madcap.xs4all.nl [82.93.196.225] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Tue, 12
Feb 2008 16:13:06 +0100
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-svn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:56 +0100, Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've elaborated on the signigicant advantages of g-s-s before, and I
think
> they far outweight a marginal case as this. Realistically, how many
people
> have xfwm4 compositing enabled? It's not like it's that much lighter than
> Compiz, while it's far less feature rich. It might be more stable but
most
> people enabling compositing are willing to compromise stability for
> features.
>
Everyone I know that uses Xfce/Xubuntu has the compositor enabled. But then
again, they all have fast, modern computers.
As soon as a novice Xfce user will discover the window shading option, the
user will turn it on because it is way more visually appealing and gives a
nice and helpful (fake) 3D representation of your stacked windows.
Comparing Compiz' hardware rendering vs. Xfwm4' software rendering is a bit
weird though.
-H-
--
xubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
