Re: [9fans] rio startup fails in VMWare Fusion 2.0.0

["Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan" <vdharani@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2338 bytes --]

hi charles,
thanks for the details.

via draw.)  this is on a 1.2Ghz core duo on ubuntu 8.04.  it "didn't seem
> too bad"
> (ie, not unusable) but it probably isn't as responsive as under plan 9
> proper

yes, in cases like this, it is usable but the noticeable lag and the
relatively slow updates make me feel uncomfortable, particularly since i try
to use this kind of setup all the time, as opposed to sporadic use. also, i
think the issue becomes more severe for higher bits-per-pixel and higher
screen resolution, say 1920x1200.

btw, i was always happy with the speed at which plan9  updates screen (as
much as i like plan9 graphics interface itself). the screen updates are not
too fast, not too slow. i used to feel too fast screen updates are not good
for good experience (for development at least). i am also happy with the
speed at which inferno draw runs on top of plan9 when plan9 runs natively.
the cases where i see noticeable differences are like
vmware-fusion/parallels, drawterm, remote plan9 terminal over network in
which inferno is started, etc.


> and if you're used to that you probably would notice the difference.
> i can't easily run them side by side for direct comparison.
>
> inferno applications will be drawing via Inferno's /dev/draw, with a screen
> implementation that ships updated rectangles to plan 9's using its 'y' and
> 'v' operations.
> the buffer size is determined by plan 9's iounit.
> inferno (on Plan 9 and thus 9vx) can be set to use plan 9's /dev/draw
> directly, so inferno applications will be bypassing emu's /dev/draw.
> it's a proof-of-concept scheme (ie, too many limitations at the moment
> for real use -- not because of draw but window management). i tried my
> script
> to run charon that way, under 9vx, and it was much, much worse than
> under wm through inferno's own draw, so that's not an immediate fix.
> it was really very bad.



> (by the way, the only significant reason for inferno's current indirection
> on plan 9
> is to ensure the same draw code is used and tested in all implementations.)
>
is this something that was introduced in vita nuova's release? from what i
remember from inferno BU times, i think inferno used plan9's draw directly
since there was (almost?) no difference at that time.

thanks
dharani

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2953 bytes --]