What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

Post by Pierre Fiche » Fri, 05 Apr 1996 04:00:00




> XFree is free. Metro-X isn't. What does Metro have that XFree doesn't?

        Metro should support some cards not supported by XFree (such as Matrox)

--
 ._______________________.______________________________________________.
+-----------------------'----------------------------------------------'|
| Pierre FICHEUX       |        tel   : +33 57 97 80 00                ||
| Lectra Systemes      |        fax   : +33 57 97 82 32                ||

| 33610 CESTAS, FRANCE | WWW:    http://www.alienor.fr/~pierre         ||  
`----------------------^-----------------------------------------------'
  Linux  lInux  liNux  linUx  linuX  Linux  lInux  liNux  linUx  linuX
L'ennui naquit un jour de l'universite

 
 
 

What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

Post by Ramana Juvva » Fri, 05 Apr 1996 04:00:00


Quote:> XFree is free. Metro-X isn't. What does Metro have that XFree doesn't?

I ordered redhat linux recently which comes with metro-X. The only reason
I decided to go with a commercial X server is because XFree doesn't
support packed pixel format ( reprsenting RGB values in 24 bits as opposed
to 32). With my 4M VRAM packed pixel format would allow me to run
1280x1024 at 24-bit (16M colors).

Anyway, I was disappointed to find that metro-X also doesn't support
packed pixel format.  On the positive side, metro-X was a lot easier to
install. I tried installing XFree before and it was not so easy.
So I decided to order caldera for $99 which comes with Xinside.
I haven't checked the performance of metro-X vs XFree but I never
had too many complaints on the XFree performance. I normally don't run
graphics intensive applications.

Ramana

 
 
 

What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

Post by Thomas Roe » Sun, 07 Apr 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>   Anyway, I was disappointed to find that metro-X also doesn't support
>   packed pixel format.  On the positive side, metro-X was a lot easier to
>   install. I tried installing XFree before and it was not so easy.
>   So I decided to order caldera for $99 which comes with Xinside.
>   I haven't checked the performance of metro-X vs XFree but I never
>   had too many complaints on the XFree performance. I normally don't run
>   graphics intensive applications.

Would be intresting to hear/see a comparison done by an enduser. I
have done obviousely some benchmarking, but it looks bad if you put
competitors down. It would be also very intresting to hear about which
configuration is easier to use.

- Thomas

--
Denver Office                THOMAS ROELL        /\      Das Reh springt hoch,
+1(303)298-7478              X INSIDE INC       /  \/\   das Reh springt weit,
1801 Broadway, Suite 1710                      /    \ \/\     was soll es tun,

 
 
 

What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

Post by Eric Gree » Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:00:00




> >   install. I tried installing XFree before and it was not so easy.
> >   So I decided to order caldera for $99 which comes with Xinside.
> >   I haven't checked the performance of metro-X vs XFree but I never
> >   had too many complaints on the XFree performance. I normally don't run
> Would be intresting to hear/see a comparison done by an enduser. I
> have done obviousely some benchmarking, but it looks bad if you put
> competitors down. It would be also very intresting to hear about which
> configuration is easier to use.

Unfortunately, I haven't managed to get Xinside to work right (got it
w/Caldera). I have a "new" Mach-64 card. The new beta XFree server works
perfectly with it (the old one didn't, obviously). The Accelerated X
server left dribbles all over the place -- it apparently was not sending
proper screen refresh messages to applications, and the windows weren't
being redrawn correctly. Or perhaps it was doing fancy accelleration
tricks (doing its own caching of obscured portions of windows), but the
fancy tricks were failing with the new chipset... doesn't matter. It
didn't work.

Didn't work with an STB Horizon 64 either, alas. But I'll try the new
beta stuff I got off the X-Inside FTP site today, and see if that makes
the Falcon-64 chipset work correctly. The version that came w/Caldera
says it works, but doesn't. (XFree-86 doesn't work w/that chipset, &
doesn't claim to. Don't know about Metro-X, I'll try that out when I get
my Red Hat at home).

  -- Eric

 
 
 

What makes Metro-X any better than XFree86?

Post by Thomas Roe » Thu, 11 Apr 1996 04:00:00


Quote:>   perfectly with it (the old one didn't, obviously). The Accelerated X
>   server left dribbles all over the place -- it apparently was not sending
>   proper screen refresh messages to applications, and the windows weren't
>   being redrawn correctly. Or perhaps it was doing fancy accelleration
>   tricks (doing its own caching of obscured portions of windows), but the
>   fancy tricks were failing with the new chipset... doesn't matter. It
>   didn't work.

Huch. Which ATI card ? What specifc chip is one there ?

Quote:>   Didn't work with an STB Horizon 64 either, alas. But I'll try the new
>   beta stuff I got off the X-Inside FTP site today, and see if that makes
>   the Falcon-64 chipset work correctly. The version that came w/Caldera
>   says it works, but doesn't.

You have a 1MB Horizon 64 ? Then there is a fix available. STB
configures the 1MB card internally as a 2MB card, which then causes
some odd effects.

- Thomas

--
Denver Office                THOMAS ROELL        /\      Das Reh springt hoch,
+1(303)298-7478              X INSIDE INC       /  \/\   das Reh springt weit,
1801 Broadway, Suite 1710                      /    \ \/\     was soll es tun,

--
Denver Office                THOMAS ROELL        /\      Das Reh springt hoch,
+1(303)298-7478              X INSIDE INC       /  \/\   das Reh springt weit,
1801 Broadway, Suite 1710                      /    \ \/\     was soll es tun,