> Jim Gettys recommends using "the shared memory extension for X, if you want
> a fast path to the frame buffer, and still run X."  As for what to write
> into the buffer, we use GAPI on the PocketPC, which is a framebuffer.  Why
> not compare the GAPI code for the PocketPC port to the fbdev code for iPAQ
> linux?
> 

It's still not that fast.  You have to copy to the shared memory, and
then copy onto the display.  In fact, in Linux, it's even the loop-back
approach isn't tooo bad, and in fact it's very hard to measure a
performance differenc in Squeak using XSHM vs. not using XSHM.  And both
are a good bit slower than Squeak on MS Windows on the same hardware.

Besides speed, X takes tons of memory, still -- you'd like to avoid it
in some cases.

And besides both of those, X is complicated and thus more error prone. 
X is pretty stable, but do you really want to bet on it if you don't
have to?

Overall, if you just want Squeak, then X is an aweful lot of bloat
compared to a frame-buffer interface.


-Lex



-Lex