On Thursday 19 September 2013 13:20:01 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Aleksey Midenkov <midenok@...>
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Timothy Pearson
> >> No, the programmers were/are not worse, but the project goals apparently
> >> changed. Simply compare the size of the Qt3 vs Qt4 library for an
> >> example
> >> of this! Qt4 decided that they wanted to be a compositor instead of
> >> passing compositing off to the native display server, and most of the
> >> performance problems and drawing limitations stem from this decision.
> > Hmm, interesting news. Ok, that's a good reason to stay with Qt3. I
> > don't like how Qt4 performs either.
> Hmm, I've just read of a little bit opposite. On Xorg Qt4 uses XRender
> for composing by default.
That's for rendering, not for "compositing" as Tim talked about. It's a
different can of worms.
> This is done on server side and this engine
> is very slow. If to switch Qt4 to raster engine, then performance goes
> to normal.
And that's why raster engine is the default since 4.8 and xrender is no longer
present in 5.x. None of these improvements is present in Qt 3 btw, as Qt 3
only supports the slow XRender implementation.