Message: previous - next
Month: April 2012

Re: [trinity-devel] Artwork status?

From: Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@...>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:25:05 -0400
On 7 April 2012 18:58, Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...> wrote:
>> I suspect my main system would be able to handle it (I
>> upgraded it last year to a quad-core Phenom II), but I wouldn't try it on a PIII.  Anyway,
>> my hope is that I'll be able to render static PNGs from aurora and one or two others at 1600x900,
>> which will be a start on providing widescreen wallpaper.
> I mentioned the PIII because I think that should be our lowest standard. That is, if a wallpaper image won't display quickly and snappily on a PIII then we don't include the image as wallpaper. We don't need poor PR reports from people who can't load any wallpapers we provide. People running dual and quad cores might or might not notice any lagging, but people running a PIII sure will. Because one of the reasons people provide for wanting to run classic desktop environments as opposed to newer desktops is to keep using older hardware, then we should keep that reason in mind.
> As I mentioned, the celtic.svgz kills my dual core system. Granted, I'm using the on-board Nvidia graphics and not a stand alone video card, but wallpaper should not bring a system to its proverbial knees. :)
> Darrell

No I disagree on this point.

If we build our software to be bottlenecked by the most inferior
system, we won't get a good product. Instead we need software that
works for all systems.

That means we should have SVGs and JPGs.

A good solution would be to disable SVGs on low end systems (like we
do for other extra's) instead of removing them altogether.