h.aling at home.nl
Tue Feb 12 15:13:06 UTC 2008
<47B04BF0.9040208 at crosslink.net> <fopj2t$d36$1 at ger.gmane.org>
<47B19D89.2070709 at ubuntu.com> <749ebd440802120659j1a8f2df9n32c564c5b2ce976 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e4db8728c74aafc36b8285db56a18905 at localhost>
X-Sender: h.aling at home.nl
Received: from madcap.xs4all.nl [22.214.171.124] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Tue, 12
Feb 2008 16:13:06 +0100
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-svn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:56 +0100, Vincent <imnotb at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've elaborated on the signigicant advantages of g-s-s before, and I
> they far outweight a marginal case as this. Realistically, how many
> have xfwm4 compositing enabled? It's not like it's that much lighter than
> Compiz, while it's far less feature rich. It might be more stable but
> people enabling compositing are willing to compromise stability for
Everyone I know that uses Xfce/Xubuntu has the compositor enabled. But then
again, they all have fast, modern computers.
As soon as a novice Xfce user will discover the window shading option, the
user will turn it on because it is way more visually appealing and gives a
nice and helpful (fake) 3D representation of your stacked windows.
Comparing Compiz' hardware rendering vs. Xfwm4' software rendering is a bit
More information about the xubuntu-devel