<div>On 12/02/2008, Harold Aling <<a href="mailto:h.aling@home.nl">h.aling@home.nl</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:56 +0100, Vincent <<a href="mailto:imnotb@gmail.com">imnotb@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > I've elaborated on the signigicant advantages of g-s-s before, and I think > they far outweight a marginal case as this. Realistically, how many people > 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 most > people enabling compositing are willing to compromise stability for > features. > Everyone I know that uses Xfce/Xubuntu has the compositor enabled. But then again, they all have fast, modern computers.</blockquote><div> Really? And they (how many?) know about Compiz, have considered it and decided against it? I didn't expect that, actually. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Comparing Compiz' hardware rendering vs. Xfwm4' software rendering is a bit weird though.</blockquote><div> You mean that turning on xfwm's effects are easier to enable? </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> -H- </blockquote></div> Thanks, -- Vincent