On Thursday 19 September 2013 13:20:01 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Aleksey Midenkov midenok@gmail.com
wrote:
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.
Cheers Martin