From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:24:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:24:29 -0400 Received: from [195.89.159.99] ([195.89.159.99]:13301 "EHLO kushida.degree2.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:24:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:55:56 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Simon Hay Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Multiple monitors Message-ID: <20010907015556.A7329@kushida.degree2.com> In-Reply-To: <20010903214829.B17488@unthought.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from simon@haywired.org on Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 09:11:24PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Simon Hay wrote: > Also, though, on dedicated servers etc. I'd rather not be running X if > I didn't have to. You may find that a full screen xterm, with no window manager, actually runs much faster than the console and looks identical. It is certainly the case on several of my machines. This is most pronounced if X can do hardware acceleration on your video card, although it is true even without acceleration because of xterm's nice jump scroll capability. (Btw, I prefer gnome-terminal because of the Linux-console colour emulation :-). On one 686 class machine, I saw text mode take nearly two seconds to scroll the screen, when all but one line of the screen was being scrolled (so it had to copy everything). This was in pure text mode, not even a framebuffer! In X it was invisibly fast. Also you may get a better refresh rate and higher resolution fonts out of X, which is nice on a big display. -- Jamie