This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: server X


The problem is DirectX versions don't get updated on NT with the same
alacrity that they do on 9x.  I think the currently supported(?) version
is DirectX 3 on NT.  Here is one place where capabilities in 9x outstrip
those in NT!  So a DirectX approach will not allow an XFree86 "port" to 
address the need of both 9x and NT users at this time...

Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                          (781) 239-1655 - FAX
Wellesley, MA  02482-7797               http://www.rfk.com

At 10:48 PM 9/22/98 -0700, GoatCheez wrote:
>    In the most recent version of DirectX (6), another version of DirectDraw
>was implemented(4). This version allows the locking and unlocking of a video
>surface without the rest of the windows system to stop... in other words,
>accessing the cideo memory directly isn't as scary as it previously was.
>Before, when someone would lock the video memory, the entire cpu would give
>access to only that program running, which made all other applications cease
>untill the surface was unlocked. It was done for backwards compatablility or
>something, but in DirectX6 there's an option to allow the system to respond
>normally. The old system would also not allow debugging because the debugger
>wouldn't be running then the surface was locked. A DirectX  X server would
>be a good idea. The only thing needed is some DirectX programmers that are
>willing to port the XFree86 code... I know a little DirectDraw and would be
>willing to help, but we would need a lot more.
>
>GoatCheez
>gcheez@tampabay.rr.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@sigma6.com>
>To: David Fox <dsfox@cogsci.ucsd.edu>
>Cc: <gnu-win32@cygnus.com>
>Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 7:30 PM
>Subject: Re: server X
>
>
>>David Fox wrote:
>>> Sergey Okhapkin <sos@prospect.com.ru> writes:
>>> > Porting _Xfree86_ to win32 is a bad idea, because Xfree86 requires
>direct
>>> > video hardware access.
>>>
>>> Could you expand on this further?  Why is direct video hardware access
>>> more of a problem under windows than it is under Unix?
>>
>>(A small clarification to Sergey's post: XFree86 is designed for video
>>framebuffer access.  It need not access video registers directly.
>>Recent work in Linux for example has moved video drivers out of X and
>>into the kernel; X opens the display via the /dev/fb device.)
>>
>>The big difference is that under Unix, the X server controls the entire
>>display.  Under Win32 however, X has to cooperate with the native window
>>subsystem.  I think that precludes an X server from accessing video
>>memory from Win32 (does anyone know otherwise?).  It may be able to
>>write to backing store... I'm not sure if this is better (easier or more
>>efficient, that is) than just translating X drawing requests into GDI
>>requests.
>>
>>If it turns out that the "virtual framebuffer" technique is feasible,
>>I'd contend that the XFree86 source is a better starting point than
>>TOG's X11R6.4, since they have cleaned up and fixed a lot of the cfb
>>code.
>>
>>--
>>Jeff Sturm
>>jsturm@sigma6.com
>>-
>>For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
>>"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".
>
>-
>For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
>"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".
>
>
Larry
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]