I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a development list. That's why I am
off-topic. :)
On May 25, 2012, at 9:29 AM, sam.spilsb...@canonical.com wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Ryan Gauger wrote:
>
>> It doesn't hurt to try. Transparency in Windows 7 usually makes the computer
>> run slower, but ma
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Ryan Gauger wrote:
It doesn't hurt to try. Transparency in Windows 7 usually makes the computer
run slower, but makes too little of a difference to be noticeable. My guess
would be that this same thing happens in Unity. Even though it may be
unnoticeable if this is the ca
Oh, okay. I miss understood you.
On May 25, 2012, at 8:15 AM, shane lee wrote:
> Yes, it's the options that AREN'T there I was thinking of, that ARE
> there in KDE.
>
> On 25 May 2012 13:07, Ryan Gauger wrote:
>> I won't change topics on this thread, but there are options to configure the
>>
Yes, it's the options that AREN'T there I was thinking of, that ARE
there in KDE.
On 25 May 2012 13:07, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> I won't change topics on this thread, but there are options to configure the
> touchpad in System Settings.
>
> On May 25, 2012, at 3:51 AM, shane lee wrote:
>
>> I see w
I won't change topics on this thread, but there are options to configure the
touchpad in System Settings.
On May 25, 2012, at 3:51 AM, shane lee wrote:
> I see what you mean with the options.
> I switched over to ubuntu proper because I found the KDE options were
> a bit too overwhelming and I
It doesn't hurt to try. Transparency in Windows 7 usually makes the computer
run slower, but makes too little of a difference to be noticeable. My guess
would be that this same thing happens in Unity. Even though it may be
unnoticeable if this is the case, it still matters, because there are peo
I see what you mean with the options.
I switched over to ubuntu proper because I found the KDE options were
a bit too overwhelming and I tinkered far too much just because it was
so easy to, rather than settle for things as they are.
Unfortunately, I am back to mainly using KDE again because unity
On 05/24/2012 03:28 PM, Ryan Gauger wrote:
Hi Team,
I just had an idea that may speed up Unity even further. We could
perhaps make transparency behind the launcher an option, so that if
users choose to disable it, their computer's performance and speed
should run a bit smoother. Just an idea :)
And you can; through CCSM there are many different configuration options.
But these need not be exposed to end users.
On May 24, 2012 10:57 PM, "Ryan Gauger" wrote:
> I see it in this way: I like to be able to change things and personalise
> things to my likings. In other words, I think Linux was
I see it in this way: I like to be able to change things and personalise things
to my likings. In other words, I think Linux was first made to be able to suit
anyone's needs. Linux is JUST what they want, no more, no less. That's the
reason I think more options are needed. I mean, Windows has a
Try changing the blur on her computer to static and see if that makes a
difference.
Options also have an effect on users. It's another decision they have to
make. For new users, each additional option increases the chance that they
will become overwhelmed, and that drives users away. And if the op
I think more of the options included in CCSM should be included by default in
System Settings.
On May 24, 2012, at 11:34 AM, shane lee wrote:
> Well I mean it should be an option by default, not by installing
> another app to change it.
>
> But fair enough, the idea is to keep options to a min
On 24 May 2012 17:05, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> And "ugly options" are still options, adding complexity to the code, and
> thus making it harder for the developers to maintain it. We need as few
> options as possible, not more than we have now.
I vehemently disagree. Options like this, transpare
Well I mean it should be an option by default, not by installing
another app to change it.
But fair enough, the idea is to keep options to a minimum but there
will always be people who prefer performance over looks (though there
is 2D of course but that lacks some functionality).
I find it perfor
You can already set the launcher opacity to 100% through CCSM, although I'm
not sure whether that is equivalent to 'disabling transparency' in terms of
a speed gain.
On 24 May 2012 15:45, shane lee wrote:
> Nothing useful is hidden behind the launcher so that makes
> transparency purely for aest
That's true - it would be easier to run into bugs if we did make it an option.
On May 24, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> Rather than making the transparency an option, we should focus efforts into
> improving the transparency performance such that it has a negligible effect
> on pe
> Nothing useful is hidden behind the launcher so that makes
> transparency purely for aesthetic reasons.
That's not necessarily true. In addition to a pleasing aesthetic, it
provides a clear distinction between System-Level UI and Application-level
UI.
And "ugly options" are still options, addin
Nothing useful is hidden behind the launcher so that makes
transparency purely for aesthetic reasons.
Anything that is there purely from an eye candy point of view such as
transparency, should have an option to disable as far as I'm
concerned.
On 24 May 2012 14:28, Ryan Gauger wrote:
> Hi Team,
Rather than making the transparency an option, we should focus efforts into
improving the transparency performance such that it has a negligible effect
on performance. That makes Unity faster and better looking for everyone,
and reduces code complexity and bug chance.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:28
Hi Team,
I just had an idea that may speed up Unity even further. We could
perhaps make transparency behind the launcher an option, so that if
users choose to disable it, their computer's performance and speed
should run a bit smoother. Just an idea :) Thanks!
--
Mailing list: https://launch
20 matches
Mail list logo
