On 03/02/06, Henrik Nilsen Omma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > >Unfortunately, all that eyecandy renders very poorly on low-spec > >graphic cards. There is a good reason why the current Metacity theme > >we have is very spartan: it renders well in a variety of situations, > >including on laptops with a small color palette. > > > That's an interesting point. Could you please elaborate? Which themes > are fine and which are too heavy? Human is OK while clearlooks 2 is too > slow? Are themes with bitmaps in them faster or slower than those with > xml-based blending?
Things like graphic-based window widgets with lots of highlights and shadows render horribly on laptops or other similar low-spec graphic hardware. What works best is having as few colors as possible and keeping those within the so-called Web-friendly palette, as much as possible. A flat theme like Clearlooks work well, because the window frames are one big flat color zone, so a Human variant based on that would be best. Any time that stripes or similar decorations are added (or at least, stripes based on just a slightly different shade of the same color), it hampers rendering on low-spec graphics hardware. Ditto whenever using images for the widgets. If any stripes or decorations are used, then solid colors that fit the Web-friendly paletter or, even better, the old vga16 palette would be the best option, both from a perspective of rendering resource usage and from a perspective of offering a crisp theme that looks great even on low-spec graphics hardware. Here, I currently use Human from ubuntu-artwork 0.2.27-1.1, but this is installed on a pure Debian setup, which I need to build packages that go straight into Debian (and then propagade into Ubuntu via the automated Universe buildd). -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
