Framebuffer versus X Window ?

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:29:40AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>   I'll admit to knowing virtually nothing about framebuffer, which is
> why I asking these questions in the first place.
> 
>   1) Can I run everything in framebuffer mode that I can in X?

You can run X using the fbdev driver so X can run on the fb console just
as it runs natively on the video chip right now.  Some applications have
direct support for fb console, so they can run without X similar to how
svgalib used to be used.

>   2) Is it faster/slower?

Slower.  Doing everything as graphics is slower than doing it as text
especially when you have no access to hardware acceleration for almost
everything.  Some fb drivers do have some accaleration from hardware for
scrolling and drawing characters using the current font which make those
quite a bit faster than a plain dumb 'tell me where to draw the dots'
frame buffer.

>   3) Is a true console textmode still available?

Sure, isn't that what you normally use?  You can run plain vga text or
you can run framebuffer.  You can't do both at once (on most video cards
at least).

>   4) Any advantages/disadvantages/gotchas?

Many X drivers that work with the video chip natively won't work
correctly when a framebuffer driver is running the console.  Using the X
fbdev driver does work of course, but is wayyyy slower than a native X
driver for the video card.  On the other hand on a large monitor being
able to have 200 characters wide and 75 or 150 lines is really quite
something when programing.  Of course some people think doing that with
an xterm maximized is a better solution, and perhaps they are right.  I
like a high resolution fb console, but generally the pains it causes for
running X isn't worth it I find.

Lennart Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml