Ixthusdan Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 After playing with several different distributions and learning neat new things about linux, I have a general observation/discussion to offer. I have had nvidia video cards forever. And in linux, I always do the x thing with kde or gnome (eye candy) and load the nvidia drivers. Is it my imagination, or does redhat have better video than mandrake? I have had three distros all running kde with a similar desktop, and redhat seems to have better vibrance and smoothness in its colors. If it is so, and not my imagination, how can this be? For video, I rate gentoo second, and mandrake and arch come in third!!! :shock: None of them are bad, but I half hope I am making this all up in my mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 i've never noticed a difference in gnome (between MDK, Arch and Gentoo). so...i think you're just out of your mind! or it has something to do with your monitor and how different distros set it up (?) no clue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted July 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 I'll try to explain, before I conceed to being mindless!! Gnome's graphics have a "smooth" look compared to kde. In fact, gnome graphics remind me of the mac at work. Kde, on the other hand, does not have the smooth look, but does have a better "presence" in the color. Redhat & kde does both! :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnr Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 default configuration differences perhaps? Can you get closer to the settings you like in Red Hat using xgamma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 I don't think you're crazy...we both are :P Actually I only used kde in RH9 maybe twice, but currently run gnome2.3.3 and I think it looks better than ML9.1...and that goes for RH9's gnome2.2 as well. The colors are more vibrant. Could be a digital vibrance hack on XFree86 by RH9 when a capable card like nvidia is detected. Could easily be done, but doesn't sound like RH does it. I'm imagining with ya :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted July 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 To be fair, I use the identical settings in both for a comparison. Of course, I have to reboot, but the fact that I like mandrake better should sway me the other way. I set my gamma rgamma>1.1, bgamma>1.1, ggamma>1.0, in all distros. (After I figured them out!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 I'm with Ixthusdan & bvc, RH9 does have a better look to it. I know what your saying but can't explain. I think I moved back to libranet 2.8 on my main system though. I would rate it second compared to your list. I've also found that my FPS in RH9 with the latest RH kernel and Libranet with 2.4.21 that I just finish compiling to be faster than the rest, even Gentoo. Why, I have know idea? I just know what I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 Here's an example on my Libranet box. justin@morpheus:~$ glxgears 14377 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2875.400 FPS 20895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4179.000 FPS 21630 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4326.000 FPS 20440 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4088.000 FPS 17459 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3491.800 FPS 16580 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3316.000 FPS 20032 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4006.400 FPS 19718 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3943.600 FPS 79298 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15859.600 FPS 92214 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18442.800 FPS 91756 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18351.200 FPS 92081 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18416.200 FPS 92351 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18470.200 FPS 92426 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18485.200 FPS 90038 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18007.600 FPS X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown). justin@morpheus:~$ uname -a Linux morpheus 2.4.21 #2 Wed Jul 9 00:34:35 CDT 2003 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux On the rest of the distro's I've tried, (except RH's latest kernel patch) they have stayed below 5000. Once Lib gets warmed up, it stays around 18000! I don't know why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnr Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 18,000 frames per second? OK, saying for a minute that I take that to be correct (note that I didn't say "true" - not claiming you're fibbing), what's the difference between 4,000 fps and 18,000 fps (well, besides 14,000 fps)? I mean, movies only need less than 24 fps to fool us into thinking they're full motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 18,000 frames per second? OK, saying for a minute that I take that to be correct (note that I didn't say "true" - not claiming you're fibbing), what's the difference between 4,000 fps and 18,000 fps (well, besides 14,000 fps)? I mean, movies only need less than 24 fps to fool us into thinking they're full motion. Um, Ok I really don't see a reason for me to make that up, do you? I didn't spend the night A + B x C / D - E = Y = FPS To feel good about my self. :banghead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted July 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 Well, even if it is not a "visible" difference, the fact that it is there tells me the video is factually working better. I am a sign maker and designer by trade, and I worlk with color and texture all the time. I just wonder if there is a difference, what it would be that would cause it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 Actually to be reasonable, I didn't take. 91756 / 5.0 seconds = 18351.200 FPS 92081 / 5.0 seconds = 18416.200 FPS 92351 / 5.0 seconds = 18470.200 FPS That would be the way it's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 WTH video card plays glxgears at 18000FPS?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 GForce 4 ti4200 128 MB I don't know why, like I said I only see it in Libranet and RH's latest kernel. Acutally I think I had slackware running some were close to that too.?? I have know Idea, I ran just plain glxgears in kde/gnome/ice with the same results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSe Posted July 9, 2003 Report Share Posted July 9, 2003 hmm.... the drivers are identical, the kernel is similar and as for Gnome... well, gnome is gnome, right? So how could it be different? Unless RH's default them is just better... I use fluxbox, looks great on anything, anywhere :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.