Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: slaapliedjeShouldn't it be the distribution, not the DE developers which determine if Wayland or Xorg will be the default? I understand when Fedora said they were going to use it by default, or Ubuntu, or whatever. But KDE?

Seems odd to me.

All software comes with default configurations, including desktop environments. Distros can change them if they want, but for those that don't Wayland will be the default.

Right, usually the session management is in the sddm or gdm or whichever package. Like the only way I see the KDE project determining that would be if you're installing LFS or something that doesn't change anything from upstream while packaging (like Arch). Most distros split out all the things into different packages, and likely edit them from upstream.

Just seems weird to me. Anyhow, doesn't really matter as long as the sessions are available for each for compatibility (as I've stated elsewhere, I still have some randomly weird issues with Wayland, like Firefox and on-screen keyboards not activating).

I'm still at the stage of switching to Wayland, finding something that isn't working right or irritating me how it works, then flipping back to Xorg. Maybe one day they'll get there... :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Shouldn't it be the distribution, not the DE developers which determine if Wayland or Xorg will be the default? I understand when Fedora said they were going to use it by default, or Ubuntu, or whatever. But KDE?

Seems odd to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's kind of amusing to me that CRTs started off as 50/60hz, then higher end monitors started getting really high refresh rates (like the one I have that'll do 1600x1200 at 85hz). Then when we started with LCDs, we were back to having crappy refresh rates, with the added disadvantage of any non-native resolution looking like trash... Many years later, they're finally getting better.

You're forgetting or ignoring the fact that we mostly wanted higher refresh rates for CRTs to reduce the eye destroying flicker, not to make games run smoother or whatever. Whereas an LCD doesn't really have a flicker problem, even with the old fluorescent backlights.

CRTs didn't either, except when you'd try to do foolish things like interlace. Well, or if you were someone not in the 60hz locations... While there are benefits of PAL, a higher refresh rate is not one of them, and there is definitely flicker to most people at 50hz vs 60hz.

There are definitely benefits and disadvantages to each tech. Older stuff though, was designed for a CRT, so on occasion can look like utter trash on an flat screen. Especially when you're looking at 8-16bit stuff.

speaking of it do you (or anyone) know if old games work fine on OLED ? i know they look like crap on CRT, but oled work different so it might look less crapy? i wonder if its harder to make shaders/filters to simulate an CRT on an OLED screen than on an LCD one.

The thing is that those old games where created with the notion that the display was fuzzy and not sharp and detailed as they are now and an OLED is just as sharp and detailed as any LCD. What OLED brings to the table is CRT like (and in some cases like my monitor, better) handling of black and increased color+brightness capabilities.

Also one have to remember that back when we played those 8-bit and 16-bit games a 14" monitor was the default and the viewing distance was the same as it is with our modern 45" monitors so the size difference alone shows imperfections that were not detectable back then.

That said, I find C64 games using VICE looking quite good actually both on my OLED and on my old LCD.

Interestingly, I currently have my A4000 connected to an LCD monitor (via a zz9000, which has an HDMI output, but a pass through for native resolutions), plus a Commodore 1084 monitor (CRT). Watching a demo, I could see a square blue area around the main part of the demo running on the LCD screen, whereas on the CRT, it was very dark and you couldn't see it, making it look much better.

A lot of the old pixel art and such, just looks better with scanlines, which is why most emulators try their damnedest to recreate such things with shaders, etc. Ha, in a lot of ways, the computations to do just the shaders are more powerful than what it the original platforms were...

For the record, my Atari Jaguar does actually look quite amazing on my 77" OLED through an OSSC...

Yes the graphics (just as it is today ofc) was created with the display used at the time so scanlines and other imperfections where used to enhance the image where the GPU of the time couldn't provide the color or resolution needed/wanted. Btw which demo was it on the A4000? I would like to see the blue rectangle to try and make out what it was.

Ha, you would ask me that... Twisted Dreams? I was clicking on some random ones, as I was having some issues with a hard lock when I would try and exit the whdload.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ha, I decided to go back and try and figure out which graphics card you have in your build. As I was reading your first article I noticed your comment about nvidia. I actually remember nvidia originally had the nvidia-glx, which is what utah-glx started being based upon... it is also why nvidia has historically had better opengl support over anyone else (with maybe the exception of SGI, back in the day. By 2000, nvidia support was part of utah-glx.

I still find it amazing that Mesa started on the Amiga.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraPlus to get back to context, even if that would be true it would be nothing compared with the fuzziness that existed even on the really high end CRT:s (and I used seriously high end CRT:s at work back before LCD:s took over) due to their analogue nature (#1 the signal was analogue and #2 the ray painting the image can not hit the exact same spot with infinite precision). Combine that with the low resolution of 8-bit monitors of 320x200 / 320x160 depending on PAL/NTSC fed over analogue composite.

With CRTs / Analog signals, a LOT of the clarity was based on the video card you had. I would only ever use Matrox cards for this very reason, up until they gave up and stopped really providing anything for the consumer. I still haven't been happy with video drivers of nvidia or amd since... But the crispness of a Matrox cart at 1600x1200 or even higher is just still something epic that I like using again!

Back in the day, one of my Matrox cards bit the dust, and I needed an RMA, a friend of mine lent me his TNT2, holy crap the ghosting on the screen from that made me want to chuck my whole rig into the trash...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's kind of amusing to me that CRTs started off as 50/60hz, then higher end monitors started getting really high refresh rates (like the one I have that'll do 1600x1200 at 85hz). Then when we started with LCDs, we were back to having crappy refresh rates, with the added disadvantage of any non-native resolution looking like trash... Many years later, they're finally getting better.

You're forgetting or ignoring the fact that we mostly wanted higher refresh rates for CRTs to reduce the eye destroying flicker, not to make games run smoother or whatever. Whereas an LCD doesn't really have a flicker problem, even with the old fluorescent backlights.

CRTs didn't either, except when you'd try to do foolish things like interlace. Well, or if you were someone not in the 60hz locations... While there are benefits of PAL, a higher refresh rate is not one of them, and there is definitely flicker to most people at 50hz vs 60hz.

There are definitely benefits and disadvantages to each tech. Older stuff though, was designed for a CRT, so on occasion can look like utter trash on an flat screen. Especially when you're looking at 8-16bit stuff.

speaking of it do you (or anyone) know if old games work fine on OLED ? i know they look like crap on CRT, but oled work different so it might look less crapy? i wonder if its harder to make shaders/filters to simulate an CRT on an OLED screen than on an LCD one.

The thing is that those old games where created with the notion that the display was fuzzy and not sharp and detailed as they are now and an OLED is just as sharp and detailed as any LCD. What OLED brings to the table is CRT like (and in some cases like my monitor, better) handling of black and increased color+brightness capabilities.

Also one have to remember that back when we played those 8-bit and 16-bit games a 14" monitor was the default and the viewing distance was the same as it is with our modern 45" monitors so the size difference alone shows imperfections that were not detectable back then.

That said, I find C64 games using VICE looking quite good actually both on my OLED and on my old LCD.

Interestingly, I currently have my A4000 connected to an LCD monitor (via a zz9000, which has an HDMI output, but a pass through for native resolutions), plus a Commodore 1084 monitor (CRT). Watching a demo, I could see a square blue area around the main part of the demo running on the LCD screen, whereas on the CRT, it was very dark and you couldn't see it, making it look much better.

A lot of the old pixel art and such, just looks better with scanlines, which is why most emulators try their damnedest to recreate such things with shaders, etc. Ha, in a lot of ways, the computations to do just the shaders are more powerful than what it the original platforms were...

For the record, my Atari Jaguar does actually look quite amazing on my 77" OLED through an OSSC...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's kind of amusing to me that CRTs started off as 50/60hz, then higher end monitors started getting really high refresh rates (like the one I have that'll do 1600x1200 at 85hz). Then when we started with LCDs, we were back to having crappy refresh rates, with the added disadvantage of any non-native resolution looking like trash... Many years later, they're finally getting better.

You're forgetting or ignoring the fact that we mostly wanted higher refresh rates for CRTs to reduce the eye destroying flicker, not to make games run smoother or whatever. Whereas an LCD doesn't really have a flicker problem, even with the old fluorescent backlights.

CRTs didn't either, except when you'd try to do foolish things like interlace. Well, or if you were someone not in the 60hz locations... While there are benefits of PAL, a higher refresh rate is not one of them, and there is definitely flicker to most people at 50hz vs 60hz.

There are definitely benefits and disadvantages to each tech. Older stuff though, was designed for a CRT, so on occasion can look like utter trash on an flat screen. Especially when you're looking at 8-16bit stuff.

speaking of it do you (or anyone) know if old games work fine on OLED ? i know they look like crap on CRT, but oled work different so it might look less crapy? i wonder if its harder to make shaders/filters to simulate an CRT on an OLED screen than on an LCD one.

Apparently the MiSTer now has some HDR support for doing cool things to bring back that CRT look (scanlines and such). I haven't tested mine out on my OLED TV yet though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14I don't get the whiny attitude when a new version comes out. Isn't it for people who haven't bought one yet?

My whine is fully tongue in cheek. Watching the Gamer's Nexus tear down of the new one vs the old one... there are many more changes than just 'we added OLED'. The screen is slightly bigger, the cooling is better, the layout requires less components (so less heat / power?), controllers should be easier to repair, same with touch pads, and even the screen replacement should be easier.

It's more repairable, basically, on top of the upgrades to hardware. One thing I noticed though, it looks like the Wifi Module is now on the motherboard, rather than being replaceable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's kind of amusing to me that CRTs started off as 50/60hz, then higher end monitors started getting really high refresh rates (like the one I have that'll do 1600x1200 at 85hz). Then when we started with LCDs, we were back to having crappy refresh rates, with the added disadvantage of any non-native resolution looking like trash... Many years later, they're finally getting better.

You're forgetting or ignoring the fact that we mostly wanted higher refresh rates for CRTs to reduce the eye destroying flicker, not to make games run smoother or whatever. Whereas an LCD doesn't really have a flicker problem, even with the old fluorescent backlights.

CRTs didn't either, except when you'd try to do foolish things like interlace. Well, or if you were someone not in the 60hz locations... While there are benefits of PAL, a higher refresh rate is not one of them, and there is definitely flicker to most people at 50hz vs 60hz.

There are definitely benefits and disadvantages to each tech. Older stuff though, was designed for a CRT, so on occasion can look like utter trash on an flat screen. Especially when you're looking at 8-16bit stuff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: BlackBloodRumThe cube!

I hope it will also have wobbly windows and things, haha. I miss that old stuff!

Wobbly windows weren't dropped from Plasma 5, so they were there all along. Some effects like desktop cube were removed and are returning only now (they needed to switch to different design with QML and etc.).

It used to be the one thing I missed in Gnome Shell, but found an extension to add it back in there too! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments