Tiny Core Base > TCB Talk

xvesa vs xfbdev

<< < (3/4) > >>

tinypoodle:
What application?
Does it depend on X or not??

Marco Trapanese:
This one:

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.2/widgets-analogclock.html

if I compile with Qt/X11 I need to start it from X server (otherwise it doesn't run).
if I compile with Qt/Embedded I need to start it from the prompt (otherwise it doesn't run).

I had to change permission on /dev/fb0 to allow my application write in the fb.

SvOlli:

--- Quote from: Marco Trapanese on August 26, 2010, 04:13:37 PM ---do you recommend to run embedded graphical applications (on boards like beagle board or Atom-based) with the framebuffer or with an X server?

--- End quote ---
Beagle Board is out of the question, since it's ARM based and does not run TinyCore.

On any x86-based Hardware, here's the way I go for best performance: first I try Xorg-7.5, if that does not work, I'll got for Xvesa. Xorg has support for 2D (and even 3D) acceleration on the 945 on-chip graphics of the first Atom generation (230, 330, N270). Can't tell about the current ones, since I couldn't get my hands on one until now. Xfbdev only is an option when boot time is more important that graphics performance, Xfbdev starts about 2 seconds faster than Xvesa.

SvOlli:

--- Quote from: Marco Trapanese on August 26, 2010, 04:46:05 PM ---if I compile with Qt/X11 I need to start it from X server (otherwise it doesn't run).
if I compile with Qt/Embedded I need to start it from the prompt (otherwise it doesn't run).

--- End quote ---
It depends on what application you want to run: if it's really just one application with low graphics output, the Qt/Embedded will also work, but you'll need to compile Qt for TinyCore yourself and can't use the libs from the AppBrowser.

I've hacked together a box running the audio player "Partyman" on a mini-itx N270 board. During this I was faced with the same question: should I use Qt/Embedded with framebuffer, or Qt/X11? My choice was going the X11 way. It saved me a lot of unnecessary work.

Qt/Embedded with framebuffer is very interesting if you've got hardware that's limited in space, both ram and/or mass-storage (usually flash in that context), but I've you're using an itx-board, you've got at least 256MB up to a range of 2GB of RAM and boot from an old HD or a CF card. These come with storage capacity where the space for Xorg really doesn't matter.

Concentrate on your project, not the platform! Get your work done, not the work that's already done.

Marco Trapanese:

--- Quote ---It depends on what application you want to run: if it's really just one application with low graphics output, the Qt/Embedded will also work, but you'll need to compile Qt for TinyCore yourself and can't use the libs from the AppBrowser.
--- End quote ---


Why I have to recompile Qt for Tinycore? I've just compiled the Qt Embedded for a generic linux x86 architecture.
Anyway, my applications will have a lot of graphics stuff. Something like this:

http://www.femtotech.it/images/stories/software/app1.png



--- Quote ---Qt/Embedded with framebuffer is very interesting if you've got hardware that's limited in space, both ram and/or mass-storage (usually flash in that context), but I've you're using an itx-board, you've got at least 256MB up to a range of 2GB of RAM and boot from an old HD or a CF card. These come with storage capacity where the space for Xorg really doesn't matter.

--- End quote ---


Yeah, the hardware is not a matter.
I was concerned about the desktop environment. Perhaps I was wrong thinking how heavy is the windows desktop. For this reason I was trying to avoid the server X.

But from your answer I understand it's not a problem, so I will continue tu use Xorg or whatever else and I won't go further to Qt Embedded.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page