Linux-SWAT
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,188
So maybe another chip should be used ?
VNC is actually pretty good now adays. I'd say it's as good as some commercial products like LogMeIn (LMI used to be way faster back in 2008ish timeframe) but either VNC has improved or net connections have improved enough to make it similar. It's not as good as X2Go (when that works well) or RDP, but there's little that's as good as those two IMHO.Did you notice those crazy flying leads apparently running from the CPU board connector to somewhere near the 3G chips?
Also, is VNC any good for video over the internet these days? Last time I used it, even on the local network, FMV came out more like a slideshow.
I guess that's enough for checking for tearing most of the time mind you.
Ah ok thats the point. Now it makes senseThe display is a portrait one, because pretty much all displays are.
The rotator is needed so that you don't need to hold the Pyra sideways.
We do. AFAIK it wasn't clear that it'd be a realistic option back when the rotation chip was selected.No, I think the real question is if we actually have a viable driver for the Vivante GPU...
Thats great for applications that use the Frame-buffer directly so you only have to swap x and y to get rotation for them.I seem to recall that the rotator chip can be disabled and the LCD driven directly, and that it did not cost very much (like $5? I can't find a source on this so might be misremembering) so if a "better" solution presents itself there isn't really a major loss to having it.
"Compression Artifacts"? WTF never heared of that issue. Me don't want! If the rotator chip really have these disadvantages like tearing/artifacts at he end, then we may better drive with standard solutions. I can't imagine that basicly only switching X and Y really cost so much effort to rotate a screen nowadays.And there could be software complications getting it to work transparently. But it also doesn't add the compression artifacts that the rotation chip adds at full resolution. And I don't think the chip has yet been configured to work w/o tearing yet.
This was a known thing when this was first discussed... This thread I linked below has the reasons why ED and Nikolaus went with a rotator chip, also somewhere buried in that thread I recall ED sharing actual image diffs of source and post compression images."Compression Artifacts"? WTF never heared of that issue. Me don't want! If the rotator chip really have these disadvantages like tearing/artifacts at he end, then we may better drive with standard solutions. I can't imagine that basicly only switching X and Y really cost so much effort to rotate a screen nowadays.And there could be software complications getting it to work transparently. But it also doesn't add the compression artifacts that the rotation chip adds at full resolution. And I don't think the chip has yet been configured to work w/o tearing yet.