Forums > Jitter

Difference between fullscreen and windowed on Jitter/Win XP vs Mac?

January 16, 2007 | 6:17 am

Hello

Max 4.6.2, Jitter 1.6.2b2.

Ive been remotely debugging a multiscreen Jitter patch with a client,
who is running the system on a beefy Alienware Core 2 Duo PC

The PC has 2 video cards, one bad ass Nvidia 7950 with 512Mb ram and
one dinkier monitoring AGP card. The 7950 has a Matrox Triple head to
go attached, while the second card has only one monitor. 4 monitors
in total.

Our patch is designed to run on all three screens from the triplehead
at once. When we run our patch *windowed* across three screens, it
runs at full framerate, about 35/40 fps with slab processing,
jit.gl.sketch calls and texturing across all 3072×768 with quicktime
playback, while the other monitor is left for the interface.

If we run the main output (3072×768 on the Nvidia) with the
‘fullscreen 1′ message to jit.window, our framemrate drops, the
machine is basically unusable until render is halted, we move the
jit.window onto the dinky preview monitor, lower its size, and then
start playback. Back to 40 or so FPS and everything is working.

We can position the window with border 0, and find the pixel
coordinates – but I guess my question is – what is different about
fullscreen 1 on windows with multiple monitors VS OS X? When running
the same patch on a Mac I do not see those issues?

I think we can work around this (we also had multiple monitor slab
issues as reported, and it seems that 1.6.2b2 fixes most of the
issues), but Id like to know.

Is this an OpenGL driver issue, a known Max/Jitter issue, or XP voodoo?

Thanks.

btw : I cannot attach the patch for various reasons – thanks for
understanding.

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


January 16, 2007 | 4:30 pm

On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:17 PM, vade wrote:

>
> We can position the window with border 0, and find the pixel
> coordinates – but I guess my question is – what is different about
> fullscreen 1 on windows with multiple monitors VS OS X? When
> running the same patch on a Mac I do not see those issues?

The main difference between a borderless floating window and a
fullscreen window in XP is that the window is defined as WS_POPUP, so
that it will be placed above start menus and other widgets
(hopefully). I’ve not seen this slow down on my machines, but this
might be related to the windows settings for acceleration used for
compositing windows and your particular HW/Driver setup. I would
actually try turning down that setting in your displays control panel
and see if it makes any difference. This is located in Display
Properties->Settings->Advanced->Troubleshooting. You might also want
to reboot.

Otherwise, using a borderless floating window should work fine as
long as there’s no start menu or other things which are sitting on top.

There’s no real comparison to the OS X OpenGL driver implementation
as both the windowing mechanisms and OpenGL driver implementations
are quite different on XP and OS X.

-Joshua


January 17, 2007 | 3:43 am

Thanks for the heads up on XP Joshua – I will check this out and
report back. Much obliged.

On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:

>
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:17 PM, vade wrote:
>
>>
>> We can position the window with border 0, and find the pixel
>> coordinates – but I guess my question is – what is different about
>> fullscreen 1 on windows with multiple monitors VS OS X? When
>> running the same patch on a Mac I do not see those issues?
>
> The main difference between a borderless floating window and a
> fullscreen window in XP is that the window is defined as WS_POPUP,
> so that it will be placed above start menus and other widgets
> (hopefully). I’ve not seen this slow down on my machines, but this
> might be related to the windows settings for acceleration used for
> compositing windows and your particular HW/Driver setup. I would
> actually try turning down that setting in your displays control
> panel and see if it makes any difference. This is located in
> Display Properties->Settings->Advanced->Troubleshooting. You might
> also want to reboot.
>
> Otherwise, using a borderless floating window should work fine as
> long as there’s no start menu or other things which are sitting on
> top.
>
> There’s no real comparison to the OS X OpenGL driver implementation
> as both the windowing mechanisms and OpenGL driver implementations
> are quite different on XP and OS X.
>
> -Joshua
>
>
>

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)