vade

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 

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 3072x768 with quicktime 

playback, while the other monitor is left for the interface.

If we run the main output (3072x768 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 

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

btw : I cannot attach the patch for various reasons - thanks for 

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 3072x768 with quicktime  
playback, while the other monitor is left for the interface.

If we run the main output (3072x768 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.

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

difference-between-fullscreen-and-windowed-on-jitterwin-xp-vs-mac

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 

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 

>
> 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.

Thanks for the heads up on XP Joshua - I will check this out and 

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 

> Otherwise, using a borderless floating window should work fine as 

> long as there's no start menu or other things which are sitting on 

> There's no real comparison to the OS X OpenGL driver implementation 

> as both the windowing mechanisms and OpenGL driver implementations 

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

>
> 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
>
>
>

Following on this very old thread, I happen to be experimenting the same issue on MacOSX, on a mid '15 MBP with an AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB graphics card.

Using a jit.window and 5 videoplanes with @blend_enable 1, running at a constant 40 fps when windowed (even with the window stretched to the entire screen ), it drops down to around 12 fps when "fullscreen 1" is sent to the jit.window. Instantly comes back to 40fps if I send "fullscreen 0". Note this only happens if working with an external HDMI or MiniDP->DVI screen. It runs fine when fullscreen is toggled on my laptop screen.

Hi.
Following on this very old thread, I happen to be experimenting the same issue on MacOSX, on a mid '15 MBP with an AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB graphics card.
Using a jit.window and 5 videoplanes with @blend_enable 1, running at a constant 40 fps when windowed (even with the window stretched to the entire screen ), it drops down to around 12 fps when "fullscreen 1" is sent to the jit.window. Instantly comes back to 40fps if I send "fullscreen 0".  Note this only happens if working with an external HDMI or MiniDP->DVI  screen. It runs fine when fullscreen is toggled on my laptop screen.
What could be causing this ?

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