Paradigm shift going from Gnome2 to Gnome3

[Ian Malone]

On 20 June 2011 17:59, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 02:23 +0930, Tim wrote:
>> Is a corporation going to want to spend $100 per graphics card per PC,
>> so that the default Gnome 3 actually works, or are they going to
>> continue to only want to put in the $20 graphics card?  (That just won't
>> work with the new all-singing, all-dancing, Gnome 3.)  So there's the
>> next RHEL with Gnome shot down in flames.
>>
>> Likewise, the *average* home user faces the same quandary, and most
>> people buy underpowered computers.  So that's Fedora out of the
>> question.
>
> I have an "underpowered" computer running integrated Intel graphics
> (read: the cheapest of the cheap). The open-source Intel drivers work
> just fine with Gnome 3/Gnome Shell. (Actually, I have more trouble with
> the NEWER Intel cards, like those on the Sandy Bridge architecture).
>
> Despite how flashy things look, the Gnome folks did a really quite
> impressive job of limiting the hardware requirements to a very
> reasonable set of 3D functions that should be present on most machines
> built in the last four years at least.
>

Agreed, my four year old laptop with onboard intel graphics works just
fine with gnome 3 graphically speaking. However I preferred compiz for
looks and am still amused (and slightly irritated) that transparent
consoles don't work because they show their own drop-down shadow (i.e.
you CAN see behind them, right through to the black box that's being
drawn beneath the window). Does G3 remind anyone else of Quicktime's
(old?) interface?

OSX and Win7 have similar requirements for graphics (I'm sure someone
can have a long debate about the differences, but they all want 3d
accelerated hardware).

-- 
imalone