Re: [K12OSN] LCD 17 vs. 15?

[Chris Thomas <cwt137 yahoo com>]

I think you are correct, not because the X protocol is at a low level but because X isn't compressed at all. If it is compressed, it is not compressed much compared to VNC or NX.
 
For the first guy, I think the correct term is screen resolution or something like that rather than pixel density. When someone says pixel density, I start to think of dpi and stuff like that.
 
Chris

----- Original Message ----
From: Burke Almquist <balmquist mindfirestudios com>
To: Support list for opensource software in schools. <k12osn redhat com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:14:48 AM
Subject: Re: [K12OSN] LCD 17 vs. 15?


> Is the traffic directly related to the pixel density? ie 1280 x  
> 1024 has
> about 50% more pixels. Does this mean the X stream will be 50% larger?
> This will be a consideration if I put 30-40 clients on the same  
> network.
>
> I can turn the color down to 16 bit if that helps.
>
> Also, any idea how much more server resources it would take?

Yes, generally the network traffic and the client VRAM requirements  
are based on the number of pixels times the color depth. 1600x1200 is  
four times more pixels than 800x600, and going from 16 to 32 bits of  
color would also probably have the same impact. Since X is fairly low  
level (IIRC), increases in either pixels or color depth will have a  
relatively proportional impact on the LAN traffic.  Feel free to  
correct me if I have anything wrong here.

_______________________________________________
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>