Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn's Windows Graphics Foundation Examined
Matt J writes "Dave Salvator at ExtremeTech goes over some of the graphics designs for Longhorn. 'David Blythe of the DirectX development team gave a very interesting talk about the upcoming 3D graphics architecture in Longhorn, the next major revision of Windows. Called Windows Graphics Foundation (WGF), this new architecture will usher in some major changes to how 3D graphics operations get handled by Longhorn. These changes extend well beyond Longhorn's Avalon technology, which will render the Windows Desktop using a GPU's 3D graphics processing power rather than the traditional 2D blitter. WGF will instead define the core 3D operations themselves.'"
An intelligent GUI would be settable to any virtual resilution, with elements that are fully scalable, from icons to "system" fonts. This is an inevitable feature on the desktop, and I wonder if any proposals are in the works.
Looks good for your age..
This article makes it unclear if WGF 1.0 is basically DirectX 10.0 or a Longhorn-specific system. If it isn't available to users of older versions of Windows, there is little incentive to rewrite code specifically for it. I think the adoption of Longhorn will be slow as I haven't heard any really compelling reasons to shell out the money for the upgrade.
It irks me when Microsoft, KDE, Gnome, etc. build expansive GUI's that are lush with eye candy yet fail to provide an upgrade in functionality. I seriously do not understand the mindset of developers when they attempt to impose system requirements that include a GPU to complete day-to-day tasks. Thanks God for midnight commander/emacs/vi.
Even if this comes from Microsoft, this is pretty amazing stuff. The OS-level ability to use the 3D acceleration features of the card by more than one application at a time may prove to be as important to future computing as the ability to create 2D windows at the OS level. What *should* be more amazing is the response of the open-source community. I think we should all unite in an effort toward a new advanced graphics architecture. Maybe this is something IBM or SGI could reasonably invest in.
samrolken
I know I am! With the hype machine running flat-out this far before the launch date, Longhorn is starting to sound like Microsoft's version of Copland...
0 1 - just my two bits
The difference is that one is a "suggestion" while the other is a company actually getting off their asses and implementing it system-wide. Where is that happening in OSS right now?
I've been saying this since Longhorn's features were announced, Linux desktops will be severely behind if they don't hurry up and move into the modern age that Longhorn and future versions of OS X are competing in. But no, we're still stuck with deskop emulators hacked on top of an ancient X protocol server with no unified development API. Hell, not even a way to install and uninstall things, because it's not really a seamless desktop but a cludging-together of 20 different projects in order to emulate a desktop operating system instead of actually being one.
Just dont take all of Microsofts noise too seriously, just be aware that by 2006, linux will have completely equivilent technologies (in many cases we already do), and just cause we dont make much noise about it, dont think that they dont exist, or aren't planned for the near future.
Really? 2006 is just two years away. Where are these mysterious technologies you talk about? Yeah, I can name random projects like Cairo all day long. What desktops use them?
I'd sure love to see Linux having implemented all these technologies before Longhorn. Sadly, I know that will be far, far from the truth. Hell, we're still busy moving our distros over to an XFree86 fork. I'd love to see all this technology you speak of magically write itself in time for 2006. Linux has dozens upon dozens of never-completed projects, but Microsoft is actually getting these things done and in a unified manner. I don't find your reassurance very...reassuring. This is the community that still thinks a taskbar and start menu is a neat idea to rip off from Windows 95.
1.) Typing "M$" doesn't make you clever or witty.
2.) NT isn't based on DOS at all. Nobody knows what you're talking about there.
3.) Select HTML format next time.
4.) This technology is not "unimpressive." Only to elitist Slashdot snobs who think XFCE is still a cool idea. The rest of the world wants to move to a modern, 3D-based compositing architecture. Where is that happening in Linux? 2006 is just a year and a half away. Well?
I liken it to PDF's. Just a few years ago, PDF files were what Flash is now, the handy scapegoat. "OMG!!!1 PROPRIETARY FORMAT!!!11!! n000000!!!1" But now that there are about half a dozen programs that create and display PDF's in Linux, we love them! "Use PDF's, not .doc files! Join us in PDF land!"
I still fucking hate them.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
is it just me or is this a lot of Acronyms with a lot of theroy and ideas an no real proof its going to work or not. Longhorn is still in development and still a way off things tend to change and it may be good or bad. the way i see this article is a marksmen shooting at a target years away and truely its luck if he hits the bullseye or not.
The last thing I want is another big Microsoft API. Let me know when the Windows API gets smaller, or when Windows implements the Single Unix Specification in any meaningful manner. I have better things to do than to waste my time trying to write programs against a cumbersome toy OS API.
To answer your reply, Mac OS X does indeed route drawing through the graphics card. It has since 10.2. http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme /
MS Research is an open research group much like Xerox PARC was (with some of the same people). They publish papers and have been working on stuff like this for years. So it isn't so easy to say who stole which idea from whom. All you can say is that Apple beat them to market with it.
1 &PostID=14275#14275
check out:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=
You would think that offloading of the graphics work could have been done years ago. It's not like 3D accelerators are something new.
http://raplyrics.blogeasy.com
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme /
See? Read it again...
Wonder how OS X can handle rotating 3d cubes, "genie effect", even jumping dock icons? There...
When I first moved to Mac G5, those fx made me say "oh, what a waste of cpu power"... Until I figured cpu isn't even used more than 1% on such stuff.
Microsoft "photocopied" (no less) another OS X invention.
Do you know why this isn't funny anymore? Because this is the joke most people make who have not tried Windows beyond the 95 and 98SE1 days.
Do you REALLY want me to bring up how 'good' the Linux kernel was in it'x 1.x days?
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
Longhorn's Avalon definitely goes beyond 10.2's Quartz Extreme. Quartz Extreme only 3D accelerates Quartz Compositor. Quartz 2D is still pure 2D. But for the record, it should be pointed out that that 10.2 is 2 years old while Longhorn won't be out for at least 2 years. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft boldly brags about features far in advance while Apple is highly secretive. A lot of people seem to think that Microsoft is overtaking Apple with Avalon, simply because Apple has only been publicly talking about their old Quartz Extreme technology. The reality is quite different. 3D acceleration for Quartz 2D may be ready in 10.4 next year.
Let me get this straight:
Article: "Longhorn is going to have improved graphical capabilities."
Crowd: "X-Windows/Y-Windows/OSX/Whatever can already do this!"
MS Proponent: "But it's going to be REALLY impressive"
Crows: "Who needs it anyway, I prefer my good old terminal"
why in the world are they re-inventing graphics to be 3D centric? the current 2D graphics look just fine. I don't want or need to upgrade my system, just so I can run an OS that needs a big expensive (read cheapass) graphics card. Only games need heavy 3D lifting, so let the game developers focus on that. the windows graphics system should just get out of the way and make it easier for game developers. I get the feeling, this is a huge mistake, because anything beyond the current look and feel is way over kill. Those who need color fidelity and better graphics use Mac, and you're not going to convince huge droves of graphic artists to switch. I'm not convinced of the value of WGF beyond marketing hype.