Windows Longhorn to make Graphics Cards more Important

Renegade334 writes "The Inquirer has a story about MS Longhorn and its need for better than entry level graphics cards. This is due to the WGF (Windows Graphics Foundation) which will merge 2D and 3D graphics operations in one, and 3D menus and interfaces that require atleast Shader 2.0 compliant cards. Supposedly it will really affect the performance of the new Microsoft OS." This has been noted before in the system requirements for Longhorn, but it would seem the full impact is slowly being realized.

Comments

Welcome to the Present

[Oculus Habent]

Mac OS X uses the graphics card heavily for much of its interfaces. All Macs sport at least a Radeon 9200 (Mobility in the iBook G4), and Apple takes advantage of those cards in plenty of apps... note the multi-person video chat layout & details in iChat AV, or the compositing

That's not a knock on Windows - just an aside, really. The consumer graphics of PCs have been steadily improving, and there's little reason to not make use of that power. The only problems could be in the low-end motherboards offering cheap integrated video. Inevitably, some people are left out in the cold. Time to start moving to nForce or Radeon IGP, PCChips!

I wonder if they'll have a cool Genie effect for minimizing... ;)

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and Mac users don't mind the few extra bucks for the whole Mac look & feel. You buy a Mac, you get a complete package.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if you use Java apps with Java 5.0, you can get OpenGL-acceleration for everything. It's not the default yet, but it probably will be in Mustang (6.0).

This won't work for SWT or AWT, though (which would get acceleration from the native graphic system, if any) - only Swing and other Java2D-based libraries.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[themysteryman73]

in case you haven't noticed the Radeon 9200 IS an entry-level card... They're saying that you'll need a BETTER than entry level card to run Longhorn... And you'll need a PC too :P

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

At least I'll still be able to use twm on X. Fuck Apple and fuck Microsoft. If I were a big game player, then maybe I'd want to shell out money for a high end graphics card, but I'm not, and I don't. Those minimum system requirements are ludicrous, moreso for Microsoft than for Apple because the Mac users will buy whatever Apple tells them to, anyway, but Windows is in a lot of places where games don't get played.

Some secretary working on a memo or letter doesn't really even need Windows. LaTeX could do what Word does for those tasks much better and much more efficiently. Raising the bar on what graphics card her machine has, just so that menus can be rendered, is moronic. Think about sitting in a computer lab using Matlab. Windows already eats shit when any serious number crunching program gets fired up. Longhorn is going to want to make it harder to render the menus? Even if the rendering gets performed by the GPU, it's going to fuck your simulation in the ass.

Serious scientific computing isn't performed on Windows, of course, but some programs are expensive and must be installed on only the machines where the most people can use them, and no others. Microsoft is fucking a lot of people on this one.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[mcc]

Making use of the available graphics power just makes sense, and Apple was smart to be the first to realize this. After all, window compositing is something you're going to have to do at some point anyway; why not offload that task onto that part of the hardware that's actually designed to composit things?

But when you step into the realm of "hey, we've got this power-- let's waste it on something!". Then you're doing something really bad. Using pixel shaders to draw drop shadows on semitransparent textured menus or somesuch begins to fall into this territory.

In the first case you're taking the present advantages offered by the hardware and leveraging them to improve the consumer experience. In the second case you're taking advantages offered by your hardware and eliminating them-- removing the power of your 3D hardware (which technically is there for the applications, not the OS, to use) by making sure that the 3D hardware is continually tied up running the particle engine floating around the talking paper clip or Enlightenment logo or whatever. This degrades the potential consumer experience because it means the consumers don't get to use the hardware they paid for, the OS is too busy using it.

The difference between these two situations may be a little bit subtle and a larger bit subjective, but do you see the distinction here? Because given the curve of resource usage their OSes have followed in the past, I kind of doubt Microsoft does...

Re:Welcome to the Present

[bburton]

Look at x.org. Look at what they want to do with switching everything over to OpenGL rendering. I think you might find quite a few simularities between Longhorn, OSX, and x.org. It's the trend, and I think it's a smart desision.

So what if you won't be able to use the windowing system unless you have an accelerated graphics card? Nearly all new(er) computers have graphics acceleration capability. It opens up a WHOLE lot more possibilities with what can be done within the windowing enviroment. PLUS it makes things a whole lot simpler when you only have to worry about one driver (OpenGL for example), for 2D and 3D applications.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Thu25245]

In the PC market, the real "entry-level" machines have "Integrated Intel Extreme(TM)" graphics on the mobo. Which is a polite way of saying, "no graphics card at all." So, yes, a Radeon 9200 is entry level for a graphics card, but it's a nice step up from what you get standard on the cheapest machines.

If Microsoft is complaining about the performance of graphics hardware on low-end PCs, it's a solid bet that the integrated graphics cards will be the first target.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

and what pray tell is that super duper overpowerful video card doing when the user is staring into their word document drooling because they have a writer's block? believe it or not, for video cards that are able to render Doom3 in real-time (low-end 9200s can *still* do this), that drop shadow effect will be basically nothing.. even if the devels don't optimize it at all, it'll still be nothing for the video card. relax.. offloading the *graphics* to the (well duh..) graphics card is only like.. the smartest move ever. remember, PS2.0 is relatively midrange right now. by 2006 when DirectX Next and WGF and Avalon come out, PS2.0 will be something that even Intel's "Extreme" graphics will be able to do.

So just.. relax.. if you don't like it, you can always stick to your Bash shell.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to criticize? Quartz Extreme is fucking awesome. You couldn't do things like Expose without them, look at the horrible Expose clones Windows users have. They're glorified screen grabbers.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[snyps]

is it just me or is software supposed to utilize hardware as efficiently as possible, it seems to me that if you leave it alone and let the aplications that actually need it use it, everything will run much faster.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Wah. Wah Wah. Wah. Stop making me buy a video card, don't force me to conform to your new technology. Wah. Wah.

You know what we call you people? Fucking Luddites

Everyone should just conform to your ideal then, LaTeX for secretaries! Fantastic. How about instead of paying more for people to learn how to use LaTeX they spend that extra money on, oh, I don't know a Video Card so they can run Microsoft Word.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[fyngyrz]

Making use of the available graphics power just makes sense, and Apple was smart to be the first to realize this.

Mmm, no. Commodore was the first to really do this. The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware. The OS used them, and used them well. When a more advanced Amiga came with more graphics capabilities, the OS automatically configured them and used them as well. Apple was me too, much later. :)

But that's OK. Apple knows how to market -- that more than makes up for coming expensive, late and/or weakly with a number of things. Plus they provide a really nice end user experience.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[atlasheavy]

You haven't spent much time trying to use Panther on an older Mac have you? Chug, chug, chug. Apple may *claim* that Quartz/Quartz Extreme work fine without a great video card, but it'd take a whole lotta kool-aid for me to buy into that.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

1983 called, it wants its software model back, and the source code for GEOS on the Commodore 64.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[DavidLeblond]

I'm sure the video card isn't the whole reason Panther runs slow on older Macs.

Ever try running WinXP on older PCs?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[atlasheavy]

Yes, XP ran a hell of a lot better than Panther. The systems in comparison, btw, were a 400MHz Celeron with 128MB ram and a shitty ATI 8MB video card, and an iBook G3 500 with 128MB ram and whatever shitty video card was in that thing (I think it actually was a 16MB ATI). And specifically, the problems I would run into were directly tied to Quartz rendering.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

as I'm sure you know, OS X chokes fucking horribly in 128mb due to not being able to fit the window contents, the kernel and all the apps into memory

Re:Welcome to the Present

[penix1]

"Everyone should just conform to your ideal then, LaTeX for secretaries! Fantastic. How about instead of paying more for people to learn how to use LaTeX they spend that extra money on, oh, I don't know a Video Card so they can run Microsoft Word."

Only in the MS world would a word processor require an accellerated 3D graphics card....Talk about waste of resources....

B.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

When a more advanced Amiga came with more graphics capabilities, the OS automatically configured them and used them as well.


Bullshit. The Amiga was great, but when the AAA chipset came out (the only real upgrade to the Amiga's multimedia hardware ever, at least when the Amiga still mattered), you needed to upgrade the OS to AmigaOS 3.0 to use the new chipset. Is that what you call "automatic" configuration?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[mcc]

Well, the point I was aiming at there was that near as I can tell Apple was the first to make use of commodity consumer 3D accelerated graphics cards as general GPUs for basic operations. But outside that yes, you are very much right.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[philovivero]

In the first case you're taking the present advantages offered by the hardware and leveraging them to improve the consumer experience. In the second case you're taking advantages offered by your hardware and eliminating them....

The difference between these two situations may be a little bit subtle and a larger bit subjective, but do you see the distinction here? Because given the curve of resource usage their OSes have followed in the past, I kind of doubt Microsoft does...

Here's a third possibility: Microsoft sees the distinction, knows the distinction, but doesn't care because:

• They know they're a monopoly that has bought off the DoJ and hence,
• Know they can make deals with hardware vendors to leverage this monopoly to take more money from the customer against the customer's will.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, no. Apple was the first to have multiple resolutions on the screen. The Apple II had text and graphics on the screen at one time. But there was also a hack that allowed hires/lores/ and text on different parts of the screen.
brianparry@gmail.com

Re:Welcome to the Present

[mccoma]

Well, Jay Miner stopped at Atari before heading to Amiga. Gotta love the Antic and CTIA/GTIA. If he had had more years, I wonder what else he would have made.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what we call you people? Fucking Luddites

Know what we call people like you? Lusers. Know why? Because it encompasses the word ``user'' and makes it sound like ``loser,'' which fits you to a T. Why don't you just abstain from taking part in discussions like this? You obviously don't have anything intelligent to add; you're just parroting the latest marketing drivel.

I'll break things down into simple terms so that a snot nosed imbecile like yourself can understand them. First and least important, a lot of what secretaries do is very regular. Letters look like this, memos look like that, bind the copier output using some specific color binder for some specific report. The document generation part benefits a lot from being templated. The secretary doesn't need a rendered picture of a three line memo. She can do quite well putting the correct information inside the correct markup. When she has to start producing documents that don't fit well into some category, have a LaTeX guru write the macros, and things are well on their way again. This can be done with a computer a quarter of the power of the current desktops, and that's without straining.

How about instead of paying more for people to learn how to use LaTeX they spend that extra money on, oh, I don't know a Video Card so they can run Microsoft Word.

Do you realize the absurdity of that statement? A medium to high end video card, to mimic the job that was being done with a mechanical typewriter a hundred years ago? Now, it's certainly true that a word processor is much nicer to use than a typewriter, and better in a lot of respects because you can work with the document as a whole and print out the end results instead of doing things a page at a time, but the ``advancements'' Longhorn will make are eye candy. They're non-necessary additions that don't add functionality and increase the burden of running such a program. It's silly to suggest that Word is better than LaTeX for any purpose; it's lunacy to suggest that Longhorn's eye candy is anything but a burden on the end user.

Lastly, if a secretary can learn to handle the mailing list macros in Word, then she can master the much more intuitive LaTeX method.

Increasing the bar for the standard minimum level of technology is just masturbating the computer economy. Microsoft does better when the whole computer business does better, so they're putting this cock ring eye candy into Longhorn to advance levels of production in places the US Government says they're not allowed to go, but the cock shoots eventually, no matter how tight the ring is or how long it's left on, and when it does, a lot of people are going to be hurt by _another_ tech bubble. Stroking the computer industry to false tuminescense is not a good thing in the long run.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Junks Jerzey]

Mmm, no. Commodore was the first to really do this. The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware.

In the interest of historical accuracy, the Atari 400 and 800, first publicly available in 1979 (six years before the Amiga), allowed mixing multiple resolutions on screen. You built a display list of modes and the hardware interpreted them. You could mix text, graphics, and various resolutions of each. You could also trigger interrupts to occur on a specific display list command.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Xyde]

The iBook 500 was a horrible, horrible little machine.

With it's crippled 66mhz system bus (even the iMac 350 was 100mhz) and it's woeful ATi Rage 128 8MB, it is quite a poor performer under OS X. You can overclock them to 600 on a 100mhz system bus with no issues and they perform far, far better.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[koko775]

Coral'ed Wikipedia entry
Clearly they'll be supporting older computers. Windows Longhorn to make Graphics Cards more Important is almost as counterintuitive as "This Just In - Gamers Are Human"

So what's the big deal? We get a pretty OS for people who aren't using their power, and a simple for those who prefer its look or lack of resource hoggage. That said, the gamers that care will usually have fat rigs to power their games, anyway.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[jericho4.0]

"...to mimic the job that was being done with a mechanical typewriter a hundred years ago?"

Fucking Luddite. LaTeX for secretaries is stupid. Computers are getting faster. Software grows to take advantage of it. Passing rendering to the GPU is inevitable, and it would be stupid _not_ to do this.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[penginkun]

But when you step into the realm of "hey, we've got this power-- let's waste it on something!". Then you're doing something really bad. Using pixel shaders to draw drop shadows on semitransparent textured menus or somesuch begins to fall into this territory.

I would qualify this, though. If you're going to FORCE this on people and REQUIRE it for the basic operation of the OS, and not allow people to turn it off, THEN you're pushing things in a bad direction.

For as much as I prefer Mac OS X to any version of Windows, this is one thing that pisses me off...I can't turn off all this worthless eye candy. Do I need semi-transparent menus that fade away? No. Do I have to have them? Apparently. Thus saieth the Steve. Microsoft is at least realistic (in current versions of Windows, at least) to realise that most people don't want the performance-sucking eye candy and lets you turn it off. I wonder if Longhorn will be the first version of Windows to deprive its users of this ability. If so, MS will have learned exactly the wrong lessons from Mac OS X.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

You could do this as well on a Commodore 64 but IIRC only horizontally because you were interrupting between scanlines.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Reteo Varala]

Those were the days. I remember spending days just trying out all the video modes callable from AtariBASIC, and seeing how each mixed it up. After that, I was experimenting with all the different applications of said displays. Sadly, though, I didn't have storage of any kind, so I couldn't really keep those programs. (And with two siblings and a "pac man" cart, there was little chance of me keeping the computer on and in my possession...)

Re:Welcome to the Present

[neochronist]

But when you step into the realm of "hey, we've got this power-- let's waste it on something!". Then you're doing something really bad. Using pixel shaders to draw drop shadows on semitransparent textured menus or somesuch begins to fall into this territory.

Have to disagree with this. A more likely scenario is "hey, we've got this power -- let's take advandage of it!" In the case of Mac's, they're gaurenteed this power. Why not use it?! It not only makes the desktop manager snappier and prettier, but makes all levels of 2D graphical (and some 3D as well) interation faster. I, for one, (most definatly not a Windows fanatic) am certainly looking forward to Avalon and all that it has to offer.

Anything that allows graphical apps to run faster by default is a definate plus. Especially if minimal extensions and hooks become standard in the military/govt. standard world. :)

A bit distruntled by lack of support in a lot of military grade hardware for even the most minimal 2D acceleration.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[im_thatoneguy]

You make a valid point, except that it is simply irrelevant in relation to this article. By 2006 (most likely 2007) every PC will have a Pixel shader 2 card. I remember when windows 2k was coming out everyone was worried about the menu shadows being only accessible on DX7 cards. Now nobody things anything of shadows and translucent windows.

Disclaimer: It may have been DX8... point is the same either way.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[SilentChris]

"Making use of the available graphics power just makes sense, and Apple was smart to be the first to realize this."

The issue is that Apple (more or less) knows exactly what graphics cards go into every machine, so they can plan accordingly. I don't know if you've looked at different hardware, but there are features automatically turned on if you have a Powerbook, for example, over an iBook. Also, if you try to run on an older video card, it's horrendously slow.

Microsoft's got a different problem: how do you make the UI consistent when there's a million and a half different video cards on the market? They need to make sure that whatever they do *doesn't* run horrendously on old hardware. Apple doesn't need to worry about this.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Ziviyr]

The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware.

I dunno about not being available nowadays. Realtime scaling used in video players and offered in 3-D functions are modern analogues to the Amiga's frugal interrupt driven display mode switching.

The OS used them, and used them well. When a more advanced Amiga came with more graphics capabilities, the OS automatically configured them and used them as well.

Sadly its capabilities were outstripped by lowend PC hardware and its own CPU after a point. And the OS needed 3rd party stuff to handle graphics cards like that, and it integrated poorly.

If Amiga development didn't stall way back when, it could very well be a different story. But nowadays making printouts, playing music, and formatting a floppy all at the same time is not the big deal it used to be for the competition.

Amiga is now immature, OS3.5 pre boing-bag 2 was a disaster for me, which my Amiga now pays for through disuse. I'm getting used to it.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[BobPaul]

by making sure that the 3D hardware is continually tied up running the particle engine floating around the talking paper clip or Enlightenment logo or whatever.

I realy REALLY highly doubt that a logo or annoying paperclip, regardless of how 3d it's rendered is going to tie up the graphics card.

I do however, agree with the bulk of what you're stating. I think that would be great if the OS COULD utilize the graphics card to do more, whether it be off-loading things currently done by the CPU or enhancing the user experience by doing things that weren't possible on a lower end graphics card.

However, like all of the "look enhancing" features of windows, I would greatly appreciate the ability to turn it off and run on crappy Intel Extreme Graphics should I need to.

That is, of course, unless Microsoft is moving towards something like Sun's experimental Project Looking Glass 3D Desktop. Were that the case, then I would probably be accepting of a higher end graphics card requirement as I would, in fact, be working more efficiently, rather than just oogling how pretty the menus look.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

LaTeX for secretaries is stupid.

LaTeX for secretaries is a good idea for the reasons I've already outlined. You didn't come up with any actual arguments to the contrary, so like I said before, stay out of technical discussions until you learn a little.

Computers are getting faster. Software grows to take advantage of it.

This is untrue and would be a stupid rule to follow anyway. If some feature doesn't add to functionality, usability, maintainability, or performance, then it's a no go. Gluing an SVG fractal 3D GUI to an already perfectly usable program/widget doesn't add functionality, usability, maintainability, and it certainly doesn't enhance performance. In fact, the only thing it increases is the eye candy factor, and it does that to the detriment of all the other factors. It's a braindead maneuver that doesn't have computing at its origins. It's a business move.

Passing rendering to the GPU is inevitable, and it would be stupid _not_ to do this.

This is not what Microsoft is doing. Microsoft is inventing[1] unnecessary rendering to meet the specifications of an arbitrarily chosen, unnecessary-for-most-users video card. Doing video encodes on the GPU is intelligent and inevitable. Creating an imaginary problem in order to boost the solution industry to the detriment of most Windows users is dumbassedness at its finest.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[pipingguy]

Hey, I *like* drop shadows and semi-transparency on menus and the like, it provides a "rich" environment and also helps to prioritize open windows. Perhaps you are a command line guru, I work with CAD software a lot and I appreciate the eye candy as a visual indicator. Then again, if it were up to me we'd toss all the CAD software and hardware and go back to board drafting - less "it's easy to revise because it's on the computer so let's do it a lot" attitude and more forethought required when designing.

"Keeping up to speed" these days has more to do with updating one's computer knowledge quotient and not enough to do with actually doing real-world stuff and improving skills in the disciplines that we use computers to help us with in the first place.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[TWX]

"Microsoft's got a different problem: how do you make the UI consistent when there's a million and a half different video cards on the market? They need to make sure that whatever they do *doesn't* run horrendously on old hardware."

Hah! Fat chance that they actually do that, based on the severe performance issues that XP has on the i815 chipset with an 866MHz P-III...

Re:Welcome to the Present

[BobPaul]

Microsoft is at least realistic (in current versions of Windows, at least) to realise that most people don't want the performance-sucking eye candy and lets you turn it off.

You mean that most Slashdot readers don't want the perfromance-sucking eye candy and want to turn them off.

Most people probably appreciate the eye candy and are completely unaware of the fact that it is the cause of the poor performance they may complain about (should they notice it).

Re:Welcome to the Present

[node 3]

The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware.

Quartz (the 2d graphics part of OS X) does this nicely. Actually, it does this in a way far superior to the way the Amiga did it.

Go to a Mac and press "F9" to see an example of this in action.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[jovlinger]

that sorta works when you have a fixed frequency monitor signal, i'd imagine.

however, in today's monitors, each resolution has a different monitor frequency... switching that several times per screen refresh would probably blow something in your display.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Apple set itself up to be a hardware AND software vendor, and therefore has a very comprehensive understanding of (and better control over) the hardware it's dealing with. They can write software closer to the limits of the known hardware. MS has set itself up differently, and therefore has to accomodate a much wider and more random range of hardware.

Not that one approach is inherently better than the other, but I think there are fundamental differences in how they should be developing software. And while I hesitate to be another kneejerk MS basher, I don't think the eyes-forward ramping back of support for older OS's and pushing of new ones that require ridiculous amounts of resources is quite inconsiderate to the end user.

Now Apple did it too with OS X, so I can't say it's MS-specific. But it felt different, somehow - anyway, on my paltry G4 800 eMac, each new release runs faster and cleaner than the one before it. That has not been the case with Windows. Bashing or not, it's just my experience. Anyhow, given how previous Windows versions went, I have a hard time imagining that Longhorn will require beefy hardware because of ALL the power it affords - more likely it will be necessary to accomodate all the extra silliness.

Here I use W2K, OS X (10.3.7), and do a bit with Debian Sarge (all on low-muscle machines, frankly), and find them all to be sufficient for web development and graphic design. My wife and parents use XP and seem content with it (though it drives me batty). It's been my experience that W2K is a little more reliable than OS X, and that XP is kind of silly and bloaty. And given that, I wonder if Longhorn's hardware requirements are going to provide new function for the user or simply be there to accomodate more bloaty silliness.

Okay, so maybe I am bashing a bit ...

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Skuld-Chan]

I should mention that the Atari 400 and 800 was actually designed by a team that included Jay Miner the same engineer that was on the team that designed the original Amiga.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Hell-Spawn78]

I have read Almost all the response to this statement a few have touched on the heart of the issu the others seem to want pull M$. By no means am I a supporter of the giant. However your GPU generally can kick the crap out of a CPU for brute horse power your gui = Graphicla User Interface. Which then equals Graphic's your GPU should be the one processing the onscreen display so that your CPU can calculate the amount of money you just lost on the stock market. pixel shader's well there really isnt a need for a shadow on the back of freakin mouse pointer your right and that is waste. what microsoft needs to work on is the transferance of gpu power when there is a game running the os's gui isnt running. so they should work on code to allow the gpu to be freed up so that it can perform at it's best. being one of the people who always buys the top of the line you have to give three arms and 2 legs to buy graphics card i am helping to lower the production costing for said cards so that Grandma & grandma can get the you beaut onboard graphic's card on there sub $1000 dell crap box.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[koreaman]

You guys are both wrong.

1) LaTeX for secretaries is dumb.
2) Upgrading your graphics board to run Word is dumb.
3) TURNING OFF AVALON is the way to go.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[ravee]

I wonder if it will still be as good as linux ?

---
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com

Re:Welcome to the Present

[sydsavage]

Well, the main difference between Apple's approach compared to the Microsoft way hinges on the word requires as opposed to utilizes.

I have a (slightly warmed over) Rev. A beige G3, that is running OS X 10.2 quite nicely despite it's extremely dated Rage II (upgraded to 6MB of vram!) onboard graphics. The iMac I am typing on right now is running the latest OS X 10.3 despite it's lowly Rage128Pro graphics (8MB vram in this powerhouse!). I'm still able to do everything I need to do on these machines, I just miss out on some eye candy.

When I hear of Microsoft forcing required hardware on people, it makes me wonder if they have some anti-Linux tricks up their sleeve. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, down the road perhaps, these hardware requirements include a Palladium derived 'solution'.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[ldesegur]

To be really precise, the Apple ][ in 1977 has a mixed mode with 192x160 hires graphics on top of a 4 lines of 40 columns ascii display. That was called mixed mode.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Lisandro]

IIRC, what diferentiated the Amigas was that you could not only mix multiple resolutions onscreen, but multiple resolutions with different bit depths, palettes, and even mouse cursors, which were drawn by hardware. This is from the top of my head, as i (sadly) never owned an Amiga and only fiddled when i saw friends who owed one, but i recall reading about that and be grossly impressed. It was truly a machine ahead of it's time.

Anyone. feel free to correct me.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

But you could probably dance to the [click] - [cli-click] - [hNnph]
Repeating over and over, again!

Re:Welcome to the Present

[lenhap]

Interesting, I wonder have you spent much time using panther on an older Mac?

I run Mac OS 10.3 (Panther) on an original Bondi Blue iMac and the Mac OS interface is just as responsive as OS 9 was on it and surprisingly faster than XP on my 900mzh IBM Thinkpad T22. To get XP to run acceptable on my laptop, I have turned off all the eyecandy because it slows down the computer too much.

Now I am not saying that Quartz won't run better on a machine with a nice graphics card, it will. On my iMac the processor usage is far higher than on a Mac that has a better graphics card...in this case, more than the 4 megs of video memory my Mac has.

Also as a side note, Quartz is the regular 2D rendering engine for the Mac, Quartz Extreme is the 2D rendering engine that offloads the graphics to the GPU. On an older mac like mine, 233mhz original iMac, Panther does not/cannot use Quartz extreme, the GPU is too crappy, heck it was crappy when the computer came out though it suited me. On newer Macs, there is a utility that comes with the developer kit that turns off Quartz extreme, for testing how an app will run on a computer with a GPU that doesn't meet the requirements for running Quartz Extreme. Using this tool one can compare how offloading the eyecandy and such can easily free up the processor and make the whole system run lightening fast. To restate, Quartz runs on older computers without a GPU that meets the requirements for Quartz Extreme. Without Quartz extreme running certain eyecandy features will not run, like the spinning cube when swiching between logged in users.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[bickerdyke]

Some of us enjoy eye candy! You should see what my KDE looks like... On the other hand,I also enjoy ssh-ing into my box from remote and be able to use it without eye-candy wasting bandwidth.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[aichpvee]

Or they could just run OpenOffice. And sure LaTeX would get the job done, but at what cost? I know it scared the shit out of me when I tried to learn it. Just as well say emacs will get that job done, and even with all its bloat it still doesn't require Shader 2.0 support (yet?).

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is true of the Atari too(at least as far as bit depths and palettes, but there were no cursors obviously). But in the Atari's case different modes had significant tradeoffs; the character modes and highest-resolution bitmap modes only used two colors and got an additional two through artifacting effects, while the mid-lower resolutions could have up to hundreds of colors, but only vertically; each scanline could change the palette slightly.

Remember, the same guy, Jay Miner, designed both systems so it's not too surprising to see all the similarities.

Unfortunately, this technical brilliance meant both his machines were a bit too expensive for their day.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[hirschma]

This is correct. Moreover, when one resolution was interlaced, and the other wasn't, it'd "line-double" the interlaced screen.

It was every easy to impress PC users once you started "sliding" screens up and down, revealing a stack of them.

JH

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you saying? You just established that it would only work with a fixed frequency, and then say that you wouldn't want to switch frequency (rather redundant).

I don't see how today's monitors differ from an old TV. If I set a monitor to a particular resolution and keep it there, then it is a fixed frequency signal (just like a TV). Of course you wouldn't change the frequency (neither would the old systems) Essentially the multi resolution of yore does exist today, and whoever said it doesn't is an idiot. If you're running 4 instances of mplayer with equal window size, with source material of different resolutions you're essentially doing multiple resolutions. Modern video cards have features to handle scaling.
This is much more general than the old multi resolution stuff.

Remember that the Atari 800 just put out a fixed NTSC signal, and it didn't have a framebuffer either.

I can't imagine why the multi resolution features of the Amiga are even relavent today when both the hardware and software are sufficiently advanced enough to do the same (and more) effects.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[tdelaney]

Personally, I never noticed any significant performance problems with XP on an i815/866MHz P3 (Gateway machine). In fact, it ran very well. It's since gone from being my server to my father's machine.

Of course, I habitually turn off *every* bit of eye candy except for windows contents while dragging. And turn off things like NTFS access time recording. Perhaps you were short on RAM. 256MB is OK, but you really want 512MB if you can get it.

I've also run XP on a Pentium Pro with 256MB RAM. Responsiveness of the interface was fine (although opening applications could be a little slow ...).

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, what diferentiated the Amigas was that you could not only mix multiple resolutions onscreen, but multiple resolutions with different bit depths, palettes, and even mouse cursors, which were drawn by hardware. This is from the top of my head, as i (sadly) never owned an Amiga and only fiddled when i saw friends who owed one, but i recall reading about that and be grossly impressed. It was truly a machine ahead of it's time.
Which is true, but I don't see how it has any relevence today. Today, any modern graphics system allows one the same exact flexibility and it is done with both hardware (2D accel) and software. I think it rather disingenous to say that you can't get "multiple resolutions" today just because its not done the same way with custom Amiga hardware (which was the right way to do it at the time, considering the relative power of the CPU in those days, and RAM)
Today, all the bookkeeping is done in software, and most of the hard per-pixel legwork (scaling) can be done in hardware. If you haven't tried something like MacOS X, X11, or Windows, I recommend you try it. They really do work well for the types of things the GP mentioned.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware.

And never will be, because it is not necessary. Today's GPUs have certain general ops like scaling accelerated, and the multi resolution bookkeeping is done by this thing called a windowing system.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[HuguesT]

Personnally I find LaTeX much simpler than any word processor including Word of OpenOffice. The fact is that even full professors or IT managers can't master word well enough to produce consistent fonts and reasonable tables across a whole document.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[DrSkwid]

Do you even know what the Luddites where about ?

hint : they weren't "your new loom technology is scary and advanced and we will burn it"

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely remember it and how good it was used. Even via basic and poke stuff.

Don't forget Atari 800 and Commodore Amiga is same genius's work.. Jay Miner (RIP)

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Bert64]

The advantage being, on the original amiga.. you couldn't display more than 32 colours without resorting to HAM mode, which was slow and caused visual artefacts.. So you could use multiple screens with different pallettes to get the impression of more colours, for instance the old flight sims which had the lower half of the screen representing your cockpit and the upper half representing what you can see outside of the aircraft..

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Bert64]

But you couldn't add that chipset to an existing system, you had to buy a new machine because it was integrated on the motherboard.. And those new systems all came with OS 3.x anyway.
The chipset was also called AA or AGA, not AAA... the AAA chipset was under development when commodore went under, and consequently got shelved.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[A Drake Man]

And there goes the $499 PC right out the window! If they can't skimp on the graphics cards anymore, then it's going to make it harder for the low end to maintain profitability at that point.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Dal Platinum]

A couple of things that seem to have passed you by:

Secretaries don't 'just' write memos. Only an ignorant person would think this. Also, they have to read memos from other people/companies, most of whom will be using Word.

Secretaries at most companies won't be upgrading to Longhorn immediately. There is no need for them to do so. Everything they need can be done with 2000/XP. By the time they get around to getting a longhorn-enabled computer, shader 2.0 hardware will be relatively inexpensive. You're thinking of current top-end cards, whereas, in reality, they will be entry level by the time most people upgrade to Longhorn. (not upgrading is also a possibility)

If you think moving all the GUI rendering to the GPU will negatively affect the performance of the CPU, you've been reading the wrong books. What this will do is remove the load from the CPU, thus making it more fficient.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Neuroelectronic]

Mmmm mmmm.. that's some first class karma whoring.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Trillan]

Mixed resolutions? The MC6847 did this long before the Amiga, and I doubt it was the first chip to do so.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[qoa]

My entire PC was under $499 with a decent video card.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

like multiple resolutions onscreen

I've seen this mentioned numerous times as a "world first" for Commodore, but the Acorn BBC could do it many years before. AcornSoft Elite anyone? That really annoys the Commodore and Amiga fanboys.

Even better, is that the Atari ST could do it as well, just toggle set low res at the start of a vertical blank, and change to medium res later in a horizontal interrupt. Now that really, really, really annoys 'em

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

The Acorn BBC could do it as well, as could the Atari ST

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

My entire PC was under $499 with a decent video card. ...and I'm sure that included $175 for a non-pirated XP Pro license, too.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify, not ALL macs have "at least a Radeon 9200". All macs being sold today do but there are one hell of a lot of OS-X running macs that don't have such a card. They simply don't get the full benefit of quartz extreme but that's is not a requirement for running OS-X.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[smallguy78]

Updated release dates for Longhorn, from http://www.neowin.net/, apologies if they're old:

Milestone 9 (platform complete) - 16th March 2005
Beta 1 - 25th May 2005
Beta 2 - 12th October 2005
Release Candidate 0 - 22nd February 2006
Release Candidate 1 - 12th April 2006
Release To Manufacturing - 24th May 2006

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Lussarn]

If they use a 1.2ghz cpu instead of 2.8ghz they could probably squeeze it back to $499, another known company did.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[baker_tony]

Why don't you just bring up display properties and disable the effects if you don't want them?

Personally, I'd like to see my graphics card being used to make the desktop look cool. I'd also like the option to disable the effects if needed (like Windows allows).

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a fast graphics card that is sitting idle most of the time... Why not make use of it??

Re:Welcome to the Present

[themysteryman73]

Yeh I guess you have a point there... That'll be a major problem for people who bought pre-made PC's with no AGP port... What's so good about Longhorn to warrant the purchase of a good video card anyways?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

The C64 could do that, if you made an interrupt routine to switch at the right scanline.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in addition to the 6 GHz processor that is needed to run XP at a reasonable speed (The 2.6 GHz one I have now is less than half of what is necessary to get some work done instead of wasting the time waiting), I'll also need a Radeon 10800, or
a Geforce 9000 Ultra.

It's just more evidence for the (conspiracy) theory, that Microsoft is cooperating with hardware vendors to force users to buy the latest, fastest hardware.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the next version of DirectX will wait for the GPU to actually finish doing something it barely can do, if at all? The current version lets the CPU do it, when you don't have the latest, most expensive gamers card in the machine.

Or are you saying that we will all be required to buy top of the line gaming machines (the ones that actually have these cards)?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Your Average Joe]

This has been happening for a long time by Microsoft. NT 3.x had the print drivers running in ring. Then in NT 4.0 they put video drivers in ring. Lets see, does that make a reliable OS? Could AT&T sell a single license of UNIX for telephone switches if several processes ran in ring0? Tather than this 3D BS I want a stable OS. What part does Microsoft NOT get.

"Where Do you Want to Go Today?" Anywhere but Redmond

My computer illerterate family needs a stable OS just for simple stuff. Man, I wish Apple would port OS X to the Intel platform! I would be willing to pay the same price I pay for Windows XP Pro for it. Wait they do, it is called the MAC Mini...

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

As pointed out elsewhere, Intel already has integrated gfx circuits out that can handle Aero. Also, the use of fancy GFX in Longhorn is 100% optional - you can make Longhorn look just like Win 2k if you feel like it. Peace.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[DrSkwid]

you didn't have a pen and paper ?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly tending towards off-topic, but there is a great page listing (utterly incorrect) Commodore 'Firsts' including such gems as
* First Multitasking Operating System
* First hand held calculator
* First LCD display

Very funny indeed. If you mail the author to 'correct' him, you just get back a torrent of abuse. Give it a go.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm in the interest of myself, I invented a colored etch-a-sketch far in advance of either Apple, the Commodore, or the Amiga.
The fact is I was quite young when I did and literally shit my pants when I thought of it. This was ok though as I still wore diapers.
I even used my hamster "Timmy" to draw on the screen of the etch-a-sketch (and to mix in some playdoh) after I "hacked" the case open. I think this qualifies as a very early use of a "mouse-like" device to easily change the pixels on a screen.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

What you get with Longhorn?

You get DRM and SECURITY!

DRM Will protect your documents and files, as well as allow you to purchase millions of MultiMedia files from all over the world through simple click-through operations from thousands of stores worldwide! Which you can immediately enjoy on your Windows Longhorn Computer with ADVANCED features such as Multi-Channel Audio and FULL SCREEN VIDEO!

SECURITY means that you will no longer be able to install non-approved applications, such as Leenux or P2P applications. It is a well known fact that P2P applications are the cause of more than 95% of all spyware and virus being spread worldwide. You may not have installed P2P yourself, but someone in your neighbourhood has, and they have since infected you through the interner or through the electrict grid. With the advanced SECURITY features in Longhorn, such as a POPUP Blocker and a FIREWALL you can rest asured that you will be completely safe.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord, you guys are freaking dorks.

Seriously, all the time people try to one up someone on here, all the time its just constant "oh well this is news?" or "oh great news but so and so did it first..."

Shut the hell up...who gives a rats ass who came first with what in this situation.

Personally I think its a complete waste of power...on ANY OS or ANY hardware platform to make the gui look "really pretty or cool"...if there's a way to make the gui "look pretty" without it being overly taxing to system performance or wasteful on mem, the gpu ect. fine I'm all for it...but to need a mega graphics card JUST FOR THE GUI ITSELF...is insane.

Granted its a non-issue with me anyway, because I always have nice graphics cards due to my pc gaming hobby...but anyway...I guess this world just wants thinks to look pretty regardless of the waste it is.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[zero_offset]

You buy a Mac, you get a complete package.

You misspelled "are".

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Reteo Varala]

*chuckle* Yes, just not the presence of mind to write it out. *shrug* I was a kid. And a particularly attention-deficit one at that. :-P

Re:Welcome to the Present

[suezz]

I couldn't agree with you more. we are becoming more of the mindset - this is how the computer does it for you - than what can I make the computer do. bought my daughter a second hand imac but she hardly uses it because she would rather put her ideas and drawings on paper. And I say good for her - let the ideas flow - who care if it is on the computer on the driveway with chalk or just paper - just start creating and use that brainpower. I refuse to let her use a windows machine. To me they just don't make sense - hit start to logout for example. I have no windows machine in my life and I love it - my work bought one (because that is the standard) that is basically a paperweight on my desk because I don't use it - but our desktop support sure uses it a lot - like doing updates - virus scans etc. - it gets used more for that than actual work - I use my mac and linux machines to do actual work.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[DrSkwid]

=)

before I had a computer I used to write down source code from the TV. The BBC used to transmit source code via teletext for download via a teletext adapter that plugged into the parallel bus on the Acorn Electorn / BBC Computer

I had no idea what any of it did but was fascinated all the same. Unaware that they crunched the whitespace out as a sort of compression technique with a solid square instead of \n, I used squared paper to line up the columns and transcribed it exactly.

Ah those were the days. Some kids tell their parents endless facts about dinosaurs, I used to spew stuff from PCWorld. "Mum, mum, Fujitsu have developed a 1MB RAM chip, wow imagine hall the things you can with 1Mb". She eventually cracked and shouted at me to shut up. I think that was pretty much the end of the mother / son relationship for 15 years =)

Re:Welcome to the Present

[yabos]

That's not really a big deal. If you are playing a game, you are full screen and the OS isn't drawing anything. If you are using an app, most likely it is full screen so it can use the GPU and the OS doesn't draw any drop shadows on anything unless the program wants it to.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[yabos]

It's not that bad. I have 10.3 installed on a B&W G3 300MHz with only 320MB of RAM and it runs pretty fast. Faster than I would have thought, even with a Rage 128 card.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

My computer was $500 and that was with a 2GHz CPU,120GB hard drive, 128MB Geforce FX 5200, and 512MB system memory (no monitor or cd/dvd drive though) and that was a couple of years ago. I just recently checked and you could get all that with a dual format single layer dvd burner and 17 inch monitor for about $500. Add in a full OEM version of XP Pro (not a crappy recovery CD) and such a system would be under $650 nowadays.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Junks Jerzey]

IIRC, what diferentiated the Amigas was that you could not only mix multiple resolutions onscreen, but multiple resolutions with different bit depths, palettes, and even mouse cursors, which were drawn by hardware

Just like the Atari 800 hardware! You could put a high-resolution monochrome mode at the top, a chunky character mode below it, a higher-res character mode below that, and then a 4 color bitmapped mode at the bottom. This was trivial. you simply built a list of display commands for the graphics coprocessor. There were 15 possible display modes to choose from, and they could be mixed and matched at will. Note that you could only do this mixing vertically, not horizontally.

Additionally, in the interest of completeness, you assign any of the areas to any part of memory, so you could remap the screen any way you wanted. You could enable vertical and horizontal scrolling for each instruction, independently. And you could have an interrupt occur on any instruction, allowing you to swap palettes, character sets, remap sprites, and so on. You could also have blank areas of the screen, so the couple of scan lines between the score display and main game playfield didn't require memory (for example).

As someone else pointed out, yes, the Atari graphics hardware was designed by Jay Miner.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[bynary]

"Entry-level" is a relative term. To a hard-core gamer, a Radeon 9200 is an entry-level video card. To your average desktop user, a Radeon 9200 is a high-end video card. A 9200 with 64MB of RAM is hardly an entry-level card for your average email/internet/word processing user. But I guess by the time Longhorn is actually released, entry-level cards will be shipping with 4 GB of DDR4, will be running 2 Ghz cores and run on PCI-whateverthehelltheycomeupwithnext. The fact is that Mac OS X had these "amazing new graphics rendering capabilities" with the release of 10.2 a couple years ago. Apple is still about 5-6 years ahead of Microsoft...

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantastic!

What the Luddites did at the time is irrelevent now, as the word has taken on the following meaning. From M-W.

broadly: one who is opposed to especially technological change

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why you should, its completely offtopic and not interesting at all.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[ultranova]

Look at x.org. Look at what they want to do with switching everything over to OpenGL rendering. I think you might find quite a few simularities between Longhorn, OSX, and x.org. It's the trend, and I think it's a smart desision.

I didn't find any mention of OpenGL at x.org, but I do remember hearing about it before elsewhere.

I did, however, find this text:

"The latest release of the X Window System from X.Org - X11R6.5.1 - has addressed the issues of integrating X applications and browsers enabling rapid deployment without re-coding and security."

Why does this remind me about certain other windowing system ? The one that also integrates programs and browsers into its core, and has no security ? Should I be worried, or did I misunderstand something ?

Re:Welcome to the Present

[fyngyrz]

You're confused. The new hardware came with OS3, which understood it. OS3 also understood the older hardware. The OS was maturing and so was the hardware -- and everything worked just fine. You don't have an issue here.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[fyngyrz]

The Amiga also had accellerated graphics ops in a graphics co-processor they simply called "the blitter." And a very nice windowing OS. For its time, it was really quite amazing.

As for multi-resolution not being necessary, sure. That doesn't mean it wouldn't use useful, though.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[fyngyrz]

But that wasn't what the issue was. The presented point I was replying to (and which I quoted) was that Apple didn't just have the hardware capabilities, they used them in a general way, which was smart. I was saying that the Amiga also had interesting and varied graphics capabilities and the OS used them, and that happened first. The Amiga's graphics capabilities weren't just something you could "poke" and "peek" into momentary unusual modes, they were broadly supported by the OS. For instance, I wasn't saying that the Amiga was first to have multi-resolution in hardware, I was saying that it was the first to broadly support multi-resolution in the OS.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[iamacat]

You read too much Intel marketing literature - old stuff released before Pentium M at that. "2.8Ghz" and "1.2Ghz" is not a valid measurement of CPU performance, much less of how productive you will be at a particular task. A mini Mac might be 30% slower than your cheap PC for CPU bound tasks that don't rely on vector processing, floating point, graphics rendering though GPU or smooth preemptive multitasking - not 60% slower as the clock speeds imply. But once you actually start creating a presentation, organizing your photos, making a video or composing a tune, it will leave a spyware-laden PC with clunky OS and apps in the dust.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Carnildo]

You know how much effect on performance the transparent menus and fading have? None. You get it for free once you move the effort of window compositing to the video card.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[penginkun]

Yes, but only if the system you're using has a Quartz Extreme compatible video card. My iBook has one, but my five-year-old iMac does not.

Do you know how long it takes menus to fade on a 400mhz G3?

About...

This...

Long...

It's freaking SLOW. A smarter thing for Apple to have done is to make the OS intelligent enough to know the system in question does NOT have a QE compatible card, and to scale back the glitzy special effects in response. But no, it just presses on ahead regardless. Not especially user-friendly for people stuck with older machines.

Re:Welcome to the Present

[themysteryman73]

I don't really know anything about the Mac OS but from what I gather the actual OS is better at rendering graphics than Windows so it doesn't need as good a video card or something? Is that right? :S

Re:Welcome to the Present

[Reteo Varala]

Mine never did... her thing was always "That's nice, honey."

Re:Welcome to the Present

[bynary]

The Quartz rendering engine is an integral part of Mac OS X. Take a look at the OS X system layers specifically noting the Graphics and Windowing Environment. These white papers do not, of course, provide any comparison data between the rendering engines of both Mac OS X and Windows 2000/XP, but it does provide some good information nonetheless. Back in the day, the graphics capabilities of the Mac OS were light years ahead of anything MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 could do, but I'm not so sure the same gap exists today.

Shocking..

[Gorffy]

Using Windows as a way to sell more hardware!

Re:Shocking..

[Trejkaz]

Yeah, in that respect, this really isn't news. ;-)

Re:Shocking..

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop spreading fud.

GNU/linux is slower than windows 98. So maybe, programmers like to code slow systems for some other reason.

Re:Shocking..

[NineNine]

Yeah, just like OSX.... ooops.. I forgot. This is Slashdot where an OS that can go on 99% of PC's is more restictive than an OS that can be installed onto hardware made by exactly one company.

Re:Shocking..

[koreaman]

And Win98 sucks. BTW Have you ever used Gentoo. I'm no ricer, but it does make things go faster if you have a few basic good things set in your /etc/make.conf.

Re:Shocking..

[vvenka1]

As a 100%, no dual boot crap linux user, i think that this is a good move for non-gaming linux users who tend to stick on to the onboard video card. These cards have a poor 3D even with DRI enabled.

Contrary to the popular belief, the most affected are not the users, but the computer manufacturers. if a user has a computer that is just working (even with all the security holes), and his option are "buy a new hardware just to upgrade OS" or "stick with what i have for now, will buy a new PC later", he will go for the latter option, unless he/she is a university professor who happens to have a large portion of his grant money at their disposal.

The computer manufaturers, who sell bundled systems and non-bundled system alike, will be forced to erase their catalog of computers equiped with barely functional video cards (i have a *NEW* compaq here on which i cant play TuxRacer. and this game is years old). This effect is going to percolate all the way down to the chipset manufaturers.

So, if M$ is going to force the majority of the manufaturers to upgrade their chipset that does a decent 3D, i guess the probability of any computer bought with no OS having a better onboard chipset is higher.Also, the market price for decent video cards will come down due to the laws of demand and supply.

So, as a linux user, i think this might be what i want to happen. I might not buy a new computer as soon as longhorn comes out, but i'll be sure that the computer i'm going to buy in the future will have a decent 3D experiance without me having to shell out a few extra $$ for an extra videocard.

Re:Shocking..

[kronchev]

Good thing companies like Apple dont do that!

Re:Shocking..

[poopdeville]

Untrue. Darwin can be installed on just about any machine where Windows would run, in addition to New World Macs. And with XPostFacto, it'll run on Old World Macs too.

Re:Shocking..

[XPisthenewNT]

Yay! Command-line only computing! Thanks Darwin on Intel!

Re:Shocking..

[poopdeville]

Wrong. Once the Darwin kernel is installed, this can be treated like any BSD/Linux distro. In particular, XWindow runs, so you can have all the pretty UI elements you desire.

Re:Shocking..

[XPisthenewNT]

That's nice, but having the Darwin Kernel which has the same look and feel as the average linux distro, and having the elegant and refined OSX is pretty darn different, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, but today's high end

[Anonymous Coward]

Will be low-end by the time it actually gets released.

Re:Yeah, but today's high end

[njfuzzy]

You are assuming that the spec won't move forward at a pace with the release date. That may not be a wise assumption, since we are talking about Windows2005IMeanSomeTimeBefore2015.

Re:Yeah, but today's high end

[Eric604]

Doesn't matter. A good OS will run on low-end machines just as well but with the eye-candy stuff disabled. It's quite logical, an OS is an abstraction to the hardware layer and when the minimum requirements are relativly high, a lot of the benefits that comes with this abstraction are lost. MS doesn't seem to grasp basic logic. I am not anti-MS but this pushing of requirements is quite insane.

Wow... like shooting fish in a barrel

[agraupe]

How can anti-MS people *not* insult Microsoft when Microsoft seems so very intent in giving them every reason? Although, I must say that it has become so easy it's no fun anymore.

Re:Wow... like shooting fish in a barrel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause if they didn't have fancy menus, people would make fun of them for being ugly. And if they didn't tell about the graphics cards, people would complain about bad warning.

I hate MS, but in this instance give them a fucking break.

Re:Wow... like shooting fish in a barrel

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider your sig stolen.

Re:Wow... like shooting fish in a barrel

[randallpowell]

Imagine the responce if MS went out of business. Who would we hate then?

How silly

[grub]

This is due to the WGF (Windows Graphics Foundation) which will merge 2D and 3D graphics operations in one, and 3D menus and interfaces that require atleast Shader 2.0 compliant cards.

That's just plain stupid. Grandpa & Grandma want to check their email and pics of the grandkids, why on earth should they require a Radeon MegaXP293823-XtremeSLI+ to do that? I hope there's an option to disable all that cycle-wasting crud or MS may be shooting itself in the foot: how many offices will spend a few hundred dollars on individual video cards just to upgrade the OS? What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)

Re:How silly

[malfunct]

I'm sure that by the time longhorn releases there will be a large number of sub $100 (actually there are now I believe) video cards that support this technology.

Re:How silly

[grub]

Having 10-20% of the price of your PC being in a bare minimum graphics card just seems ridiculous. What's next? Requiring 5.1 digital sound with multichannel reverb so Longhorn can tell the user "You've got mail!" ?

Re:How silly

[stratjakt]

There already are. You don't need anything fancy.

Mac's already do this with a Radeon 9200, which retails at best buy for 80 bucks. Which means you can find 'em online for much less. Pricewatch lists them starting at 40. In a few years, you'll be looking at maybe a 20 dollar upgrade to your GeForce MX (actually if your computer is that far out of date by then, Longhorn probably won't be an option for you)

Why is it eye candy is so amazing and impressive if it's in OSX or KDE, but it's just bloat and a terrible violation of "your rights online" if Microsoft plans it for an OS that's at least two years away?

Re:How silly

[AKnightCowboy]

I'm sure that by the time longhorn releases there will be a large number of sub $100 (actually there are now I believe) video cards that support this technology.

Except those integrated Dell units don't have an AGP slot so I guess you throw them away.

Re:How silly

[EvilSporkMan]

Well, eye candy may or may not be bad in OSX - if I had the money to waste, I'd get a Mac and dual boot with Linux. As far as KDE goes, you may be able to turn this "eye candy" off, and KDE isn't forced on you if you just want to use Linux.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it eye candy is so amazing and impressive if it's in OSX or KDE, but it's just bloat and a terrible violation of "your rights online" if Microsoft plans it for an OS that's at least two years away?

Mac users expect the eye candy and don't mind paying for it. Many *nix users I know, myself included, don't use KDE or Gnome. Personally I love WindowMaker

Re:How silly

[Tasy]

I think something most people don't realize is that by using the GPU to render, you are actually taking load OFF of the CPU, not adding to it. Bravo to Microsoft for this.

Now all we have to do, is pray they don't leave some loop hole open that lets someone burn your video card. Can you imagine, built in Windows overclocking?

*shudder*

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Current machines don't need to use the GPU for the 2D window work (unless you like eye candy crap)

Re:How silly

[PhraudulentOne]

Mom and Pop don't need longhorn if they just need to check mail and surf the web. Also, by the time the OS is released, perhaps these graphics standards will be, umm... standard. Mom and Pop have no need to buy a new OS if they just need the basics. OTOH, if they do need Longhorn, then it will probably have come pre-installed on the computer they buy.

Re:How silly

[Capt'n Hector]

That's just plain stupid. Grandpa & Grandma want to check their email and pics of the grandkids, why on earth should they require a Radeon MegaXP293823-XtremeSLI+ to do that?

I think you've touched on one of the more hilarious parts of the computer industry. It's not about what people NEED, it's what you can require them to need. Want the new security features of Longhorn? Want to do email faster? You'll need a better graphics card.

Re:How silly

[stratjakt]

So what do unix users have to do with Windows?

Noone's threatening your Korn shell. Text mode isn't going anywhere. You can keep your CGA monitor. Relax.

Re:How silly

[Ambassador Kosh]

Geeze don't give them any more ideas. They have made enough bad decisions already without people telling them how to screw up even more. :)

Re:How silly

[ad0gg]

By the time long horn gets released(2006 or later), onboard graphics controllers will easily meet requirements. We are talking about 2 to 3 years, right now mid line cards $150 to $250 implement vertex and pixel shader versions 3.0. Sub $75 cards are mostly at 1.1, but by this summer I bet most of them will be 2.0 or even 3.0.

Re:How silly

[HermanAB]

and 640kB memory should be enough...

It is called 'progress' and it is not necessarily bad. You can keep your green on black Hercules graphics adaptor, but I'll go for the modern colour, thanks.

Re:How silly

[PornMaster]

It won't play "You've got mail!" unless it's in Windows Media format, and can verify with AOL that you're licensed to play it.

Re:How silly

[notthe9]

OTOH, if they do need Longhorn, then it will probably have come pre-installed on the computer they buy.

I'll pretend I have the foggiest what "OTOH" means.

Yes, and they'll have to pay for their computer with Longhorn, which might have been cheaper, is the idea.

That being said, I don't necesarily think that this is a bad idea altogether.

Re:How silly

[mattyrobinson69]

if they build it into internet explorer, how long before somebody finds a bug in the jpeg library that allows for a webpage to beable to set fire to your graphics card with a simple javascript?

but seriously, rendering a GUI with the GPU is a good thing.

Re:How silly

[barc0001]

Why is it eye candy is so amazing and impressive if it's in OSX or KDE, but it's just bloat and a terrible violation of "your rights online" if Microsoft plans it for an OS that's at least two years away?

KDE it can be turned off easily. And don't even start with Apple. Their users are pre-conditioned to apply for a mortgage every time they have a product launch, so they're used to paying for a system with an over-spec video card.

But Microsoft systems are increasingly being built with low-end 2D onboard video cards to keep system costs down, in part to offset the Microsoft Tax of XP. Now with Longhorn, you'll get the pleasure of paying $400 for the computer hardware, $200 for the OS, and another $100 for the minimum-spec video card. For the LOW end system. You really think Dell's going to be able to keep the $399 specials for Longhorn boxes?

Re:How silly

[Horse Rotorvator JAD]

Why is it eye candy is so amazing and impressive if it's in OSX or KDE, but it's just bloat [...]if Microsoft plans it for an OS that's at least two years away

I think it is bloat in OSX and I think it is bloat in KDE. I don't use OSX and I don't use KDE. I use a really stripped down version of BlackBox that does exactly what I need, nothing more and nothing less.

You seem to be asuming that the people who talk about the eye candy in OSX and KDE are the same people who talk about the bloat in Longhorn. I think you are wrong. These are two distinct groups of people. I belong to the latter group. I hate bloat and flashy chrome crap on any OS.

Re:How silly

[Eideewt]

But why wouldn't you use it? If you can take any load off the CPU, no matter how small, you should jump at the chance. I've got hardware made just for throwing graphics on my screen, so why not use it? Now that would be a waste.

Re:How silly

[mnmn]

The GPU is used to render 3D. The framebuffer is used to render 2D. Theres a difference.

Microsoft is planning to use the GPU for windows. Instead of simple blitting support, which most 2d chips already have, microsoft will be using a fat GPU, which intakes 3 coordinates (and some) rather than 2. There goes the IO for one...

The GPU will be required. So they wont just use the 2d hardware assist logic, which can draw windows with only data input from the CPU, they'll be using the GPUs power for something, otherwise its like taking a helicopter to take your kids to school, its a major waste. They might shove pretty graphics down peoples throats, like they have in the recent past with a few things. Or they might just be making their DirectX and windowing operatins unified, which results in wasted GPU if 3d rendering in windows is needed (fullscreen could still take all of the GPU I imagine). They'd also be leaving out people without graphics cards, which is very good news for pro-Linux/BSD people.

Therefore the OT was right and you are wrong.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it is 'progress'. I think that creating 3D high-gloss/fancy interfaces with all the wiz-bang features is more about being on top of your market.

The OS producer who has the most flashy interface certain attracts the most attention, look at the way people went gahgah over OS X when it first came out.

All this stuff has more to do with gaining user and media attention, grab the spotlight, create a buzz and sell more product. I mean an OS on its own is kinda boring.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens now? They shift load from the CPU! Good! Do application developers now shift graphics processing back to the CPU?? (Seeing as the cpu is now idling however the Graphics card is now overloaded!) :P

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

---
from freerepublic.com

In addition to the two tiered Avalon-based user experiences, Longhorn will also support a legacy Classic display mode that will resemble the Windows 2000 UI. This mode will support all the non-UI-related Longhorn technologies, enabling Longhorn applications to run in Classic mode. Microsoft is providing this mode for upgrades that don't meet the minimum requirements for Aero and for corporations that would prefer not to retrain users as they migrate to Longhorn.

---

Re:How silly

[loraksus]

perhaps because when longhorn is released (finally) these 'advanced' cards will be the only thing available and you will have about the same luck buying an 'old' card as people buying a 1mb trident card today

fuck directdraw accceleration of video too, who needs to resize video?
maybe we should just go back to EGA, after all, email shouldn't need more than 256 colors,

Re:How silly

[50000BTU_barbecue]

It means On The Other Hand.

Re:How silly

[Sonic McTails]

It means On the other hand

Re:How silly

[SirTalon42]

Having all of KDE's eye candy turned on, on a p2 400 MHz machine with 128 megs ram works perfectly fine for me.

Having any themes on in Windows XP on my Athlon XP 1900+, 512 Megs ram, and a Radeon AIW 7500 nearly kills it just scrolling down in the start menu (considering ALL sound and all other windows freeze, I say its close enough to killing it).

Re:How silly

[Brandybuck]

But they still won't have any open source drivers available for Linux or BSD...

Re:How silly

[The_reformant]

Ok this is just plain silly, lets assume longhorn actually ships in 2008 (optimistic) then how many grandparents are you going to expect to be early adopters??

Most average Joes, Grandma Whatever's and all your other ficticious characters which you use to make yourself feel superior to normal people wont adopt this OS for years, at which point the amount of graphics processing power available to a typical machine will be more than enough to run all the extra eye candy.

Re:How silly

[bob65]

Note that a GeForce MX 4000 which is plenty decent for basic desktop 3d acceleration costs about $39 now. In fact if you set out to get the cheapest video card possible, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that wouldn't be capable of supporting Windows Graphics Foundation.

Re:How silly

[misleb]

For this to be valid, you'd have to keep the amount of eyecandy the same and just offload it to the GPU. In this case, you are creating MORE graphics. Even if the GPU is going to do much of the rendering, the data has to get there somehow. The textures and whatnot are not going to move themselves, you know! In this regard, they are adding to the CPU load. All I can say is that there better be a way to turn that crap off. Eyecandy like what they are talking about is fun for, like, 2 days. Then it gets old and you just want something that gets the job done.

-matthew

Re:How silly

[lsmeg]

Therefore the OT was right and you are wrong.

Whew! For a second there I thought I'd have to walk away from reading this thread and make my own opinion. Glad I dodged that bullet!

Re:How silly

[EnderWiggnz]

how about $200 to pay as a tribute to MSFT.

that, i think is the true injustice in all this. every other piece of a computer has gone down, except the damn os.

Re:How silly

[jcgf]

OTOH = on the other hand

Re:How silly

[nuggetman]

Having any themes on in Windows XP on my Athlon XP 1900+, 512 Megs ram, and a Radeon AIW 7500 nearly kills it just scrolling down in the start menu (considering ALL sound and all other windows freeze, I say its close enough to killing it).


You, my friend, have some other problem with your system. Or you're flat out trolling. I use themes on XP on a 667MHz P3 w/ 384 megs of RAM with absolutely no trouble.

Re:How silly

[Helios1182]

Yes. Because most systems do ship with a "entry level" video card. And we have at least a year to get up to spec. These companies aren't just going to roll over and die. If Dell tells ATI & NVida that they need a card that meets spec X and they will go with which ever vendor can do it, they will do it.

Re:How silly

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't think unused potential is necessarily a bad thing. The 3D section of the GPU that's not being used doesn't waste so much power.

I'd like to know what they think they are doing to justify a 3D user interface before rendering justice though. While there may be advantages to 3D interfaces of sorts, from Microsoft, I expect it to be useless eyecandy like XP's "look".

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the kid's UID. He's new here. He's just trying to fit in and be cool. Give 'im a break.

Re:How silly

[MattyCobb]

That's just plain stupid. Grandpa & Grandma want to check their email and pics of the grandkids, why on earth should they require a Radeon MegaXP293823-XtremeSLI+ to do that? I hope there's an option to disable all that cycle-wasting crud or MS may be shooting itself in the foot: how many offices will spend a few hundred dollars on individual video cards just to upgrade the OS? What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)

no whats stupid is having those people bother to upgrade their OS in the first place. windows XP will be more than fine for those uses for a loooong looooong time to come.

i see no reason why that crowd will ever be forced into upgrading their OS.

Re:How silly

[tc]

Okay, cluehammer time:

First, the GPU is the processing unit, the framebuffer is the memory where the bits are stored. Both are involved in any kind of rendering operation, 2D or 3D. The GPU operates on the bits on the framebuffer.

Second, modern graphics devices don't have any dedicated 2D hardware left in them. They all just use their 3D cores to do basic blit operations. Why waste silicon on specialist 2D blitting when you've got a gajillion megapixels of fillrate sitting right there in the 3D core?

Third, you are obviously unaware of how modern shader technology works. If I want to stream down 2D coordinates then I can do that just fine. In fact, shaders don't really care what all the numbers are, they just know that they are getting a certain number of inputs. If you choose to write a shader program that interprets them as coordinates to be transformed, then that's merely the common convention. Heck, I could just stream down 1D coordinates if I wanted to (actually, this is genuinely useful, if the coordinate is time and the shader is computing, say, a particle system). So there is really no inefficiency in using the 3D core to do 2D operations, because I can just transmit the minimum amount of data necessary by means of a suitably chosen shader.

Re:How silly

[SilentChris]

That's what the "level" system is for, son. Read up on it before you make an asinine comment.

Re:How silly

[Hitmouse]

Yes. Let's stop this stupid progress thing right now. Why would Grandparents want broadband? They just want to talk to grandkids on the phone and get photos every other month in the mail. Can't imagine anyone would want extr-processing to provide more attractive presentation of media services or real-world resolution visual elements...

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess twelve(?) years ago you would've called it 'progress' that the new shiny Unix successor named 'Windows NT' *required* a graphics adaptor to run.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Custard]

"I use themes on XP on a 667MHz P3 w/ 384 megs of RAM with absolutely no trouble."

How's your graphics card compare to a Radeon 7500 AIW?

Re:How silly

[psyki]

That's just plain stupid. Grandpa & Grandma want to check their email and pics of the grandkids, why on earth should they require a Radeon MegaXP293823-XtremeSLI+ to do that? I hope there's an option to disable all that cycle-wasting crud or MS may be shooting itself in the foot: how many offices will spend a few hundred dollars on individual video cards just to upgrade the OS? What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)

True, but grandpa and grandma probably aren't going to be upgrading their XP box to Longhorn either. Or they buy a new machine with Longhorn that comes with the required hardware.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, you have more fingers.

Re:How silly

[Joe U]

Your computer is broken.

I have no major problems with XP themes on a Dell Inspiron 7000. 500Mhz P3, 384MB RAM and ATI Rage mobility card. It works fine for web browsing, remote access and the occasional DVD movie playing.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain stupid. Grandpa & Grandma want to check their email and pics of the grandkids,

Don't worry, I'm betting that by the time Longhorn actually releases, Grandpa & Grandma will be dead.

Re:How silly

[HuguesT]

Actually you should check the Apple store prices. Apple makes the *cheapest* laptops and desktops these days. Cheaper than DELL.

I know because only a few months ago I was on the lookout for the cheapest laptop that I could possibly buy with very low level requirements. I only wanted it with worldwide warranty (this is for actually travelling with it) reasonably light (not 3kg) and with a reasonable battery life (not 90 minutes). To my utter amazement Apple had the best offer by far.

As you may know Apple now sells a $450 desktop.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

MojoStan (776183) owns all your candyasses.

Slashdot proves again how ignorance wins everytime.

Flames if you must but you know it to be true
slashdot has about as much common sense as George W. Bush and their ignorance is just as bad.

Not everything Microsoft is good for you or awesome, but trying to create FUD out of nothing is just what slashdot does and it's really sad it has to come to this.

Instead of being informed and interested in programming for the next generation of Windows, we have monkeys who only know and care for Linux so of course they have to put anything from Microsoft down.

Very short sighted people and very simple minded.

I am not a Microsoft whore, but I am not a dumbsh*t either.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

And they rated you OffTopic (I'd have gone for troll) because you didn't know that he is right.

But then again, life is a bitch, and you are stupid. Next time, as usual, please share to us your great wisdom by just not kicking someone's ball but also by telling us why you did so.

Re:How silly

[phiwum]

Requiring 5.1 digital sound with multichannel reverb so Longhorn can tell the user "You've got mail!" ?

Isn't it a shame when your debate opponent embraces your reductio ad absurdum?

"Surround sound is going to be increasingly important in future offices."
From an MS group marketing manager, quoted in this article.

Re:How silly

[Dal Platinum]

If all they want to do is chack mail, and look at pictures, why don't they stick with XP?

Why do you think they would upgrade anyway?

And as others have said, by the time longhorn reaches release, the cards you need to render it well will be part&parcel of anything Dell/Gateway/whatever will want to sell.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn how to spell "noone" is not a word idiot! It's not even a compound word. Correct spelling: No One

Re:How silly

[baker_tony]

Exactly. Everyone one is freaking out about Microsoft making the desktop look cool by using 3D abilities of graphics cards, when all the users they need to do to go back to "normal" windows is bring up disaply properties and disable the effects or change theme. Gee, Microsoft sucks.

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn how to spell "noone" is not a word idiot! It's not even a compound word. Correct spelling: No One

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Why waste silicon on specialist 2D blitting when you've got a gajillion megapixels of fillrate sitting right there in the 3D core?

Why waste engineers on specialist cars, when you got a gajillion PS sitting right there in the hellicopter?

Maybe because people tend to have graphics cards and cars, where as only gamers/pilots tend to have expensive 3D cards/hellicopters?

Re:How silly

[FireBreathingDog]

And don't even start with Apple. Their users are pre-conditioned to apply for a mortgage every time they have a product launch, so they're used to paying for a system with an over-spec video card.

Sheesh. You'd think that two days after Apple releases a $499 computer this kind of statement wouldn't still be popping up on Slashdot. Then again, relying on 10-year-old stereotypes that no longer apply seems to be something of a requirement for Slashdot posters.

Re:How silly

[browngb]

This higher end video card requirement will be the future, not the present. Grandma and Grandpa are not going to be buying Longhorn to put on their current PC, they will buy a new one. Machines that will come with longhorn will have a passable video card in them, probably something in the $100 retail range (I'm guessing). Even the cheap ATI video cards have pixel shader 2.0, and you can get those for something like $50. What this will eliminate is the Intel EXTREME Graphics (which I've found to be nothing EXTREME about them), and other cheap onboard crap.

Re:How silly

[PhotoGuy]

I think something most people don't realize is that by using the GPU to render, you are actually taking load OFF of the CPU, not adding to it. Bravo to Microsoft for this.

Yeah, and I'm sure it will be implemented in an efficient, stable, and reliable way, to achieve exactly that. Just like windows pre-emptive multitasking (great concept), and filesystem, and so on and so forth, are perfect implementations, achieving all of the conceptual goals.

For the sarcasm-impaired: Microsoft has a clear history of taking very strong, powerful, established computing concepts, and botching them in the execution of these goals, so overall performance, reliability, is far worse. And they close off any third party integration along every step (DOJ, what ever happened to you?)

Re:How silly

[nuggetman]

How's your graphics card compare to a Radeon 7500 AIW?

Radeon AIW 8500DV AGP 4x

Re:How silly

[sharkey]

Having 10-20% of the price of your PC being in a bare minimum graphics card just seems ridiculous. What's next?

Having 10-20% of the price of your PC being in an OS that's mostly about eye/ear candy without the ability to attach to the public Internet safely?

Oh, wait...

Re:How silly

[sharkey]

So what do unix users have to do with Windows?

Nimda and Code Red keep filling up /var/log/httpd/

Re:How silly

[Frumious Wombat]

We've actually have this problem already: PowerPoint presentations from NSF with video and voice-overs. Personally, 5.1 sound makes them a less soporific experience. Besides, when you take the Windows Tour in your new copy of Longhorn, how are they going to simultaneously play the theme from "Rawhide", and lecture you in those soothing tones James Earl Jones brought to Vader?

Re:How silly

[Anonymous Custard]

Maybe that's enough of a difference to improve performance compare to the other guy's computer?

In gaming tests on Toms Hardware, the AIW 8500DV consistently outperformed the AIW 7500 by about 50%.

Re:How silly

[barc0001]

Oh yes. A $499 computer with no monitor. And the following spec:

40GB HDD (4200 RPM no less!)
256 MB RAM
1.25 GHz processor
Optical drive isn't a burner

Spending $480 over at Dell (even though I don't like them much either) gets you:

80 GB HDD
512 MB RAM
Celeron 2.6
CDRW drive
17" monitor!

So the processor might be a bit pokier than the G4, but you get twice the storage, twice the memory, a burner, AND a display. And it's still $19 less than the Apple offering. So tell me again how this is competitive?

Just because something is stereotypical doesn't mean it's incorrect. That's how stereotypes evolve.

Re:How silly

[DrunkBishop]

It runs just fine in my Dual PII 350 with 512MB Ram 16Mb Video.

*ahem*

[soricine]

OS X?

Re:*ahem*

[Anonymous Coward]

if your implying using OS X requires beefy video think again, I have a Radeon 7000 and Rage 128 pci cards in My B&W and video is just fine

Re:*ahem*

[spac3manspiff]

huh?

Re:*ahem*

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but we're discussing color computers, not your Macintosh.

Obviously, *at least* 256 colors will be needed for 3D displays. The days of your B&W Mac are numbered, pal.

Re:*ahem*

[Anonymous Coward]

your point?

Re:*ahem*

[Papparazzi]

it's beets, not meat,
"how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your beets?"

The end of cheap computers

[travisco_nabisco]

Well, I think this is the first post!!! Okay, anyhow, I guess this will be the end of cheap computers from mass manufaturers. Everyone is going to be wanting to see if their system runs the Word menus better than their friends computers. Hey, Microsoft can release a graphics benchmark for windows and office.

Re:The end of cheap computers

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed!

what happened to the 100 dollar PC Ballmer was ranting about???

100 bucks wont even buy the video card M$FT is wanting to push this on...

GDI?

[WilyCoder]

Will the GDI still be present in its current form, or is Microsoft porting the GDI to Direct3D?

Re:GDI?

[lachlan76]

Avalon (is it still going to be in Longhorn?) uses DirectX for its graphics.

Re:GDI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Avalon replaces GDI and GDI+. Avalon will also be back ported to XP.

Re:GDI?

[stratjakt]

GDI and GDI+ will be replaced with Avalon, but they'll still be around for legacy support.

Re:GDI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiight. Just like ClearType got backported to Windows 2000.

As if windows wasnt slow enough

[TouchOfRed]

I really fail to see how this will be useful, and help productivity. Personally, i dont think an operating system needs to be that fancy. Just like those who use the console now, "back in my day, we had to use 2d interfaces"

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[Anonymous Coward]

As if Windows wasn't slow enough? This will speed up Windows by offloading some of the GUI work ontothe GPU instead of it being done by the CPU. Mas OS X does this today.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[Biogenesis]

Unfortunatly 3D interfaces aren't really that usefull either. The human mind can far easier interpret 2D information from 2D data. 3D is only really usefull for visulisation of physical objects that are nativly 2D anyway.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[mattyrobinson69]

no, it would be quicker, as the graphics card would be doing the window drawing and whatnot, freeing up the processor for what ever your running in your xterms, i mean cmd.exe windows

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[timeOday]

All video cards (and onboard chips) already have 2d acceleration. It's just taken for granted.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[Da Web Guru]

I really fail to see how this will be useful, and help productivity. Personally, i dont think an operating system needs to be that fancy. Just like those who use the console now, "back in my day, we had to use 2d interfaces"

Then you are not in their target market, and therefore you are unimportant to them. The people that will want to run Longhorn will be people who be excited about the new pretty interface. It doesn't matter if it improves productivity or not. People still pay money for software that is actually slower and more cumbersome than what they already have (i.e., each new version of MS Office) just because it is the "new" version. And those are the people that are willing to send Microsoft lots of money. Those are the only people that they are concerned with.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[LincolnQ]

As I've experienced it, having an accelerator render your windows is really very helpful for usability. Rather than having things pop into place, you animate them. You run your animations quickly, so it's not annoying -- but a bit of motion can do several things:
- Draw your eye towards whatever is moving. Your peripheral vision can see something moving better than it can see a sudden pop.
- Give you a better sense of what is happening. If I press Minimize and the window disappears, I sometimes have to go hunting around my screen for where it disappeared to. If it animatedly shrinks, it helps your spatial memory to find it again. Having a decent graphics card to render the shrinking effect makes the transition smooth and nice.

Having a graphics card for your windowing system also allows for reflection, transparency, and other effects like that. I haven't seen a good use for those effects in user interface yet, but I think they could turn out useful.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[Alioth]

Well, actually - using 3D effects in the UI is useful. I'd never have thought about it, but when I was looking for a new laptop, I decided to get an Apple PowerBook instead of a PC-based laptop.

I find simple things like drop shadows make the user interface a lot easier to use. When I have half a dozen windows up in Xcode, the shadowing gives an instant cue to the 'human visual system' on which window is in focus and what the current stacking order of the windows are. You instantly percieve which window is focused. With Windows XP or Gnome, it isn't anywhere as instantaneous for the human mind to see the window stacking order.

Sure, it's not something that causes a massive increase in usability, but it makes the UI just that little bit more pleasant to use by integrating with human visual cues better.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you go out and buy a 3D card that does real acceleration. Unless of course you're a gamer that already did buy that 3D card, but then Windows will be using it, when the game was supposed to have the card to itself.

Re:As if windows wasnt slow enough

[radish]

As if windows wasnt slow enough

The whole point of using the GPU is to make it _faster_.

Funny

[spac3manspiff]

"Windows Longhorn to make graphics card important"
Translation: Microsoft inserts knife in back.

People are not going to buy longhorn if they need to buy a graphics card too. They will look for something else and find linux!

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people (not companies) don't buy new versions of Windows. It either comes with their PC, or they get it through other sources. The few people that buy new versions are probably the same people that have no problem buying a new graphics card or just a whole new computer.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

People are not going to buy longhorn if they need to buy a graphics card too.

Are you joking? Were you even around when Windows 95 came out?

Hell, with Windows 95 people were more likely to just buy the upgrades and pirate windows than they were to risk being left behind.

The "but if you don't pay the Microsoft tax this year, you won't be able to use Microsoft Word.DOC and your grandkids won't be able to open your emails and the computer will get the viruses!" FUD machine is probably far, far more ready to go than the OS programmers are.

Re:Funny

[stratjakt]

Yeah, a Radeon 9200 costs what, 36 dollars according to pricewatch.

THOSE BASTARDS!

I'm sure lots of people will switch to linux to save that 44 bucks. Even though they'll probably have to buy new wireless cards, modems, or whatever other miscellaneous hardware linux doesn't support.

Re:Funny

[gkuz]

People are not going to buy longhorn

Nobody's going to buy Longhorn. They're going to buy a computer, which will have Longhorn on it whether they want it or not.

Re:Funny

[tomstdenis]

"whatever other miscellaneous hardware linux doesn't support."

That's awfully backwards thinking. I'd say the hardware manufacturers don't support linux.

I remember back in the day when DOS moved into Windows 3.0 and it was a question of whether the [mostly sound cards] device manufacturer supported windows and not if windows supported the device. It was understood that hardware alone isn't the only responsibility.

But let's not forget that Windows barely supports any recent hardware [graphics/sound/tv tuner] anyways. In my windows install at least I had to install the nvidia and hauppage drivers manually.

Do I now say "Windows doesn't support bt848 cards!!!"?

Tom

Re:Funny

[lachlan76]

Most people are probably using Ethernet, with a Realtek 8139 chipset, which is well supported. If not that, then the one onboard the motherboard (I don't know what nForce support is like, but the Rhine driver works for me).

Hardware support under Linux isn't that bad.

Re:Funny

[spac3manspiff]

Believe it or not, your Windows performance will depend on the quality of graphics card you have.
Yes, you can by a 36 dollar card and get 3fps running windows.

Re:Funny

[tmbg37]

They will look for something else and find linux!

Or they'll just stick with what's already installed on their computer and not switch to anything.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

NO. by "does not support," the OP meant that drivers are not available. there is no consumer hardware that is not supported by windows. Your arguement is a straw man, and a bad one at that.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right no one is going to buy Longhorn, becuase it won't be called that when it goes on sale.

Re:Funny

[tomstdenis]

No the argument is the wording is misleading.

Just as /. types bitch that "MPAA cracking down on torrents" makes BitTorrent look bad so does saying "hardware X doesn't work in Linux [when comparing to Windows]" make Linux sound bad.

The reason why most wifi hardware doesn't work in Linux isn't a lack of trying. It's that hardware manufacturers GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to not support Linux.

For example, my friend got a "v4 Linksys" 802.11b card [iirc it was Linksys....] and found out that only the v3 card works in Linux.

Similarly the "SoundMAX" cmpci asus chipset [at least when first introduced] was purposefully different from the original cmpci chipset [and didn't work at least in the 2.4 kernels].

So it's not that Linux developers don't develop drivers [or try to] it's that hardware developers change specs and don't document things.

In the future just say "Linksys doesn't support their customers [*]" instead of saying "Linux doesn't support Linksys".

[*] Any BS about not being enough Linux users is just stupid. The benefit from taking the time to write competent Linux drivers [or just release the specs] would far outweigh the cost of doing so.

Tom

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You are really, and I mean really, truly, seriously a moron.

By the time Longhorn comes out, cards that support Shader 2.0 will be standard. If a Shader 2.0 card is not found, then the 3d effects will not be enabled.

With your sense of the market and obvious skills of deduction, I soon expect to see your own homegrown 2d only linux distribution, designed to be the anti-longhorn, on the shelves soon.

You can sell it for $20 and convince people that saving $20 is worth installing another OS and dealing with all the quirks and baggage that Linux users must deal with consistantly.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, They killed Kenny according to pricewatch.

THOSE BASTARDS!

Re:Funny

[Anubis350]

nforce drivers work absolutely flawlessly in answer to your question.

Re:Funny

[Da Web Guru]

People are not going to buy longhorn if they need to buy a graphics card too. They will look for something else and find linux!

People are not going to flock to linux on the basis of a video card being slow. (That is the kind of migration that would be based on principles more than convenience, and most people don't care about principles when it comes to computers.) They expect some things to be slower, and if a new video card is the only thing that they have to change, then they will just go down the street to the nearest Best Buy/CompUSA/Circuit City/WalMart and get one. It is a lot easier than trying to learn how to install linux, then learn how to use linux, then learn how to install (equivalent) software that they were using in Windows, then learn how to copy their data over from Windows, then learn how to update linux, especially since they will not know where to get help doing all of that.

Re:Funny

[conteXXt]

Tell your friend that v4 works now (use the files from the cd for winxp) with ndswrapper.

Using one right now.

Oh and the soundmax works now too.

snd_pcm_oss 48804 0
snd_mixer_oss 17408 3 snd_pcm_oss
snd_cmipci 32276 1
snd_pcm 86920 3 snd_bt87x,snd_pcm_oss,snd_cmipci

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

another example is the "element aireo" the company absolutely refuses to give any information on how the player talks to the sync software. which is completely silly. anyone with the time can sniff it and crack it. yet they prefer to be HOSTILE to the linux user and developer that is making a sync app that will replace their junky one.

this is why i sold mine on ebay and bought something else, as well as reccomend that nobody buy an element aireo mp3 player. the company does not want you to use it the way you want to, they only want you to use their sync software that is more of an afterthought than a decent product.

Re:Funny

[stratjakt]

Go check out Andrew Mortons' feelings on binary drivers. They don't want them in linux. They say that that's the companies "taking" from linux without giving back.

They want all OSS drivers. That means they've chosen to take on the task of supporting all hardware themselves.

Unlike Windows, the Linux kernel hackers - by their own choice, are responsible for every piece of unsupported hardware.

They could easily put in hooks for binary drivers, hell they could implement Windows driver APIs, and automagically have linux support everything.

Quartz

[FFON]

Quartz Extreeemmmmme anyone?

KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"KDE: Gets 5000% performance out of your graphics card by using our patented 'It Doesn't Use Fucking Pixel Shaders Just To Display A Fucking Menu' technology!"

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"KDE: Gets 5000% performance out of your graphics card by using our patented 'It Doesn't Use Fucking Pixel Shaders Just To Display A Fucking Menu' technology!"

That would improve KDE so it will only be like 50 times slower than Linux then.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[cyberfelon2k5]

Your graphics card is barely being used while you're not playing games or watching videos. It won't slow anything down because it's simply making use of something that just sits there waiting to be used. Companies jazzing up their GUI is far from a new thing, and it's as much about keeping the OS modern as it is about actual innovation.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

That would improve KDE so it will only be like 50 times slower than Linux then.

See, that's the brilliance of it. KDE's strategy was, rather than go to all the trouble of writing a fast GUI, just start out slow as mud and then just wait around until the Mac and Windows GUIs get even slower!

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is I'm using KDE now, and I'm using an opengl window decoration (crystal-gl, iirc). It's subtle, it just makes the window bar look like it's made of tinted, curved glass, refracting the desktop background. And on my crappy Athlon 750 with a Radeon 9000, it runs just as fast as any of the other normal window decorations because my otherwise unused video card is doing all the heavy lifting.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

hehehe

I can see why where I come from the linux heads are called 'green screeners'.

I'm sure y'all could make a web server run on my thermostat. Impresive, truely!

However, y'all are about doing more with less.

Or I could say- more with older hardware.

Or again- more with simpler hardware.

Definatly not more with newer cooler hardware.

Or I could say- more with more complicated hardware.

Or I could say- y'all just cant hack the real projects- the real complex problems- the things that would make your OS kick real ass...

Nobody here will stand up and say, "Well fuck us! We gotta come with an answer to this! Why didn't we think of doing this!"

There will just be bitching; it's your MO.

'It Doesn't Use Fucking Pixel Shaders Just To Display A Fucking Menu' technology!'

Yep! That just about sums up what I think about linux. The best software implementation for the oldest hardware.

Or- The worst software implementation for the latest hardware.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[randallpowell]

The best software implementation for the oldest hardware. Or- The worst software implementation for the latest hardware. Same could be said for Windows. Afterall, XP won't run on older hardware since it has no natie drivers and no XP driversf or it. XP does well with newer hardware but it's usually made for XP like many modems and wireless cards.

In short, stop trolling without training.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[killerface]

Or I could say- more with more complicated hardware.

http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[The_reformant]

Well based on KDE's current performance I would bet that Longhorn could use pixel shaders to render windows and *STILL* be more responsive than the KDE desktop..and by the way yes I have the misfortune to have to use both windows and KDE on a daily basis.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"Same could be said for Windows. Afterall, XP won't run on older hardware since it has no natie drivers and no XP driversf or it."

Thank you! Y'all are about doing more with the older crap. Microsoft pushes forward! Always forward! And the systems that you are talking about where the ones that were present pre 2000- talk about a late argument!

"XP does well with newer hardware but it's usually made for XP like many modems and wireless cards. In short, stop trolling without training. "

XP does well with newer hardware because ALL THE DRIVER DEVELOPERS WRITE SOFTWARE FOR MICROSOFT PLATFORMS.

Wooooo! Guess I cant say that about linux!!! nnnghghhh!

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/"

Blade servers?

OOOOOHHH NOW THATS COMPLICATED!!!

Come on!!! They're just servers in a rack running your minimal ass os -> the people doing the REAL work on any kind of system like this are the ones USING IT!

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[DeepHurtn!]

Ah, but what happens when you want to use your powerful graphics card for an app that needs it, and it's power is being hogged just to draw windows and menus?

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Jameth]

Just in case you actually cared, KDE 4 will be able to use a pixel shader for rendering the menu. And, assuming both KDE 4 and Longhorn are on time, KDE 4 will come out first. And, seeing as KDE has made its last several releases to within a few weeks, it seems likely that at least KDE will be on time.

So, overall, I quite agree with you. Those slackers over at MS have some real explaining to do about why they'll be the last OS to have any real hardware acceleration.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[cyberfelon2k5]

The sorts of programs that are most taxing on the graphics card run full screen, or use only a small part of the graphics card (such as video). If you're a professional that needs all the power available for 3D Studio Max or some other windowed 3D application, then you just turn off the effects. After all, as everyone keeps reminding us, this is simply for show and nothing is lost functionally by turning it off.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[10Ghz]

I use both W2K and KDE3.3.2 on my home-machine, and the two are about as fast. Well, KDE has more functionality and eye-candy, but it's not one bit slower than W2K is. So I really see no problems with KDE's responsivness.

I use XP on my work-machine, and I don't really see any difference in performance there either.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure you could tow a freight train with that KDE machine, and it would still be faster than XP even on the fastest processor XP will run on.

Re:KDE should use this in their advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously XP won't run on ALL older hardware, but it doesn't require the newest stuff either. For example, just yesterday I configured a 200MHz Pentium with XP. All this machine has to do is run QuickBooks, so there's no need for anything faster, really.

aQazaQa

Cool

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Finally a move into using hardware to speed stuff up.

I know we'll see a bunch of folks protesting bloat and other fud - but it'll be cool to see what they come up with with a home UI that strains a vid card.

Re:Cool

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Modded Interesting? Err - thanks - but I'll be "overrated" soon.

I sat back and thought about doom 3 and the strain it puts on vid cards - I went out and got a fx 5200 to play and can't help thinking what changes are going to be made to the GUI that'll need that power.

I know in the past they were working on a three D "art Hall" representation for a UI - and there was a 3d graphical cube layout some site was designing that I saw in comdex 2001 - What I'm hoping to see is a mix of the two - a 3d multi-sided gui that had the same flexibility as multiple desktops married to a cube that allows me easy access away from the generic start bar.

Course - that means backgrounds would be banished - but maybe replaced by designs from the discovery channel.. LOL

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought a GeForce FX 5200 to play Doom 3?

How's the slideshow?

Re:Cool

[the_Bionic_lemming]

runs fine on the 5200.

I'm running a 3.0 with 512 of ddr 2700 ram - I need to save up and get a gig of ddr 3200 ram to fully utilize the board I bought but until then - nothing has slowed me down.

When Longhorn is released...

[Biff Stu]

I'll need a high end graphics card to play Duke Nukem Forever.

No biggie.

[stratjakt]

You can get a card today for ~80 bucks that fit the bill. Even PCI models, if you're that far out of the loop. By the time longhorn is released, they'll be commonplace.

Frankly, I can't wait to see this. All that GPU power of my 9800 is basically being wasted 99.99999999% of the time right now.

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 10 9's. That means you use your graphics card for about 36.5 nanoseconds per year?

Re:No biggie.

[loyukfai]

Suppose Longhorn is going to be released in 2006, it's very likely that alot of boxes will still have no PS 2.0 support. Remember a lot of boxes sold in recent years have integrated graphics, and most of those integrated graphics don't support PS 2.0.

Of course, by MS's tradition, one will probably fall back to classic mode. But then, many people don't know how to configure it, so it will be better if the installer configures this automatically or at least easier.

Also, since the demos will probably be run on some very capable hardware and demostrate these nifties. It could disappoint upgraders after they found out they need to upgrade their graphics after they bought the copies. Not so good for corporate image I guess.

So it probably won't be a big issue, but neither a non-issue.

Frankly, I can't wait to see this. All that GPU power of my 9800 is basically being wasted 99.99999999% of the time right now.

I think, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a 9800 then...? @_@

BTW, for those who want/need to know which chips support PS 2.0, try this and this.

Re:No biggie.

[mt v2.7]

You think a 9800 is bad?

I've got a PCI-e 6600GT.. and it's OVERCLOCKED, to boot!

Now if all of those extra video cards could be made to do something useful.. I mean, damn, 128 GDDR3 running at 1000MHz and a 128bit Core running at 500MHz.. I've got more power than most windows users! (Don't even speak on the water-cooled 4 GHZ P4.. >.>)

What we need is a distributed computing project, yup, that's the ticket.. we could save LIVES and futher justify our inanely expensive video cards!

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

That means you use your graphics card for about 36.5 nanoseconds per year?

No, it means 60^2 * 24 * 365 * (100 - 99.99999999) = 0.315359802 seconds per year.

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. What about laptops? I already have a crappy battery playtime if anything mildly GPU intensive is running.

Also, shorter battery time means more heat, and more noise. When using XP, under normal usuage (which is browsing and typing text in my case) the fans in my laptop never kick in.

I hope Longhorn will have a stripped down windows2000 interface as an option, or linux finally starts really supporting laptops.

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you still have to divide your results by 100%, because of using percents in your calculation (I always use the % marks within the formulas).

So I guess (if the rest of your calculation is correct) the final result is 3.15 microseconds per year.

Also, a year approximately 365.25 days long (i do not remember the exact figure)

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you still have to divide your results by 100%, because of using percents in your calculation

No, I don't. The first part simply gives the number of seconds in a year, and from the premise that the GPU power of his 9800 is wasted for 99.99999999% of any given unit of time, that leaves us with (100 - 99.99999999).

60^2 * 24 * 365 * (100 - 99.99999999)

Also, a year approximately 365.25 days long (i do not remember the exact figure)

That's an important point, though. Thanks for pointing it out. I think we can use sidereal year (365.256363051 d) for the calculations.

So, let's suppose that his computer is always on. The final figure would be:

60^2 * 24 * 365.256363051 * (100 - 99.99999999) = 0.3155813 seconds of usage per year.

(Since he gave the percentage with a precision of 8 decimals, we can safely use 7 decimals in the result.)

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't. The first part simply gives the number of seconds in a year, and from the premise that the GPU power of his 9800 is wasted for 99.99999999% of any given unit of time, that leaves us with (100 - 99.99999999).

60^2 * 24 * 365 * (100 - 99.99999999)

Ok. Then lets do the whole thing from the biginning again using units with every quantity in the formula :-)

(60sec/minute)*(60minute/hour)*(24hour/day)*(365da y/year)*(100%-99.99999999%) ~ (0.3155813sec/year)%.

Notice the extra % at the end. With the % sign present, your result is not in seconds/year.

To make the % go away, you need multiply your result with 1/(100%), because there are 100%-s in one unit.

Optionally you could use (1-0.9999999999) as the final multiplyer instead of the % thing, because that is already unitless.

Yours, Péter

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you're right. I need more coffee. :)

Re:No biggie.

[Rich0]

Uh, the computer I'm typing on is an AMD64 3200. It cost me all of $600 to build - mainly because I didn't waste money on stuff I didn't really need.

My graphics card? A Riva TNT2. I'm not even sure it decodes MPEG...

Why? Because that's all I need, and $80 was better spent on RAM than a graphics card that will render KDE menus... If I had to spend an extra $80 I would have either gotten another hard drive, or more RAM.

Hey, if somebody wants to make 3D menus that is fine by me, as long as I can disable them.

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one sixth of what a Mac Mini costs. So now the consumer has got a choice: spend more and more money on windows pc, that gets more unusable over time, or get a cheap, silent, small and cool-looking Mac Mini. I know what I will recommend to family and friends.

Re:No biggie.

[Anonymous Coward]

And just because you made a mistake by buying a faster graphics card than you will ever need, you can't wait for Microsoft to force everyone else to buy just as fast cards?

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time Longhorn is released in 2007 or 2008, will anyone really care?

But...

[rune2]

Can it run Longhorn? oh wait....

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

can what run longhorn? since this article was about longhorn, the long form of your joke is:

"Can [Longhorn] run Longhorn? oh wait...."

funny stuff, there.

I can't wait!

[DanSolo]

I can't wait until my start menu uses bump mapping and takes 10 seconds to animate into view. This is going to be awesome!!

not so much impact

[diegocgteleline.es]

IIRC, longhorn installer will check your graphics card (if it's lower than X fps then...) and will enable or disable 3D functions depending on if you've a good or bad graphics card

In short: the "3d mode" it won't be the one available. There will be a much lighter desktop available (somewhat like current XP or something like that, you'll miss all the 3d stuff but...)

Re:not so much impact

[LiquidCoooled]

If you have a REALLY crap graphics card, Windows longhorn will automatically switch to text adventure mode.

You have opened a window.
Above you you see the Titlebar, it has a Close button.
There is lots of text on the window, looking closely, it appears to say 'slashdot'.

You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
>_

Re:not so much impact

[boarder8925]

..., you'll miss all the 3d stuff but...

I'd like to miss Windows Foghorn Leghorn (commonly known as "Longhorn") altogether, thank you very much.

Re:not so much impact

[Anonymous Coward]

holy shit i never have mod points when i need them

Re:not so much impact

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

omfg I've never laughed so hard at a /. post in my life.

Re:not so much impact

[Anonymous Coward]

seconded, never even posted before but that was bloody brilliant!

Re:not so much impact

[HeghmoH]

Why would this decision be made at install time? Wouldn't the right thing be to make the decision at boot depending on what video card is present? What happens if you have two cards with differing capabilities?

Oh right, this is Microsoft, who can't do the right thing if their lives depended on it. I'm so glad I have a Mac.

Re:not so much impact

[Anonymous Coward]

> xyzzy

The screen has turned blue.
A process has commenced a pointless core dump, which no one cares about.
Hit the Power button to play again.

Re:not so much impact

[sharkey]

You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

I don't think so. Grues only come out when there is no light, not when there is a steady blue-and-white glow.

Lobby

[FiReaNGeL]

Honestly, do we NEED a 3d-accelerated interface? I'm sorry, but the "cute" factor vanish rapidly, and if it's gonna cost me a 200$ video card, I'll pass my turn. So basically, we will be required to buy a 3d card if we want to upgrade past Windows XP?

Anyone else think that Nvidia and ATI might have lobbied aggressively for this? I can't justify this... if it was an option, sure, no problem, but a necessity...

Re:Lobby

[stratjakt]

Oh shut the fuck up. 200 dollars my ass. I seriously am sick to fucking hell of "computar linux exparts" spouting such nonsense. Mod me down, call me a MSFT astoturfer or whatever. I absolutely hate intellectual dishonesty.

A Radeon 9200 is 36 dollars.

And no, you don't need it. Don't buy longhorn.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but you can't buy anything BUT a 3D card new these days. By the time longhorn is out, if you don't have a 3D card with PS2.0 support, that would make your PC about 5 years old. If you want the latest software, sometimes you have to upgrade.

I like the idea of using it for something other than games.

Re:Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Crappyish video cards (Fx5200) are available for, say, $60. Decent video cards are around $120-170 (Radeon 9600 Pro, etc). By the time longhorn roles out, it shouldn't be that difficult to afford a video card that can support at least some of its 3d features. The rest will be disabled by Longhorn so that you lose no performance (eyecandy, yes).

Re:Lobby

[jellomizer]

Guess what things change. Back in the 80s when the Mac was released People said the same thing. Why do you need a GUI Interface where we can get all that we need done in text mode. GUI is only for games and cute apps. Then by the Mid 90s GUI became nessary for most modern computing needs. Besides just allowing ability such as WYSWYG Word Processing. The windowing interface made it common to have multible apps open at the same time where you can see information on one app and the other. Yes Desqview could do that too in text mode but it was difficult to get the data you needed without the resolution. Then you were paying $200 or More just for a card that can do "Ultra High Resulution" 640x480 at 16 colors. Shortly after all the computers needed them there production price went down to match competition.

The same will happen with 3d cards after longhorn is released in some times in the distant future. The prices will go straight down, because there will be more then just 2 that will make a Longhorn compatible Video Card.

I can't justify this... if it was an option, sure, no problem, but a necessity... Nobody is forcing you to upgrade you will not be put in Jail if you use your 8088XT with MS DOS 2.0 with 256k of RAM and a CGA (2D 4 Colors at 320x240, 2 Colors 640x240, 16 color Text Mode) Video card. But honestly as time goes on the system requirements for new systems increase. It is the same for Most Linux Distributions, Mac OS, BSD, Solaris... It happens deal with it.

Re:Lobby

[gl4ss]

I'd rather have the ui drawn through accelerated interface rather than non-accelerated.

or do you enjoy tremendously using your card with a vesa driver instead of the proper accelerated one now...?

Re:Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then by the Mid 90s GUI became nessary for most modern computing needs."

Modern computing needs like...?

What most of us needed to do, we always could.

Most apps weren't ported to the GUI for need of a GUI. No, most apps were ported to the GUI because the non-GUI systems were no longer supported in their market, and the new GUI systems were.

Unless you are actually modifying images, you do not need a GUI.

80x24 characters ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:Lobby

[PyroMosh]

No, you don't. And Longhorn will support the legacy APIs as well. If you don't have 3D hardware, you just won't get the eye candy. Simple, no?

Lots of good info on WGF can be found here. Unfortunatly it's in powerpoint format, but if you've got powerpoint, or something that can read it, it's worth a look.

Re:Lobby

[jellomizer]

Modern computing needs like...?

Having different fonts for your text and seeing them before you print it out and waist paper.

Seeing 2 applications Side by Side. Have 2 Terminals open one with the readme file in vi and the other is the shell window. Following the directions.

Diagrams, Charts and Pictures. I bet you Boss/Teacher Loves it when you give them all the Data in a chart with no graphical representation of it.

Non-Mono spaced fonts. Now you can fit a lot more text per line.

Drawing, and Video Editing. Duh!

GUI is here and it is here to stay. Arguing against it is like saying that we should go back to stone tolls because they got the work done too. It just isn't going to happen. Sure I remember the Text days in DOS 2.0 Playing fun text only games, using Word Perfect and Lotus 123, Programming in Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++. And we did loose a lot of great things when they moved to GUI but GUI is here to stay, and it will only get bigger it may stop when from a 1nm square box we can make a 3D Display that will fill a Solar System with Solid, and Transparent 128 bit Color (Hey we need the extra bits for Infrared and Ultra Violet display too) Object at a resolution that will display quarks in real size and at real time. And be able to do this easily at 1 Trillion Frames per second.

Re:Lobby

[FuzzieNorn]

A Radeon 9200 doesn't support PS2.0.

Re:Lobby

[tiks]

I think graphic cards need to step out of the cute display & gamers market a bit, i mean there is a hell of a lot processing power which can be used for someting serious, especially when u are not busy playing games with it. for instance, the massively parallel computional power can be used for better audio processing, better speech processing & all kinds of graph optimization..
in fact, it would be cool if someone came up with a way of utilizing this unused power to do something useful like google did with folding@stanford in google toolbar.

refs: http://gpgpu.org/

Re:Lobby

[lachlan76]

GeforceFX 5200 Ultra. Under $150, 256MB RAM, Supports PS2.0.

And it's not ATI.

Re:Lobby

[Suddenly_Dead]

Not exactly sure what's wrong with ATI...

The normal 128MB FX5200 can be found for under $100, I've seen it at $60 USD. Compared to ATI equivalents, the FX series (except for the top end) is poor at advanced DX9 stuff (ie. PS2.0)

Re:Lobby

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

I don't know if you'd noticed, but you can't buy anything BUT a 3D card new these days.

Unless you have a budget PC with integrated video, of course. Most integrated video has very limited 3D support these days, but probably not enough for Longhorn.

Re:Lobby

[miffo.swe]

"By the time longhorn is out, if you don't have a 3D card with PS2.0 support, that would make your PC about 5 years old."

So, Longhorn will be out just a while after Duke Nukem Forever is released and everybody has gotten a new card to play a bit of pig killing?

Re:Lobby

[lachlan76]

I use Linux. If you use Linux, never, ever, ever go with an ATI.

Re:Lobby

[mikji]

You need an editor.

Re:Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Radeon 9250. 100% open source drivers (dri.sf.net), full 3D support, completely no problems. Too bad this is the last good 3D card with 100% open-source drivers. And I'm not going to buy a newer card until one with OS drivers is available.

Oh, and passive cooling on my 9250 is a plus too. Besides, I don't play much FPS games.

--Coder

Re:Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work in the financial industry, multi-display 2D video cards by Matrox are the standard. In fact, if you want the highest quality 2D graphics with the added bonus of low heat, Matrox is the best choice. Matrox under X11 is superb, if you're main interest is clear, readable text and graphics, and fast 2D screen updates.

Re:Lobby

[bungley]

Having different fonts for your text and seeing them before you print it out and waist (sic) paper.

That's a bit of a lame example; experimenting with fonts does more harm than good. How could your work possibly have some characteristic making another font more 'suitable'? WYSIWYG is totally overrated. I recently found myself forced into using LaTeX and I'm loving it. It's really brought home to me that separating content from style actually is a good idea. Giving people too much power results in stuff like warning signs in comic sans.

I do like my GUIs, but it's always good to know about the text-based/CLI-driven alternatives.

Oh, and also:

Have 2 Terminals open one with the readme file in vi and the other is the shell window.

You can do that in screen, or in vim itself :P

Re:Lobby

[nath_de]

The problem is not the price but the fact that the minimum needed graphics will suck another 100 Watt and make quite some noise.

Re:Lobby

[lachlan76]

Oops, yeah, forgot about the old ones that use OSS drivers.

I'd still get an nVidia though.

Yes Fisher Price in 3d!!!!!!

[Obliviously]

so will the msn messenger guy in longer be a true 3d little fisher price guy?

Other effects

[Datasage]

I frequent several diffrent gaming forums. I have noticed that there are always people trying to play games on intel integrated graphics. Since intel just barely supports standards, its not a suprise that many games dont run at all or hardly on those cards.

Hopefully it will encourage intel and other intergraded graphics makers to make decent video chipset or get replaced by demand. On the other hand, intel might make it just good enough for longhorn but not games.

Re:Other effects

[magarity]

there are always people trying to play games on intel integrated graphics

But... but... the sticker on the front of the case says 'Intel Extreme Graphics! How can anything beat 'Extreme'?
But don't worry, by the time Longhorn hits the market, I bet we'll have 'Intel Excessive Graphics' and be all set!

Re:Other effects

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but whats wrong with that... isn't the point of intel like video chipsets to just provide basic functionality & not play halo2 @ 1920 x 1200.

If your doing exel and word all day... its not as if you need some extra crap.

3D

[tuxter]

So this gives us more driver issues, more crud, bloat, shit, bluescreens, and generally more of a way to slow down our computers. Once again microsoft, cheers.

Re:3D

[Anonymous Coward]

But think of all the 3D whiz-bang you get! Word menus in THREE DIMENSIONS that spin around! Lens flares!

Re:3D

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice work trollboy. Have you ever used Windows since Linux was released? Newsflash - it's been stable since 1996 so long as you don't install poorly written third party apps.

Driver issues? If you don't want driver issues, use Windows (more drivers and compatibility than any other OS on the planet) or Mac (No driver problems because you can't use anything but what Steve Jobs says you can). Whatever you do, don't use Linux, of those three big OS's, Linux has the most driver problems and the least compatibility.

Crud - define crud? Nowadays Windows comes with less bundled stuff than before. You can use program defaults to obscure MSIE, Outlook and MS's Java knockoff. Windows server doesn't do anything out of the box, you need to manually allow every server function before it can be used.

Bluescreens - clearly you're not very experienced or skilled with computers. You can't use MSIE to go browse those russian pr0n sites because you get the spywarez installed, understand? The only reason you'll suffer bluescreens today is because you did something stupid like that.

Slow down your computer - You make a tradeoff between functionality and performance. You don't want bells and whistles? Replace your windows shell with cmd.exe. Go on, I dare you. What? You don't want the sheer performance that a CLI gives you, but you complain that such a tradeoff between graphics and performance exists? Put your computer back in the box and send it back to the Dell dude.

Your computer license is revoked, get off our internet.

Re:3D

[Anonymous Coward]

So this gives us more driver issues, more crud, bloat, shit, bluescreens, and generally more of a way to slow down our computers. Once again microsoft, cheers.

I was expecting this from a Linux troll. You clearly showed you have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about. Beats me why people think Linux users are Windows experts.

1. You will be able to install only signed drivers on Longhorn. Microsoft took that approach because obiously some companies make shit drivers and blame the OS for crashing. As you might have guessed, Microsoft signs only tested/verified drivers that actually do work (yes, that's possible :)).

2. Longhorn is built upon .NET, for drivers this means that they have no way of crashing the system. If a driver fucks up, it's unloaded by the kernel and will probably switch to software rendering after that so you're not left with a command line. In theory (if Microsoft makes it right) there is no possible way for a BSOD anymore unless the kernel encounters a serious bug.

3. Using GPU for rendering the GUI is probably the most sane thing you can do at this time. Why leave the GPU idling while it can be used for some usefull stuff. I imagine it will speed up GUI rendering because it will be a seperate process, so CPU can do it's stuff more efficient.

On a side note, they are also pushing the driver loading process nearer to the boot - meaning you don't have to stare at 60 Hz while you wait for the system to boot up (which btw is they are making it boot up even faster than XP). I can't remember correctly but I think all menu/window animations are beeing done at 60 fps and vertical synced.

Oh, and btw noone is making you buy Longhorn or buy a new video card so STFU complaining. And the OS uses (from what we know) at least 2 different GUIs (probably one 3D and one 2D for software rendering - most probably something like XP GUI).

Re:3D

[randallpowell]

I, for one, welcome our new 3D BSOD overlords.

Re:3D

[mr i want to go home]

I'm sorry, this is just not true. Lots of people here have a great crack at Mac fanboys for them looking past Apple's fault - but you have taken this a great step further for the windows team.

What you're saying -might- be true if all you're doing is turning on the computer, typing an email, and then turning it back off. However, if you're using Windows (yes, especially XP) for any extended period of time (like more than 24hours) with multiple applications open that can stress then system (like cad/image editing/video editing/etc) then you will experience lockups and crashes fairly often. And it's not just because these other apps are 'poorly written'. It's easy to have an app lock up effect other apps, the whole system, and even crash Explorer (ie the desktop/window manager). The OS should not be letting this happen.

Most people just accept this as part of the game, recognise when Windows has 'had enough' and reboot. This doesn't mean it's good, right, or that windows is 'stable'.

I dont see a problem

[SteveXE]

By the time Longhorn is out im sure all low end graphics cards and integrated solutions will support pixel shader 2.0. And chances are those who upgrade will have better then crap hardware.

needless (rant mostly)

[potpie]

The idea of an uberpretty 3d enhanced desktop is completely unnecessary. Unless it allows for tilting windows and using screenspace more effectively (since they never figured out the multiple desktop idea =), this is a complete waste of system resources and....

the sad thing is how many people will buy it, run it at a choppy frame-rate, and flaunt their new purchase (it's gotta be at least a few hundred bucks right? this is MS) as though it were the latest in gaming technology. No karma bonus for this rant...

Re:needless (rant mostly)

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Windows NT has always had multiple desktops, right? An infinite number of them which can each run their own shell. Oh yeah, you wouldn't know that because you don't actually know the first fucking thing about Windows, you're just happy to toe the line. Fanboi.

Re:needless (rant mostly)

[Knight2K]

My first thought was: "Gee how original! Hadn't heard of a good idea like that since.... Mac OS X maybe."

I'd be surprised if they really went wild with 3d interfaces like the 'Jurassic Park' file browser, or the cube with web pages mapped on it that was posted here awhile ago. I think they are just going to do what Apple has already done and what Keith Packard is working on for X-Windows.

You are probably right. Microsoft will only use it for flashy effects. At least Apple eventually got to arguably useful things like Expose. But they had to put Quartz Extreme in place first before they could do it.

I'm not inclined to be charitable, but hopefully this is Microsoft laying the groundwork for interesting and useful user interface ideas.

Naaaah, that is too nice.

Re:needless (rant mostly)

[potpie]

...says the anonymous coward.

You're right. I don't know the first thing about Windows NT, nor do I know the first thing about Windows CE, Windows ME, Windows 95, Gentoo Linux, Mandrake Linux, Yellow Dog Linux, Debian Linux, the Hurd kernel, Opera web browser, FVWM, hedge-trimming, gardening, calligraphy, clock building, or flying airplanes... just to name a few.

But I'm sure that Windows XP and 98 don't support multiple desktops out of the box (unless there's just a complicated way most people don't know), and KDE, Gnome, Windowmaker, etc. do.

Re:needless (rant mostly)

[Loonacy]

Actually, the 'Jurassic Park' browser is an actual UNIX 3D interface.

Re:needless (rant mostly)

[Knight2K]

I was aware of that, though I realized after I posted that I wasn't clear on that point. In any case, it didn't appear very useful to me. In the time it takes to fly over usr, I could have used the find command to locate what I was looking for and execute it.

Start menu - loading please wait

[g0dsp33d]

In other news, Microsoft issues critical security warnings about bugs that let hackers run 3D viruses and worms natively in windows.

Re:Start menu - loading please wait

[Wesley Felter]

3D viruses and worms? Didn't I see that in the movie Swordfish?

Great, but.

[PenchantToLurk]

I've used Windows since 3.0. I'm a Windows (.Net) developer. And I agree that the gee-whiz factor will be great. Animations, depth to menus... it'll be gorgeous.

But... It doesn't matter how fast computers get, Windows Explorer Shell always seems to become less snappy, even on fresh installs. XP made the start menu slower than ever as it retrieves nonessential metadata on the shortcuts. Myriad Shell extensions, over time, bring the Explorer UI to a crawl.

Sexy is great, but I have to use it every day. It's just not worth making the UI dog even worse.

Re:Great, but.

[emjoi_gently]

And I feel the same way about MacOS X. Too much wizbangery detracts from the purpose of the computer. Widgets start to take up too much screen real-estate, and eat up too much RAM and CPU time.

With Windows 2000, MS got it's UI about right. But plain and functional doesn't sell upgrades.

Re:Great, but.

[bogie]

That is the $64 question isn't it? Can Microsoft learn to make an OS that doesn't slow down massively over time. I just did a fresh install on my one machine that runs XP and its night and day. Over time XP just gets slower and slower. Of course the battle cry for MS defenders is "its the fault of 3rd party drivers and apps". Well, then make freaking OS that doesn't let "3rd party" apps run it into the ground. Why do I even need to use an app's uninstaller? Why by default doesn't XP know exactly how to remove every last bit of registry crap that got shoved in there in the first place? How come it take 10 minutes for the start menu to come up after I've been using the OS for a while? How come many explorer operations still lock up the OS and stop whatever work you doing cold? When will MS make an OS that you can actually multitask on no matter what's going on in the background? MS has a lot of work to do and somehow I get the feeling that they haven't learned their lessons yet.

Re:Great, but.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much wizbangery detracts from the purpose of the computer.

"The purpose?" "The purpose?"

Are you kidding? If not, then please, by all means, enlighten us as to THE Purpose of a computer.

Re:Great, but.

[Fallen_Knight]

to compute?

Re:Great, but.

[TrancePhreak]

The task bar could be attributed to your hard drive. Either it's bad, you let it go into sleep mode, or it's from 1984. It can also be attributed to older AMD's, I believe there was a note about that somewhere. They have trouble running XP.

Re:Great, but.

[SunFan]

Well, then make freaking OS that doesn't let "3rd party" apps run it into the ground.

Does Windows have a good scheduler? In Solaris, I can have an app or several apps sucking all the CPU it can, but the desktop remains pretty snappy. For the most part, that is, because I think Macromedia figured out a way to use 101% of the CPU for Flash.

Re:Great, but.

[Richard Dick Head]

Its called spyware, cowboy. I've had my laptop running XP for a year straight now, with no slowdown. Of course, if you use spyware/virus vectors like Internet Explorer, executable wallpaper installers (wallpapers are supposed to be JPEGs and GIFs people!! duh!!), Lookout Distress (Read: Outlook Express), Kazaa, Weatherbug, WebTangent driver, etc...of course you're computer is gonna slow down.

In other words, I believe it is safe to say you're the one that's slow, not just the computer.

Re:Great, but.

[delus10n0]

No, no.

Poorly coded shell extensions bring the explorer UI to a crawl.

Also, if you've got 10+ shell extensions installed, perhaps you should re-evaluate your need for them.

Re:Great, but.

[SilentChris]

Ever try to remove all the remnants of a Mac app? Or using apt-get to uninstall? There's ALWAYS remnants. The issue is that there's a hell of a lot more software available for Widnows, some of which uses the exact same components, and people are more inclined to install a million pieces on top of each other to experiment. If you ever tried uninstalling AOL IM on Mac and reinstalling iChat, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Re:Great, but.

[Anonymous Coward]

95% of Mac apps install everything under /Applications/AppName.app and any settings in ~/Library. For the other 5%, if the program uses the Mac Installer then it has a BOM in /Library/Receipts that will tell you everything that the program installled. You can then use something like OSXPM to remove it.

Re:Great, but.

[thomasweber]

Or using apt-get to uninstall? There's ALWAYS remnants.

Well, at least for .debs, this is a bug. Period. A package might leave something behind in my home directory (personal settings,...), but everything on the system itself muss be cleared, if I purge the package (You knov the difference between apt-get remove and apt-get --purge remove?).

Re:Great, but.

[demo9orgon]

As long as Microsoft stands to make huge profits driving industry by not actually making an operating system and instead creating the fascimile of one we should expect them to continue their campaign of brutally screwing the retarded.

Although this is often regarded as a terrible thing, apparently when you do it on the scale that Microsoft has established everyone who matters seems pretty happy about it, even the slightly higher functioning who in turn prepetuate the cycle of violence by taking money to temporarily assist their less capable brethern in using Windows despite its glaring shortcomings for sustained use.

Of course we could view the shortcomings of Microsoft through a filter based on their hiring practices and conclude that when you hire people uniquely suited to taking tests and deriving non-intuitive solutions to puzzles that maybe they're also unqiuely suited to delivering the best damn cruel fake OS the planet will ever see.

Re:Great, but.

[Tim C]

Agreed. I've had my desktops at home and at work running XP (Pro) for a couple of years, with no noticeable slowdown.

Sure, if you don't know what you're doing you can cause yourself some real problems, but that's true of pretty much everything in life, not just computing.

Re:Great, but.

[Flyboy Connor]

It doesn't matter how fast computers get, Windows Explorer Shell always seems to become less snappy, even on fresh installs. XP made the start menu slower than ever as it retrieves nonessential metadata on the shortcuts.

After a fresh install of XP after I had used 98 for years, I had the same feeling. Then I installed TweakUI and turned off all the crap. It now runs smoothly. I don't want the crap and I don't use the crap. Now, as long as MS makes sure I can turn off the crap they are going to add to Longhorn, they can do whatever "cool" thing they want with the interface.

Revolving windows? Desktop weather conditions? A pulsating Close button? Live moving MS advertisements on the background? The Dance Of The Paperclips as a screensaver? If they have the billions to spare on this shit, let them have a go at it. But let me turn it off.

Re:Great, but.

[webweave]

"brutally screwing the retarded" Now that's an image of Balmer I had not thought of before. Thank you,

Re:Great, but.

[Electrum]

Or using apt-get to uninstall? There's ALWAYS remnants.

That's because most packages leave their settings and data behind in case you install them again later. You wouldn't want to uninstall a database and lose all your data, at least not without a confirmation. Use dpkg --purge if you want to completely remove everything that a package installed or created.

OS X Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the same sort of visual eye candy that is currently in OS X. Why is it when Apple does this sort of thing (and several years ago, when entry-level video cards much less powerful), nobody complains, but when Microsoft tries to do it once pretty much every graphics card will support it (probably all cards will by the time Longhorn is released), they get bashed?

Oh, right, Slashdot. I forgot.

Re:OS X Anyone?

[Azadre]

That's because OS X is a $1000 OS that comes with a computer to run it;)

Re:OS X Anyone?

[PasteEater]

Why is it when Apple does this sort of thing (and several years ago, when entry-level video cards much less powerful), nobody complains, but when Microsoft tries to do it once pretty much every graphics card will support it (probably all cards will by the time Longhorn is released), they get bashed?

Because apparently, you only read comments in a few selected articles. There have been plenty of people who have complained about this in OS X for years. Recently, Apple's offerings have included more powerful video cards, so it's pretty much a non-issue these days.

Also, since Apple has been doing this for years (as you point out) and they are somehow able to do it on current generation hardware. Microsoft is talking about some far off "card of tomorrow" that hasn't even seen the light of day yet.

Re:OS X Anyone?

[ZackSchil]

In addition, Apple aggressively optimized the software render of Quartz with 10.3, adding to the non-issue factor. Basically, as of 10.3, Quartz would become smoother the nicer your hardware, not faster.

3D Interfaces?

[NoodleSlayer]

... Really. How much 3D are you going to stuff on a display that except in a very few rare cases isn't able to display more then two dimensions?

Mac OS X makes use of some 3D hardware for slight tricks when the hardware is there (on a G4 or G5 it will use a rotating box effect when logging in or switching users, on a G3 it won't) and I'm sure there's some acceleration used in Expose to move windows around although that works on all the macs I've tried it on, but what exactly could they possibly do 3D wise that would make me want to switch from the classic interface circa Windows 2000 that I use on every box with WinXP on it that I have and will most likely use on any longhorn box I get in the future.

Re:3D Interfaces?

[akac]

No, not 3D interfaces in the way you're thinking. Think of it this way: every window is now an DirectX object. No need for redrawing by an app. Since every window is now a 3D object (one with only one pixel depth), you can do simple things like moving all the maintenance of a windows' DC from the app itself to the OS.

That's what Quartz Extreme does on OS X. This is just Quartz Extreme on PC.

Re:3D Interfaces?

[CoolMoDee]

It cubes here on a 900MHz g3 iBook. It isn't cpu that the cube effect is concerned with, but rather the gpu. It runs smooth here with a Radeon 7500 (massive old).

Re:3D Interfaces?

[NoodleSlayer]

Unfortunately the G3s I have access to are all on the older end (500 MHz and slower) and the G4 and G5 I play with is significantly faster, thus the assumption tying CPU and 3D card.

Re:3D Interfaces?

[Anonymous Coward]

correction.

It's Quartz3d for Windows.

X.org is working on stuff to make X Windows server 3d accelerated.

Glitz is a proof-of-concept project to take the XRender extention and make it pure OpenGL.
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_ 2fglitz

Works decent enough.

Also if your using Nvidia's propriatory drivers their version of XRender runs on 3d hardware.

Don't worry, not all Linux users aren't ignorant sluts about 3d hardware.

When X.org's X server gets 3d acceleration we will be able to get drivers developed much quicker (Linux has as many as 3 different video drivers going at the same time, framebuffer (bleh), 2d acceleration, 3d acceleration. At least 2 for X Windows, this will reduce the need to one driver and simplify things considurably.)

Also 3d apps will be able to get their 3d-ness directly from the X server rather then having to go down to lower levels of the OS and take care of it themselves. That way you could do nice things like get 3d acceleration for remote X clients.
(remember X client is the application and that can be on your own computer or a application server, a X Server takes care of the video hardware and input devices (keyboard and mouse) and is always running on your local computer).

The 2d portion of video cards have remained the same since the first 3d card come out. Fast enough is fast enough generic 2d stuff. However 95% of your video card is geared towards 3D and that's worth taking advantage of.

It'll be interesting who gets a 3d accelerated desktop 2nd, Linux (and other free Unix-like stuff) or Longhorn. (seeing how Apple has got it first)

Re:3D Interfaces?

[Senjaz]

Longhorn's graphics acceleration is more than just a Quartz Extreme equivalent. The full graphics pipeline is on the graphics card. No 2D rendering is done outside the graphics card.

Apple's effort of offloading graphics tasks to the graphics card has been implemented incrementally. Right now not all parts of the pipeline are accelerated. 3D is fully accelerated through OpenGL, DVD playback and 2D window compositing are accelerated. 2D rendering is not.

Quartz 2D acceleration is a feature of Mac OS X 10.4 which is to be released in the first half of this year. Other graphics accelerations are being added to Tiger too, ImageUnits and VideoUnits put the use of pixel shaders in advanced graphics cards into the hands of 2D developers, so 3rd party programmers can feel some of the love too.

Longhorn's acceleration is broadly equivalent of Quartz Extreme and accelerated Quartz 2D. But because Microsoft are doing it in one go it may end up having some architectural benefit, I don't know. Comparisons of the two systems have been drawn and debated pretty heavily, but considering only one of these systems is in the wild I try not to be drawn into it.

So Windows users will get accelerated graphics sometime in 2006. That will be at least 6 months after Mac users get equivalent acceleration. Also noting that we'll have had partial acceleration in the form of 2D compositing for over 2 years by then.

Microsoft has given out more specific requirements

[aceh0]

Back at WinHEC in May (and before I believe) Microsoft gave out some more specific details about what the graphical requirements for Longhorn would be. Here's a summary of the what they were expecting hardware requirements to look like. There is a more detailed version buried on their site somewhere but I'm too lazy to dig it up

Is this necessary

[digitalgimpus]

Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?

I'd rather it work on an old ATI Rage PRO.

Why?

Simply because that means good performance for modern computing. If the minimum is "latest and greatest"... Ugh.

Nor do I like the idea of upgrading hardware around my OS. If anything I want to upgrade because I need it for my job. Not because of some 3D glitter covered start menu.

Call me crazy... but performance is much more important.

Why doesn't Microsoft invest this effort in security?

If they said getting a new more powerful computer would make me more secure (perhaps some integrated trojan detection... integrated tightly)... yea, I could see that being beneficial.

But do I really need to get new hardware... for eye candy?

Come on Microsoft. Less is more.

Re:Is this necessary

[Obiwan Kenobi]

There are these things called video games. Look real sweet on your PC. They need good video 'cards' (get it? video games, video cards, its all video related), and if MS wants to give me a pretty desktop in pseudo-reward for blowing $300+ on a NVideo Deathbringer 5k, then I'm happy about that.

Call me crazy.

Re:Is this necessary

[ThisNukes4u]

I completely agree. Having a desktop that is not great on eye candy but usable is far preferable to an eye candy filled desktop that is even a bit less useable. I'd much rather see the desktop get more responsive and feel quicker as hardware speed increases rather than have the look improve but the "snappiness" stay the same or go down. It is always nice to be able to have an eye candy filled desktop, thats for sure, but there needs to be a way to get rid of it when not needed. Microsoft did it in XP, and I have heard people say they get a fairly big performace boost by turning of the lunar interface and going to classic, but I don't know if they will be smart enough for Longhorn. For me, Linux and BSD give me the best of all worlds: twm and blackbox for pure speed, fluxbox, icewm, enlightenment, xfce, etc.. for speed and usability, and GNOME/KDE for raw features and still being reasonably quick even on slightly underpowered hardware. And as soon as 3D acceleration drivers get better and stabler under linux, we have X extensions such as compositing for even more eye candy.

Re:Is this necessary

[Hard_Code]

omg you don't just use 4 tiled xterm emacs sessions in ratpoison!? you're not l33t liek jeffk!

Re:Is this necessary

[gl4ss]

just use the fucking non-3d-gee-whizz mode then.

they're including it too...

Re:Is this necessary

[Kris_J]

Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?

So you use a purely text-mode interface then? Used Lynx to post that message did you?

I've done my pointless UI eye-candy phase, but if someone can use 3D graphics to build a more efficient interface, I'm all for it.

Re:Is this necessary

[bungley]

Wtf is this troll doing at +5?

Microsoft say they /are/ putting a significant amount more effort into security these days, and I believe them.

However, they do still to provide stuff other than security patches to be able to sell an OS. They're duty bound to keep their XP patched for a few years yet.

Security patches alone are not enough for a new OS release.

Re:Is this necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't Microsoft invest this effort in security?

Because security doesn't sell as well as glitz and glamor. People look at cars and they want colour co-ordinated bumpers and leather seats over air bags and crumple zones.

People buy houses based on size and looks, but not on energy efficiancy or sustainabilty. Computers have become more and more "sexy". The beige box is dead (long live...), now people can get computers that fits in with their decor/image. people want their OS to look like the shit in the movies or some kind of cyber fantasy, which is stepping beyond the world of geekdom into everyday lives where grandpas put java in their email and mothers talk to their children via text message.

Its gotta be cool, hip, a cult in its own right, candy for the eye is the flavour of the month and we can't get enough.

Re:Is this necessary

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"

It isn't and either/or type of thing. You can have eye candy AND usability, stability and performance. Just ask any Apple nut.
The first two don't conflict at all. Few will argue that OSX isn't usable or stable. Performance seems like it should but it doesn't. If you have the card and don't have the eye candy you've wasted your money on the card. If you have the card and HAVE the eye candy your system will run about as fast as if you didn't have the card and didn't have the eye candy. It's a wash.

Re:Is this necessary

[ikkonoishi]

Come on Microsoft. Less is more.

Yeah less CPU usage is more performance for the applications.

Re:Is this necessary

[The_reformant]

See i look at it a little bit like this....If i have to stare at it for 16 hours a day then it might as well be pretty :)

Re:Is this necessary

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Then don't upgrade.

Windown 98 still works as well as it did in 1998, which is to say, quite well. Put a good hardware firewall behind it and software firewall and virus scanner on it, and you won't have much trouble except with software which requires a recent OS.

And if it requires a recent OS, it'll probably require the hardware that recent Windows needs anyway.

Re:Is this necessary

[PyroMosh]

If you have powerpoint installed, check this out. It's a fairly in depth discussion on Longhorn with emphesis on the new Windows Graphics Foundation.

If not, I'll sumarize. Or you can google for essentially the same info, but this powerpoint file is well done.

One of the goals of longhorn is to further the requirements of signed drivers, and to offload the complexity of drivers into the new WGF. The idea being that it's better to have MS write the code once well, than to have lots of third party vendors wring the same code over and over again, some better than others.

This means:
- Less complex (and therefore more stable) drivers
- Only signed drivers will run (I'm skeptical that they'll keep this requirement)
- Less processor overhead
- Most drivers will run in user-mode pretty much all of the time, which further means that:
- A crash will only take down the current process.
- Beter performance, since there will be one less layer between software and the hardware that's running it.
- Crashes will be much more rare, and when they do happen, will (if executed correctly) be transparent to the user. The system will recover from a crash, and many times the user will not even be aware that an error occured.

Re:Is this necessary

[Airconditioning]

Crashes will be much more rare, and when they do happen, will (if executed correctly) be transparent to the user. The system will recover from a crash, and many times the user will not even be aware that an error occured.

Well I hope that's a configurable option. The last thing I want to do is spend five minutes trying to figure out where Winamp went. And it's a bit cheeky, don't you think, that they try to hide the fact that something is failing rather than letting you know that there's a problem?

Re:Is this necessary

[LordLucless]

This is not about developing more eye-candy.
It's about moving the load in current eye-candy *from* the CPU *to* the GPU. This is a good thing, as the GPU is idle for pretty much all of the time when windows are being rendered (only exception I can think of are 3d graphics progs, or 3d games running in windowed mode).

This is used purely and simply to free resources currently being used displaying eye candy. They can of course use the newly-freed resources to display *more* eye-candy, but that's not a given.

Re:Is this necessary

[Queer Boy]

Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy

I like eye candy if it adds to the overall experience. If you've ever used Mac OS X's Expose feature, you can understand what having a good graphics card can mean. Expose is not that great without Quartz Extreme. Expose is the answer to window clutter. Why use multiple desktops to separate all my windows when I can do it with one? What other things will be possible in the future?

Re:Is this necessary

[Aadain2001]

The idea being that it's better to have MS write the code once well, than to have lots of third party vendors wring the same code over and over again, some better than others.

Ahh! Now we come to the critical issue: can MS even do this? I'd say no if their past products are any indication. Large, buggy, and an absolute mess at the code level, expecting MS to write clean, efficient, and secure code is just place silly.

Re:Is this necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'd rather it work on an old ATI Rage PRO.

Me too. The best thing about the Rage is the quality of the DAC. I haven't seen anything that can come close to the older ATI Rage cards. I know, because I've tried about a dozen different cards with my two monitors. I have a pair of 23" $3,000 monitors I bought about 7 years ago, and the piece of junk nVidia cards just can't compete. I'll stick with older ATI hardware as long as I can.

Re:Is this necessary

[SunFan]

Why doesn't Microsoft invest this effort in security?

Because good is dumb.

Re:Is this necessary

[KarmaMB84]

Indeed, I don't understand why people don't demand that MS put all the graphics data into the graphics card's memory and perform drawing operations via the GPU. As long as they don't go overboard, they could enhance the look of the OS and leave more CPU cycles for apps. I seem to remember a lot of MS bashing when Apple started using 3D accelerators to do the drawing in MacOS X. When MS didn't do it, they were becoming obsolete, now that they are, they are "adding bloat". *sigh*

Re:Is this necessary

[eV_x]

Let us all not forget that many years ago the video requirements of modern interfaces were substantially different than now. Things must progress and evolve. Interfaces will become heavier on some levels but easier on others, but you can clearly count on the advancements of technology to help OFFLOAD the strain to new devices and components. By Longhorn doing this, my guess is that my CPU will actually get less of a load on most things by making the graphics board do what it does better than a general purpose CPU.

You can't stop evolution simply because you can't keep up or you get comfortable.

I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:

"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"

Do you watch TV? Do you look at magazines? Style is here to stay my good friend. I don't know about you, but I DO care about what my OS looks like. If I wanted my OS to look and feel like a windowless brick room with flickering flourescent lighting, I'll skin it that way myself.

Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream.

On top of that, you are CLEARLY in the minority.

A couple scenarios:
Do you drive an old beater for a car because it "does the job"?
Do you live in a tiny room with an integrated flip down bed and sit on the floor to eat because it's a more efficient use of space?
Do you wear burlap clothes because it seems more practical?

I'm sure you talk tough on computer crap, but you probably are wasteful in other areas. People like me DO care. I care about my car having the latest features. I care about my house being more than just a few walls with a ceiling. I care about personality and enjoying what I'm working with and where I live.

"But do I really need to get new hardware... for eye candy?"

Mr. Vanilla: Do you realize that every game id and Valve release sells new hardware? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't know because you're too busy with your CGA graphics board playing pong so you're not forced to "upgrade".

Rock on - now excuse me while I go play my 8-Track.

Re:Is this necessary

[wwahammy]

I wouldn't say Windows 98 works "quite well." I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Re:Is this necessary

[Zakabog]

If I wanted my OS to look and feel like a windowless brick room with flickering flourescent lighting, I'll skin it that way myself.

That's the problem. The OS should come as a windowless brick room with flickering flourescent lighting, if you want it to look nice you can skin it that way yourself. You can add eye candy easy, taking it away is usually hard especially when Microsoft puts it there. And even if you do manage to make your desktop look like classic windows 95, it still runs like longhorn.

Do you drive an old beater for a car because it "does the job"?

No, I bought a 2004 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V cause it was the fastest car I could afford that was stick and in stock (I would have bought a Dodge Neon SRT-4 but there were none in stock and I needed the car ASAP.) It came pretty vanilla, nothing special about it, it wasn't like a Mercedes SLK or anything. It was cheap, it did it's job (took me across the country), it was more reliable than my old beater mustang (which I'd still be driving if I put a new tranny in it.) It'd didn't come with 50 TVs, a big block V8, 19" rims, and all the other useless stuff I'd never need. It was a very functional car, when I wanted to make it faster I bought the performance parts and put them on my car, when I wanted new rims and drag radials, I bought them and put them on my car, if I got the car the way I have it now from the dealer, it would have cost $25,000. The car is still pretty vanilla on the outside, which I like, I don't want a factory body kit like a Toyota Celica or a Hyundai Tiburon, those cars are quite useless. They look "pretty" (mostly to anyone who doesn't know much about cars) but they lack the performance that you'd expect of them.

Do you live in a tiny room with an integrated flip down bed and sit on the floor to eat because it's a more efficient use of space?

I would have a flip down bed but it'd probably cost a lot more money than my bed now. My room is huge but that's just cause I live in a big house. And if furniture wasn't so comfortable I would sit on the floor and eat. But I have a wood floor, plus it's uncomfortable sitting down on the floor and eating, not to mention every time someone stands up, all the food and dirt and anything that fell on their lap, is now in your food.

Do you wear burlap clothes because it seems more practical?

No, burlap would be horrible to wear, it's uncomfortable, plus it's bad at keeping out water, and I imagine it'd be bad at keeping in warmth. It wouldn't be practical at all.

Mr. Vanilla: Do you realize that every game id and Valve release sells new hardware? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't know because you're too busy with your CGA graphics board playing pong so you're not forced to "upgrade".

Do you realize how many people who will have windows longhorn will never buy Doom 3 because they will never have a computer that can play the game? They just want a $400 computer that can go online and play music. I know cause I build computers for these people, they don't wanna spend an extra $400 just for a video card that can run Doom 3 well. Same thing with Half-Life 2 and pretty much every new computer game I can think of. All these people buy PS 2 and X-Box cause they're cheaper and run all the games that come out for them (and they run them well.)

After longhorn is released every new computer will ship with it, why should people have to pay extra for hardware required to run it when all they want to do is go online and play music. I rarely ever build computers faster than 2GHz cause no one wants it or needs it, and most of the time they have intergrated video. In 5 years, going online and playing music will take up the same resources so why should the OS force people to buy more than they need?

Re:Is this necessary

[PyroMosh]

Very good point. I hope it is too. (Especially for developers / testers) but I also hope that if it ships and works as I understand it's supposed to, that it's switched on by default.

Re:Is this necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful +4? For a troll?

And by the way, now that you mentioned it: I don't have a flip down bed. I sleep on the floor.

Re:Is this necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

...and seemingly have problems with the concept of hierachy.

Re:Is this necessary

[mdielmann]

I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:

"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"

Although I'm fine with eye candy (which can enhance usability), I'm not interested in eye candy at the expense of any of the above. Since you used the clothes analogy, I'll give you what I've often seen when you put eye candy first:

Would you wear an Italian suit with the crotch cut out? In public? While riding a motorbike?

Any modification to the interface that hinders your work is bad. That includes obtusely designed text commands, and inconsistent GUIs. the converse is true, too.

Re:Is this necessary

[Your Average Joe]

If you want style...

Buy a F*CKING MAC! The PC has NO style.

Why put off your style gene for 3-4 years when you can get a sexy, fast, stable new MAC? Why pay MS TAX again in a few years? In China they don't pay MS TAX. Why should you?

Re:Is this necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you drive an old beater for a car because it "does the job"?

Yep.

Do you live in a tiny room with an integrated flip down bed and sit on the floor to eat because it's a more efficient use of space?

Yep.

Do you wear burlap clothes because it seems more practical?

No, I wear linen because they last longer. Well, they basically feel/look like burlap after you've worn them for 5 years...

Re:Is this necessary

[danila]

I'm not interested in eye candy at the expense of any of the above
OK. How about we increase the eye candy of your system 5 times, while decreasing the performance 10%. At the same time we would increaes the performance 20% improving the system in other respects and your new computer would provide additional 100% improvement. What would you choose? A computer with the same bland look and 120% better performance or a computer with 5 times more eye candy and 110% better performance?

Re:Is this necessary

[Tim C]

After longhorn is released every new computer will ship with it, why should people have to pay extra for hardware required to run it when all they want to do is go online and play music.

You're missing the point. By the time Longhorn ships, the hardware required to run it won't cost any extra, because that $400 computer will include it. Computer hardware only gets cheaper in the sense that you get more for your money; an entry-level PC today costs roughly the same as an entry-level PC from 5 years ago, it's just a damn sight more powerful.

Re:Is this necessary

[mdielmann]

Well, to be honest, if there is no usability loss from eye candy that is simply distracting, then I would take eye candy with a net gain in performance. If I take a hit in net performance for the sake of eye candy, I have to question why, especially for a business product.

Of the three, I'd say performance is the least important in our current technological landscape. After all, we have plenty of computing power. But we have been waiting to see sufficient usability or stability improvements in the most common OS for years. I have a 6-month old computer that takes 30 seconds to show some explorer windows, and I can't be bothered to figure out why any more. It wasn't this bad a month or two ago, and if it gets much worse, I'll do my ablutions to MS and reinstall. Sure, it's better than Win95, but that isn't saying much. I'd far rather they fix what's broken than slap on a new coat of paint.

So in that context, where to allocate the development resources, I'd rather they put it to where it's most needed, which is not currently eye candy. Perhaps it is for OS X.

Re:Is this necessary

[White Roses]

So . . . essentially what Mac OS X 10.3 is doing today then? I see. And the innovation that MS keeps touting again? Oh right, separating idiots from their money. Thanks for the update.

Re:Is this necessary

[takkaria]

"Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream."

Skinnable software generally doesn't conform to the interface of the OS it runs on, nor any other applications running alongside it. Skinnablity (for want of a better word) is fine, but when each application ends up having its own little way of behaving, it's bad. If you want skins, they should be OS-wide or they just lead to inconsistency.

For example, in MSN Messenger (which I sadly have to use to talk to some of my friends), it has fake window borders inside the real window borders, and it has an extra fake window title bar which has a little toggle which removes the normal window borders and title bar leaving only the fake ones. What a useful, and er, non-wasteful use of screen space. If I wanted this kind of behaviour, I'd want to configure it GUI/OS-wide, not for each application.

(I'd also point out that lots of people skin things because they are bored. Either that, or the default interface is just plain bad and by skinning it they can dress that up somewhat. Skins are often used as an excuse to not bother with decent interface design - the idea being that "if you don't like the defaults, skin it so you do" rather than actually spending time making the defaults usable.)

Re:Is this necessary

[danila]

But 3D framework for the windows shell is what is most needed. Special effects are just a bonus. With 3D acceleration you get easy to move and resize (smoothly) windows. You get Expose-like functionality for free. You get the ability to work with many windows on the same 1600x1200 display. You get extra ways to organise your workspace (with transparency, depth sorting, minimize-to-thumbnail, etc.) All these features are relatively hard to implement today (without losing performance, stability or compatibility), but rather easy when you create the 3D framework.

At that stage adding eye-candy is trivial. You don't need to worry about the effect on other applications, like you do today (when the top window affects the window below by determining which areas need to be redrawn), you can easily apply your shader-based translucenct ripple-glass effect to the window and let the 3D shell worry about it.

I agree that Explorer windows suck. But we just need let them go and hope that MS will do it right this time.

Re:Is this necessary

[SnT2k]

THAT is precisely why M$ came up with Avalon.

Re:Is this necessary

[PyroMosh]

My experience with OSX is limited, so I'll take your word for it that all these features are present there. Assuming that they are, so what if Apple found a good way of doing something. Good for them. Except for in cases of patents, does that mean Microsoft has to go out of it's way to find a diffrent way of doing things?

Zealotry for it's own sake sucks. Get over it.

I don't like Apple's OS (or the cost of their hardware). So I don't use it. Even if I like a lot of what Apple does.

I recognize that Linux makes a great server (especially with Apache on top). I happen to think that Linus is an arogant king of all tools. But I don't go around badmouthing Linux and everything related to it, just because I don't happen to like Linus. Why is the same true for Microsoft?

Microsoft got where it is today two ways. One was business sense, and there's no denying that. But the other is that they consistanly deliver a product that works better / easier than most of the competition.

Someone else posted a coment in this article about how linux zelots will go on and on about the ease of installing a game with lots of obscure libraries and commands, but will balk at the idea of having to run an program called "setup.exe" and then having to reboot in windows.

Apple on the other hand. They have ease of use down. Good integration. Sure. But their "affordable" Mac? $500? "Affordable" PCs start below that with a Monitor. Granted it'll be a CRT, but so what?

That's what's great about Windows and Windows PCs, it's got all the elements together. Easy enough to use, good market penetration, so everything from software to support is EVERYWHERE, runs on practicly any hardware.

I don't like everything Microsoft does either, but cut them some slack. It's like they can do no right. No matter what they do, they'll catch flack here. Because they are Microsoft. And after all, whatever they do is automaticly evil, right?

End of the world!

[CoolMoDee]

It's the end of the world I tell ya. End of cheap PC's, an affordable mac. What's next? 100 dollar iPods?

Re:End of the world!

[Anonymous Coward]

o you mean this?

http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/

I'm sure you did :)

Re:End of the world!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next? 100 dollar iPods?
That's tomorrow's (old) news. Look for samzenpus to post it.

Hey grub,

[Anonymous Coward]

your post got modded "Troll" before my "NIGGER BABY RAPE" post which is right after yours. LOL

Re:Hey grub,

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but it's still early on the west coast (Redmond). MS doesn't mind "NIGGER BABY RAPE" as much as questioning their authority to dictate machine specs.

Prices

[Sophrosyne]

Watch those PC prices go up for a little bit... then potentially drop- but ATI and Nvidia would be smart to cash in on this-- maybe bundle Longhorn with video-cards and extra ram.

Re:Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I know too much...

"ATI and Nvidia would be smart to cash in on this"

You're on the right track.

Where do you think the story is coming from?

Not MS, as other posters have pointed out it will detect and switch to a less intensive mode if the graphics hardware isn't sufficient, and it's not in their best interest to be telling people "oh yeah, this great new product won't run on your ancient hardware, so don't buy the upgrade!"

Re:Prices

[SunFan]

"...maybe bundle Longhorn with video-cards and extra ram."

And a 20-amp breaker and some romex to hard-wire power to the GPU.

Re:Prices

[zardor]

Hm, up to say 5 years ago, Intel probably made the most money out of a new PC.

Then, with the compitition from AMD etc, the relative processor prices dropped, and the relative cost of the MS windows and MSOffice stuff went through the roof, and now MS software is the most expensive single component of the average (legally licensed) system. Bill gates likes it that way.

But recently, it seems that a lot of people have deep enough pockets to shell out >500 notes for whatever the latest and greatest [Ge]00 [Pro|XL|PE] video card is. Lots of moola going to Ati & NVidea.

Bill G is not happy about *that*.
MS generally will not allow other companies to make more money from the PC that they do.

Expect soon a licensing/patent/legal change that reverses the situtation.
MS has probably has enough submarine patents hidden away so it can demand a big % from the GPU manufactures if they want their cards to be allowed to run under windows.
At the very least, expect a *huge* increase in the cost to get high end graphic card drivers signed to run under the OS.

Clippy is now carrying a large baseball bat. With a nail in it.

Big Deal.

[huber]

How is this different from Apples Quartz Extreame or soon to be realeased Core Image? Its not. It the natural evolution of things. While naysayers will shout "idont need this" and " Its not productive" , When you have several CPU Intensive apps open and running, wouldn't it be nice to know that your otherwise unused gpu is taking care of your windowing?

Re:Big Deal.

[misleb]

Just because they are making the GPU work harder doesn't mean your CPU is going to have more freetime. As a matter of fact, the CPU requirement are going up as well. They are just adding eyecandy for chrissakes, not starting a revolution in OS design. They didn't find some amazing way to make the GPU handle basic window management tasks. The CPU still has to do the stuff it did before.

-matthew

But what about the high end audio cards????

[EnronHaliburton2004]

and 3D menus and interfaces that require atleast Shader 2.0 compliant cards

What about the high end audio cards so my computer can say "DooWeeeeeeeeeeooooooooOOOOO! BOOP!" as the cool 3-D Start Menu pops up when I hit the Start button and then another "BOOP! OOOOOooooooooeeeeeeewwwwDooo..." when I close the Start Menu?

Dude! That would be so cool!

DooWeeeeeeeeeeooooooooOOOOO! BOOP!
BOOP! OOOOOooooooooeeeeeeewwwwDooo...
DooWeeeeeeeeeeooo oooooOOOOO! BOOP!
BOOP! OOOOOooooooooeeeeeeewwwwDooo...

Why do I suspect that every time I log into a Longhorn machine, it's going to take me 10 minutes to turn off the green & blue start menu, SHOW all icons on the desktop, turn off personalized menus, and all this other stupid anti-productivity shit ... just to get a decent, usable desktop ...

BSOD

[datafr0g]

Wow! A 3D Blue Screen of Death? That would look really cool with Shader 2.0

Re:BSOD

[Ztream]

Not blue; now they can render one of the hell scenes from Doom3 instead. The Fiery Screen of Death. Complete with the satanic laugh.

Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[csoto]

Just plunk down $500 for a Minimac.

Quartz Extreme makes good use of the graphic hardware of any Mac. Many applications use this to their advantage.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[dnaumov]

The minimac ships with a Radeon 9200. Core Image which is the new graphics system coming in OSX Tiger, requires at least a Radeon 9600. Do the math. Of couse it will run, but you won't be seeing any of the fancy effects.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[tepples]

The point is that if you have a PC, you don't need to spend more for a GameCube to set on top of your Mac to give it a decent game library.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Megane]

Core Image which is the new graphics system coming in OSX Tiger, requires at least a Radeon 9600.

Says who? Link, please.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people spread this FUD...

Depending on what routine is called by the application and how its called one of three things can happen:

Must Render: Render the effect using the CPU regardless of system slowdown.

Optional Render (default): Let the OS decide, based on the specs of the mac if the effect should be rendered.

Hardware Only: Render only if hardware acceleration is present.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[MojoStan]

Says who? Link, please.

It's supposed to be here, but Apple pulled the system requirements from that page recently. Thankfully, a Google-cached version of that page is still available.

From that page:

Supported graphics cards:

• ATI Radeon 9800 XT
• ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
• ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
• ATI Radeon 9600 XT
• ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
• ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
• ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
• NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200
• NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra

These cards are available in today's PowerBooks, Power Mac G5s and both the 17-inch and 20-inch iMac.

So why did Apple pull the system requirements right before the Mac mini announcement? Are they lowering/raising the system requirements? Are they trying to hide the fact that a desktop Mac released this week does not meet the requirements?

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse if you would have quoted or read the whole paragraph you would have noticed this:

"The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac."

Emphasis on the last paragraph mine.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[ceeam]

But then you need to spend more to set up a Mac to give your PC a decent computer. : )

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "automatic scaling" for old GPUs is fallback to a software implementation of Core Image running on the CPU. This will not be able to support all the realtime effects.

Re: the Mac mini, the shaders in the Radeon R2xx cores (8500, 9000, 9100, 9200) simply do not have the capabilities needed by Core Image, such as support for floating point data everywhere, sufficiently large shader program lengths, etc. etc. etc. So Apple did in fact just release a Mac which won't be able to do hardware accelerated Core Image. If I had to guess I'd guess they did so primarily due to cost; probably the cheapest CI compatible GPU is the FX 5200 and it's significantly more expensive than the Radeon 9200.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse if you would have quoted or read the two words before the paragraph you would have noticed this:

"System Requirements"

Emphasis on the two words mine.

Re:Why spend $200-400 on a new card?

[Megane]

I think you missed the part on that page where it said Tiger was in beta. If Apple removed that page from their site, they had a good reason to do so. Until it's released, nothing is certain, other than that it will run on a Macintosh.

The new Inactive Desktop?

[localroger]

I suspect this will just be another thing I have to turn off in order to use a new computer. The list is already getting pretty long:

• Start menu --> Classic Mode
• Screen --> Themes --> Windows Classic
• Background --> anything simple and non-distracting
• Appearance --> Effects --> disable transition effects, font smoothing, shadows, and alt-underline hiding (this is the kind of "enhancement" that most likely requires the video extravagance in Longhorn)
• Screen Saver --> NONE (ain't LCD monitors wonderful?)
• In Explorer, Tools --> Folder Options --> View --> Don't hide the fucking file extensions, show hidden and system files
• Search --> turn off animated character

That's the start -- not counting all the shit I have to turn off in MSoffice and various other applications to make the computer an environment for work that is not constantly annoying and distracting. Sounds like I'll have to turn off even more crap when Longhorn comes out, if our company is still stuck in Windoze land (which, alas and for good reasons, it probably will be).

Re:The new Inactive Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. I do the same thing. Not to mention that I want to look at my file explorer view in DETAILS mode, and an constantly battling its attmepts to switch everything back to "thumbnails."

I can fucking READ, and I'd like to be able to see the list of files without a barrage of ten thousand little colorful pictures.

Fundamental difference between Microsoft's opinion of "user-friendly" and mine (and others) - MS thinks user-friendly means "hide everything, they're too stupid to need to care about it anyway" rather than just designing an elegant, efficient and well thought out interface.

Re:The new Inactive Desktop?

[stratjakt]

Baby want a baba? Mebbe his binkie?

Just use linux. It's awesome, you never have to configure anything. Really.

Re:The new Inactive Desktop?

[LiquidCoooled]

The icons thing can be cured in the main.

Occasionally Windows screws itself up because it tries to store information about too many folders.
I generally close down all windows, delete the 2 keys and logoff/on again.
When it returns, I open my computer, get the settings just right (remove grouping, details, widen columns).
I then go into folder options and do all the little bits before clicking apply and then "Apply to all folders".

seems to get rid.
omg how bad does that sound.
ain't windows shite!

Not the end of UI evolution

[Neo-Rio-101]

A command line is good enough for me, but I suppose that when you think about it, a 2 dimensional graphical user desktop display is not really the be all and end all interfacing with a computer. It was as good as it was going to get when hardware was more expensive and slower... but to think that the GUI desktop is the end of computer evolution is very premature IMHO. We have the technology....

There are so many ways that the technology can be pushed, that Microsoft actually *may* end up innovating something here.
OK, they have a really poor track record at innovation so far, but MS has more money, expertise, and will than anyone else to throw around on evolving the GUI. Something interesting may come out of it.
Whether ordinary PC users can benefit from it remains to be seen....

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for my fully-featured DOOM UI so I can blow up old log files, and camp near the ethernet ports and cover my team engineer from while he switches the default gateway to the new firewall appliance.

Re:Not the end of UI evolution

[kneel]

do you mean PSDoom?

Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Is this going to be another case of where Microsoft tries to copy Apple, but misses the point?

Mac OS X 10.2 introduced "Quartz Extreme", which uses your graphics card to composite your screen. This meant that dragging windows around now required almost no CPU power at all. In 10.3, they introduced several 3-D effects to enhance the interface - most notably a rotating cube when you switch users.

There are two key points that Microsoft seems to be missing, though:

* Mac OS X looks exactly the same if you don't have a powerful enough graphics card, and screen redrawing is not too slow. Having a graphics card just makes the system more responsive because the CPU is doing less of the work.

* The system degrades gracefully - if you don't have a powerful enough graphics card or run out of video RAM, certain 3D transitions may be skipped. But everything will still function, and everything will look the same.

It's too early to tell, but it is starting to sound like Microsoft may be creating a new interface that requires a super graphics card, leaving those with only cheap integrated video with a completely different interface. To me that sounds like a recipe for tech support hell - novice users won't understand why their screen doesn't look like someone else's.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[dioscaido]

This article is dead wrong, and anyone who actually has used the beta version of Longhorn could tell you.

This article actually has a hands on review of the graphics subsystem.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=38925&DisplayTab=Article

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[pavera]

Um...
yeah, the article you posted states quite clearly that if you don't have a top of the line card, you will be stuck with the windows 2k/xp interface, no 3d effects, no translucency for you. If you have any mac, from the lowest end mac mini, an ibook, an emac, imac, powerbook, or powermac... all of the windows, all of the features they are all there, whether you pay 500 or 5,000, with this, if you don't pay 500 for your graphics card, you won't get these features.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[mt v2.7]

From wikipedia (Shameless Karma Whoring) Graphics requirements are defined in relation to three different desktop experiences. [edit] Aero Glass experience This graphics mode includes support for 3D graphics, animation and visual special effects that delivers the richest experience possible in Longhorn. Consequently, this graphics mode requires the following: * At least 64 MB graphics memory (128 MB is recommended) * Support for at least 32 bits per pixel * Support for advanced 3D hardware acceleration with capabilities equal to DirectX 9 * A graphics card that uses AGP 8X or PCI Express 16-lane bus Although this may appear expensive by today's standards, it is likely that such a configuration will be entry-level or lower by Longhorn's release in 2006-2007. [edit] Aero experience This graphics mode delivers the minimum hardware acceleration for the Longhorn user experience and is the minimum required for new systems. * Windows XP Driver Model (Longhorn Display Driver Model is recommended) * At least 32 MB graphics memory * Support at least 32 bits per pixel * Support 3D hardware acceleration with capabilities equal to DirectX 9 * A graphics card that uses AGP 4X or PCI Express eight-lane bus [edit] Classic experience This graphics mode is equivalent to the user experience in Windows 2000. In this mode, Longhorn uses software rendering to display graphics instead of a graphics card. If the system running Longhorn does not meet the hardware requirements for Aero or Aero Glass, this mode will be used. And please, read the LAST paragraph.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Goalie_Ca]

It also only requires a dx7 model card afaik.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[SunFan]

Microsoft is like those gadget vendors at flea markets--all pizazz but no substance. You buy the super-duper knife sharpener, you take it home, and it ends up that your knife sharpens the sharpener, you throw it away, next week you fall for the super-duper-moose-juicer, take it home, realize there are no moose for 1000 miles, throw it away, go back fall for the lil-tykes baseball handy-mortar, you injure some guy a mile away, ad nauseum. For some reason Microsoft keeps people coming back. It really is truly amazing.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[delus10n0]

Apparently you've never used an iBook or something that doesn't support OSX's GUI features 100% in hardware. It's fricken dog slow; namely because it's using the CPU to render your nice "genie out of a bottle" and transparent drop-shadowed windows.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[SilentChris]

"* Mac OS X looks exactly the same if you don't have a powerful enough graphics card, and screen redrawing is not too slow."

Uh, not quite. Features are definitely turned off -- the whole cube turning is an example of this (it's deactivated). Things don't look "exactly the same".

"* The system degrades gracefully - if you don't have a powerful enough graphics card or run out of video RAM, certain 3D transitions may be skipped. But everything will still function, and everything will look the same."

Uh, again, you're contradicting yourself. How can anything "degrade" while appearing exactly "the same"? Fact is, OS 10.3 isn't very impressive on older hardware. In fact, my family ran into an issue just a month ago, where my mom "thought" she changed users and didn't. Later, she couldn't find her files. Since there's no real visual reference when you change users on an older system (no cube), it's difficult to tell if you've actually done so.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the simple 2D visual enhancements in windows 2000 can be trivially disabled - pointer shadow, menu animation, showing the window contents while dragging... windows has always performed well on old hardware - certainly a lot better than any of the linux desktop environments.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[pHDNgell]

my mom "thought" she changed users and didn't. Later, she couldn't find her files. Since there's no real visual reference when you change users on an older system (no cube), it's difficult to tell if you've actually done so.

Perhaps you should suggest she look at the big thing with the name on it that she clicked on in order to change users and see what it says.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, and this may a little too technical , JUST LOOK IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF THE SCREEN.

Hint, the current username is in the menu bar.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[weicco]

* Mac OS X looks exactly the same if you don't have a powerful enough graphics card, and screen redrawing is not too slow. Having a graphics card just makes the system more responsive because the CPU is doing less of the work.

Blinding flash of obvious!

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Set up each user with a different desktop background, preferably each with a unique color. Easy to tell which user you're in.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

slow, but it's still there and it still works. seems like with Longhorn it will be disabled and not work as advertised without the required graphics card.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[radish]

Look, you're just wrong. Admit it. Firstly, you don't need to spend $500 on a card to support the top level longhorn stuff, $100 should do it. Almost any PC you buy today will have a compliant card in it. Second, sure the Mac stuff will run on any Mac, but if you don't have the required graphics hardware the eye candy will either run _slower_ or _not_at_all_. That is EXACTLY the same as with Longhorn.

Re:Microsoft never was good at copying Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

* Avalon has a larger goal than offloading compositing to the GPU for performance reasons. It is supposed to be a powerful, general presentation layer with some amount of future-proofing. It's supposed to enhance text rendering. It's supposed to make it easier for designers to build the GUI directly rather than handing mock-ups to developers.

* Avalon also degrades. It's built on DirectX. If your graphics card doesn't natively support a particular feature, the DirectX layer will emulate it. People will see the same things. Performance will vary.

call me crazy...

[dAzED1]

but who says grandpa and grandma need to move to longhorn as soon as it comes out, when MS is just nowending support for WINNT4.0, as reported recently here on /.?

Grandpa and grandma will be just fine on 2000 or xp, or...and here's the crazy part...even 98. My father in law still uses win3.freaking-1 on a 486, for Christ's sake. Grandpa and grandma will be just fine.

Re:call me crazy...

[Feyr]

windows 3.1 is definately still used, altough not much. i know of 1 (out of ~3000 customers) that still use it (along with a 14.4k modem). it does the job, why should he bother upgrading?

Re:call me crazy...

[Atrax]

MS is just nowending support for WINNT4.0

NT 4.0 server, yes. Workstation went some time ago.

by this I mean that consumer/desktop OSes generally have a shorter lifecycle than server gear.

Re:call me crazy...

[theguyfromsaturn]

In our leading edge geotechnical lab, we have 3 wonderful 486 running the amazing masked wonder that is 3.1. Does the job. Can't complain. Win95 would certainly not run on at least 2 of those, and the data acquisition cards won't work on any computer more recent. It's a no-brainer.

Re:call me crazy...

[nuggetman]

My college radio station runs the DALET (computer for playing audio, promos, etc) on Win 3.1

Re:call me crazy...

[dAzED1]

perhaps, but I think grandpa and grandma will be just fine on win2000 or xp, then they won't have to worry about buying a new graphics card.

If their system can't handle xp, then they have a bigger problem than just needing to replace a graphics card - which is what the poster was protesting.

Okay, but...

[geekfat]

Will graphic card companies make Longhorn a priority? I have an Emachines M6809 laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 video chip. This is a 64-bit machine. A week ago, I gave the XP 64 bit pre-release a try, with the beta ATI drivers. The drivers did not offer a 1280x800 resolution, which works best (for me) on this laptop. I went right back to Linux, as Xorg has supported this resolution for a long time....

Re:Okay, but...

[tepples]

I have an Emachines M6809 laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 video chip. This is a 64-bit machine.

Why does "M6809" sound like it'd be an 8-bit machine?

Re:Okay, but...

[geekfat]

http://www.emachines.com/support/support_info.html ?prodName=M6809

As if windows wasnt slow enough-The Seers Way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well well, the fates pervail.

Remember this? That's what's coming to Linux. Here's a summary for those who haven't seen the video, and explains the environment better. Couple that with this or this environment. And you begin to see the future of working with Linux. Collaboration is the OSS way, and with such a foundation. Everyone will be able to participate. Programmers, and non alike.

FAILURE ALERT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you got A FAILURE. The magnitude of your failure is so great that it caused that fucking huge tsunami that killed everybody TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE! That's right; your failure was so huge that it ripped apart the fabric of space and time and went back two weeks and to the other side of the planet causing a huge earthquake to strike. CONGRATULATIONS! YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF 150,000+ PEOPLE!

Re:FAILURE ALERT!!!

[AngryUndead]

Actually looks like to me he could only have missed by a few seconds as his minutes and hour stamp is the same as the FP'er. Oh, and way to be completely insensitive and not in the normal clod way.

Re:FAILURE ALERT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So he got first tsunami?

who cares anymore? Linux is taking over

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this will be still relevant. If things continue at the current pace the Windows OS will be dead by end of this year and the planned Longhorn version will not be able to change this. Linux is taking over our desktops and I am happy to see this happening.

Re:who cares anymore? Linux is taking over

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how drunk are you right now?

Windows Longhorn to make Linux more important

[Eric Smith]

Enough said.

This will boost the market

[KalvinB]

There's been a slump in the computer sector due to the massive roll out around 2000. Not too many people buy a new computer within a couple years. It wouldn't surprise me if most people were still using the systems they bought 4 years ago. If they're using XP, it's a software upgrade only.

When XP came out my dad, a programmer for a large corporation, eventually bought a new computer from Dell with XP on it about a year ago. His previous system was a 350Mhz Dell. A programmer myself, my top system is a 1.2Ghz Duron running Win2K. I've had it for a couple years.

When Longhorn comes out it's time for an upgrade anyway and most people are going to buy prebuilt systems. Those prebuilt systems will have a (barely) sufficient graphics card.

GeForce FX 5500's are well under $100 already. In a couple years when Windows needs that kind of card to run, they'll be dirt cheap and onboard.

And it'll be just in time for when people are looking to upgrade their computer hardware anyway.

Complaining that MS is forcing upgrades is as silly as claiming ID Software forces hardware upgrades. I still use 2000, could use 98 if I wanted. I could also play Wolfenstein 3D and stick to a 386. Something needs to drive the market. If there was no need for better hardware, there'd be no better hardware. It's all artificially driven anyway. There's no objective reason why we need fancy pants graphics in any software. There's no objective reason we need high quality, drive space/CPU/Memory eating, audio/video.

In short, who cares that MS is making greater graphics demands for it's OS? They've done this with every release. Even Linux is making greater and greater demands. If you want the all the graphics pizzaz of Windows 3.11, use Windows 3.11. Some of us like an OS that looks "pretty."

If you want a plain text OS, then use DOS or ditch the GUI of Linux and have fun.

Re:This will boost the market

[andreyw]

I like your post and you make good points, but please.. for the love of God... don't call DOS a "plain text OS." If DOS is an OS, then so is SYSLINUX. (http://syslinux.zytor.com/) (http://syslinux.zytor.com/comboot.php)

Re:This will boost the market

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no objective reason why we need fancy pants graphics in any software. There's no objective reason we need high quality, drive space/CPU/Memory eating, audio/video

That's not true. You may not need it. But the PC industry is so wide, and trickles into so many other markets, saying that something is unnecessary because the avreage Joe is very simplistic.

Many tasks require more powerful computers. Not only that, but there are certain software applications that only came out because the PCs got cheaper. Many user-friendly multimedia tools wouldn't be created simply because the average user would not be willing to spend days trying to transcode or edit a home movie. Now, particularly with Apple, this has become more commonplace.

And never forget that the academic community can always use more powerful computers for research purposes (ie simulating a chip takes GBs of memory and tons of processing power).

Re:This will boost the market

[The_reformant]

Actually I think there might possibly be a need for "fancy pants" graphics. It makes non-experts more productive. Look at the move from command-line systems to GUI's. A lot of people then claimed they didnt need the "fancy pants" graphics in the first GUIs (and a lot of people still do..however I prefer to direct comments at rational human beings). If longhorn can make the computing experience more intuitive for non-specialiost users then the investment in extra graphics power will have been worthwhile. Even if the only tangible benefit is that things look nicer it will still make a lot of inexperienced users more productive.

Re:This will boost the market

[erwin]

I agree with you. I think the people who will use non-GUIs, and even stick with 2D GUIs are the same hard-core (or cheap) group of geeks who got the thing going in the first place. However, we (meaning /.ers) are the tip of the wedge of computer users. I think the real growth of the industry is going to be in pervasive computing. Central home computers, wearables, smart appliances, pda/phone - all of these will need to be managed from the home computer soon. Also, the ability to do desktop video is becoming more and more common, especically as the baby-boomers start to retire and play more. (Few things will make a 60-ish year old grand parent sit in front of a computer for hours like pictures and movies of grandkids).

So I guess I see that it's going to be a series of forces coming together that's really going to make this a reality.

Re:This will boost the market

[j.bellone]

Google: The most important program that runs on a computer: the operatign system ("OS") performs basic tasks such as recognizing input from the keyboard, sending output to the display screen, keeping track of files and directories on the disk, and controlling peripheral devices such as disk drives and printers.

Sure seems like an OS to me; a basic one at that, but still an OS.

Re:This will boost the market

[MtViewGuy]

I think while you can get older machines to run Windows XP if you upgrade RAM, most of the newer applications do like to run on faster machines, especially if you decide to start editing photos from digital still cameras and videos downloaded from miniDV/microDV digital camcorders, both of which demand far more computing power than in the past. You really want something like an Intel Celeron or AMD Duron running at 800 MHz with 768 to 1024 MB of RAM (depending on RAM capacity of your motherboard) if you want to try multimedia editing work at bare minimum.

Besides, you can get pretty powerful desktop machines with 1 GB of RAM and a decently fast CPU for well under US$1,000 nowadays, machines that are more than enough to handle multimedia editing at reasonably fast speeds.

Re:This will boost the market

[l0b0]

There's no objective reason why we need fancy pants graphics in any software. There's no objective reason we need high quality, drive space/CPU/Memory eating, audio/video.

Oyh! I need a talking, vertex shaded, bump mapped Clippy. And I want it to sound like he's looking above my shoulder. Doesn't everyone?

Re:This will boost the market

[userw014]

Certainly,any new PCs built with Longhorn in mind will have a (barely) adequete graphics system.

I can even see the anti-Micro$oft penguinistas seeing this as a way to build more barriers to Linux (i.e.: details for the writing drivers for the GPUs will be scarce, etc.)

However, my disagreement with KalvinB's arguments has to do with "just run Win/98 or Win 3.11" position. That's like saying that if you don't like the complexity of modern cars, just get a Ford Model-T. This just isn't practical.

What I fear is that as MS hops operating systems and discontinues support for older systems, people who have an adequetely functioning system will find themselves without support from 3rd parties for anti-virus, anti-virus, and other anti-malware addons that they NEED in order to be able to do the e-mail and web-surfing that they want to do.

Although that's not precisely on-topic for Longhorn's increased hardware requirements, it is on topic for MS's penchant for creeping featuritis and it's effect on most people.

Obvious design flaw

[Spy der Mann]

if requiring a graphics accelerator card is an unchangeable part of the Operating System, the system is obviously badly designed. Longhorn should separate the graphics modules from the interface. If the kernel doesn't detect an accelerated graphic, use the 2D system.

Is that too much to ask? A simple *IF* ?

Re:Obvious design flaw

[fishbowl]

"if requiring a graphics accelerator card is an unchangeable part of the Operating System, the system is obviously badly designed."

No kidding. My primary application is to operate as a headless audio processing system. Any component or resource that is not contributing to that application is a waste, and should be removed or disabled.

Re:Obvious design flaw

[CPUGuy]

Well... it does. This has been said time and TIME AGAIN! There will be 3 tiers, ranging from GDI+ type rendering, up to fully accellerated Dx based compositing.

It's all about timed release.

[Trejkaz]

Grandpa & Grandma will probably be dead by the time Longhorn comes out.

Re:It's all about timed release.

[Txiasaeia]

Moderators, please give this guy a -1 funny for making me spray Coke across my brand new LCD.

Re:It's all about timed release.

[narsiman]

He was talking about himself you insensitive clod.

Re:It's all about timed release.

[Trejkaz]

He's his own Grandma? Holy crap!

Not just eye candy

[miyako]

I'm anticipating that a lot of people are going to bitch and moan about how it's pointless eyecandy, but if Microsoft is able to do what Apple has been doing, then it could really add to the UI.
Things like expose and translucent windows can come in amazlingly handy in OS X (I've never found anything quite as useful as transparent terminal windows in OS X allowing me to have code open in one window, and documentation in the window behind it, and look through the code window to read documentation, especially when working with an API your not familiar with).
I think that as 3D accelerated UIs become more common, we'll see even more useful features popping up. It's not like there is any good reason for new computer to have a video card that won't run this, and the type of person who would upgrade would probably either already have a newer videocard anyway.
I just wish this would make it into X, but alas I suspect that it's the sort of thing that might take a while to get properly implemented and supported.

Re:Not just eye candy

[The_reformant]

You'll be wishing a long time to see anything like this in X. One of the things in my opinion which really holds linux back from mass adoption is X. Sure its great for a networked multiuser environment but if its not responsive locally it needs to be changed.

Re:Not just eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, man! It's not just eye-candy. It improves performance. Imagine all the cycles saved when you don't have to move that window anymore because it is translucent!!!

Re:Not just eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the bigger problem is 3d Drivers, because X isn't that bad with 3D *IF* you have some decent drivers. Even with the quite good support some companies have (even then only binary support), until a critical mass are utilising 3D rendering a large portion may be left out.

If X can run things like Enemy Territory and UT2004 i'm sure it can handle 3d widgets. The problem is ensuring that we have drivers that can handle it, either that or we are going to have to find a way of doing it fast enough in software.

Part of this is the fragmination of the linux base, there are lots of hardware platforms that lack 3D support, and while x86 has binary support, until there are good Open Source drivers a lot of software will be developed for the Lowest Common Denominator.

Re:Not just eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

but if Microsoft is able to do what Apple has been doing ...ooooh...aaahaaa...why, hello, little winged monkey.

Re:Not just eye candy

[nathanh]

Things like expose and translucent windows can come in amazlingly handy in OS X (I've never found anything quite as useful as transparent terminal windows in OS X allowing me to have code open in one window, and documentation in the window behind it, and look through the code window to read documentation, especially when working with an API your not familiar with).

I just wish this would make it into X, but alas I suspect that it's the sort of thing that might take a while to get properly implemented and supported.

I've been using translucent windows and compositing on my Linux desktop for months. It's part of Xorg. Yes, it is hardware accelerated. Yes, it is faster. Yes, it looks cool. Yes, it works today.

Re:Not just eye candy

[gnuorder]

First: I'm pretty sure linux has several desktops that can use 3d hardware acceleration already. I remember reading of a few but I can't remember which ones. I prefer light GUIs or console, not flashy memory hogs. Windows, OSX, and some linux desktops are flashy and pretty but you pay a price for that.

Second: I find X very responsive if it's not bogged down by a bloated desktop and running x apps off a headless server is the best of both worlds as x and the desktop use the ram and graphics ability of the workstation while the app uses the resources of the server. I would prefer to reserve any extra boost my graphics card provides for something that needs it, such as a game or graphic rendering. I don't need My 3d Documents folder taking away valuable FPS'.

Third: I think the big issue is choice. From what I gather, This version of windows will require you to have a 3d video card. I can appriciate that some people would like a flashy 3d desktop with all it's widgets and that using the graphics card would save regular CPU cycles while at the same time making the desktop more responsive. Not everyone would need or want that. While windows and OSX may be fine for some, I prefer linux for the choices I have.

fourth: Tweak factor, especially in a business setting. People already have too much to play with on their computers. They are already screwing up settings requiring someone to come down and reset them. Add to that the viruses and spyware that will take advantage of this. It's just another layer of crud that doesn't need to be there.

Fifth: Even a low end 3d card uses a lot of power and also gets quite hot. While we are getting more efficient computers with power saving modes and such, we will piss all that away if you need to suck up another 50-100 watts of power to write a slashdot reply. On the other hand, if all computers came with a water cooler and hot water reserve, it would save power and time making tea or instant coffee.

It's a fine idea, as long as it can be disabled.

Re:Not just eye candy

[Gob Blesh It]

I agree with you completely, and I'd just like to add to what you wrote about the utility of translucent windows.

Seems like a lot of people bitch about "eye candy" wasting their CPU cycles and their precious time and whatnot--well, they're free to turn it off, but I think the eye candy actually makes many (if not most) people more productive, not less.

• Fading menus -- When a menu fades out instead of vanishing immediately, that's feedback that you canceled the menu selection. I didn't even notice this until I started using Firefox's contextual menus, which never fade out, even if you've selected something (very disconcerting).

• Translucent menus (and other translucent things like sheets) -- Suggests the menu isn't a permanent feature on your desktop. Subtle yet effective.

• Minimizing effect --Much easier to keep tabs on your shit when you can see where it's going. I think this was mentioned already.

• Shadows -- Show you which window's on top, and help you keep track of how your desktop is organized three dimensionally.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Not everyone needs or wants visual cues like these, but it's wrong to claim that eye candy is useless except for marketing.

Eye candy: Not just good lookin', but useful too.

Longhorn Lite

[Spy der Mann]

I've seen 98Lite, 2000Lite and XPLite. Perhaps the guys will make a LonghornLite that will enable you to use low-end graphics cards. Man, Microsoft should HIRE these guys. No. Put them on the TOP of the devel. team.

Re:Longhorn Lite

[Eideewt]

I recall hearing that Longhorn is planned to have three modes: one with full eye candy, one with less, and one using traditional software rendering. Let's hope so, since driver bugs could leave you without a GUI if it relies on non-standard features.

Re:Longhorn Lite

[nuggetman]

Let's hope so, since driver bugs could leave you without a GUI if it relies on non-standard features.


You people seriously amaze me sometimes. Give MS a LITTLE credit. You SERIOUSLY think they'd make the OS so that you can't drop in to a low-settings GUI mode to fix a buggy graphics driver? Good lord

Oh wait, it's been there since Windows 95. It's called SAFE MODE.

Re:Longhorn Lite

[Eideewt]

Of course they will. I was merely expressing how important I consider a backup for the 3d mode to be.

No way

[jbplou]

Longhorn is what 2 years off. Graphics cards will be cheaper by then and will easily meet the requirements even onboard graphics.

Dude

[Anonymous Coward]

It's microsoft. Microsoft. They could put a big dot on the screen and it'd make your cpu usage go to 100%!

Knowing Microsoft, they'd probably think it was attractive too.

Seriously, am I the only one that thinks the Microsoft UI team has about as much artistic sense as stick in the mud?

Re:Dude

[mr i want to go home]

No - No you're not the only one. How the larget software company in the world managed to produce a GUI as clunky and chunky as XP's astounds me. And it's more than just the colours too - the new 'Start' menu is a disaster in usablilty. It's ok once you know your way around, but try asking a novice user to find the 'Programs' button. It takes maybe a minute for them to scan the confusing mess of buttons to find the programs - you know, those things that make the computer usable....

Re:Dude

[Eideewt]

I agree. At least Windows 95 - 2000 had a clean look. XP added ugly blue borders and widgets that don't really match each other. I can't wait to see what's in store.

Re:Dude

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Agreed - this buttony - cartoony look they added to xp blows.

Further thinking this - they could really blow the oppotunity and add a beefed up paperclip UI. //starts to cower

Re:Dude

[Jugalator]

They actually hired some company to do the GUI, it wasn't Microsoft. However, of course that doesn't excuse them since they still approved it. :-) It's a mystery how the much slicker "Watercolor" theme (even better than the Windows 2000 one IMHO, since it was even very clear what window had focus) from the beta was scrapped. It could've at least been optional.

Re:Dude

[Dal Platinum]

I really can't see why people still complain about this. It's really a very simple procedure to switch back to 2000-look mode. It's the first thing I do.

And i can't see it being any different in Longhorn, you *will* be able to turn all this 'new' stuff off.

Re:Dude

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Unless of course you use PC anywhere for anything and have to switch online to 4 colors and screen scaling. XP then conveniently forgets to switch back to the settings and goes all blue bubble XP again.

Re:Dude

[Prophet of Nixon]

While I hate the default XP color scheme, I actually like the new start menu... it takes a bit of tweaking, but I find that the "pin to" area is very useful. Incidentally, what is this "watercolor" theme? I didn't have the XP betas, but I did use the Release Candidates for a while, and it wasn't in those.

You Fail It!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckwit!

no up grade for me

[Anonymous Coward]

boy is that ever a mistake. I'm not going to buy a new machine or upgrade because windows now can't run without a badass graphics card. I hope they bet the company on this and loose hard.

New Microsoft OS to be more bloated than previous

[cybermint]

Why isn't this even shocking to me?

Yeah, but tomorrow's drivers

[Tackhead]

> Yeah, but today's high end
>
> will be low-end by the time [Longhorn] actually gets released.

Yeah, but the Open Source and Free Software drivers for video cards will still be stuck at the level of the Radeon 7500 when it comes to 3D acceleration, due to the (unfortunately, for valid competitive-analysis-type business reasons) concerns of video hardware manufacturers (namely ATI vs. nVIDIA) when it comes to disclosing specifications.

And then Gates and Jobs will both be able to point at a Linux box and say "See, its user interface has just barely gotten to the point of XP".

That's fine if you're a server administrator, but if your goal is Linux World [Desktop] Domination, it's gonna hurt.

Re:Yeah, but tomorrow's drivers

[Papparazzi]

Personally I think my KDE looks ten times better than the factory XP gui right now.
If I add enough stuff to xp to make it look as good, it runs about as stable as Win-Me.
As for video cards, when Longhorn comes out, todays will be in the same pile with all the other crap piled on the beta max.

Well...

[i0wnzj005uck4]

I'd say that 3D acceleration is a Good Thing. After using QuartzExtreme on multiple macs, I have to say it makes a massive difference in most apps. It *does* speed up even moderately easy 2D things, like word processing apps. Also, where you notice the most difference is when switching between programs. Basically you've already got the images loaded in video ram, so a lot of stuff is instantaneous. And yeah, iChat AV wouldn't be quite as pretty on Win XP.

But the real question is: why are pixel shaders needed? Unless you're doing strange reflections or simulating bumps or playing around with reflectivity in realtime, I can't imagine a use for them. I certainly can't see why you'd need anything more than simple textured quads or triangles. Oh, and some sort of alpha support for shadows. All of that sounds like a TNT2-era card, like the one I used to use to do Quake II.

What this really feels like is Microsoft pushing hardware adoption again. Ever notice how new motherboards don't come with USB drivers for Windows XP? How you have to upgrade to the latest service pack to get USB support? Partly piracy curbing, and partly I think to keep a hold by forcing people to use approved hardware.

Re:Well...

[atlasheavy]

How you have to upgrade to the latest service pack to get USB support?

You mean when we all had to upgrade to Win 95 OSR2 *8 Years* Ago??? Jeez, it's not like SPs actually cost money.

Re:Well...

[Val314]

IIRC Apple's Quarz Extreme requires Pixelshader 1.x too. (it wont work on a Radeon 7xxx but just fine on my 9200 (and should do fine on a 8500)

Re:Well...

[jcr]

But the real question is: why are pixel shaders needed? Unless you're doing strange reflections or simulating bumps or playing around with reflectivity in realtime, I can't imagine a use for them.

FYI, it's possible to implement convolutions and many other common image processing operations in a pixel program. Think about it for a bit, and I'm sure you can imagine a few uses.

-jcr

Re:Well...

[danila]

There is no demand for a 3D Windows on a Pentium Pro with Riva TNT. People with old hardware are happy running Win 98. It simply makes no sense to design 3D accelerated shell for old computers - the majority of the potential market have decent cards.

You should also not forget that making things as pretty as possible is important too. It's not just about accelerating moving windows and switching between applications. From the very beginning people were concerned about interface appearance. In 1981 Steve Jobs was pushing for rounded rectangles and was really happy when a solution for fast drawing of roundrecs was found.

It makes no sense to make things ugly, no sense at all. And while I am currently happy using Windows 2000 in classic 9x mode (even on a good computer with a Radeon 9600PRO) and even though I removed all shell customizations apps I tried (Object Desktop, various docks, Entbloss (Expose analog for Windows)), I would still appreciate a decent looking environment to replace this boring shell, be it Mac Mini with Tiger or not-yet-created desktop Linux system. I do not hold my breath for Longhorn, though... Especially since it's likely to include more DRM crap.

Re:Well...

[SmokeHalo]

So does Microsoft own any graphics card manufacturing companies, or are they still in negotiations for one?

Did Microsoft ask its customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates is completely detached from the business community. Bill Gates's world vision is the computer as a toy, not as a tool. Bill Gates effuses about video, and music, and DRM, and games, and 3D, whatever.

Gates obviously has no interest in the business community were reliability, economy, and value are near the top of the list of what is important. Toys and 3D shaded menus powered by expensive graphics cards are at the bottom of the list of business needs.

A company's comptroller is going to find the Mac Mini very enticing in comparison to a Longhorn upgrade.

Re:Did Microsoft ask its customers?

[CPUGuy]

Why would they wanted an extremely underpowered and overpirced computer to do business stuff? Once again... as it has been said for EVERY fucking Longhorn UI article, you will be able to switch between 3 different tiers, ranging from today's GDI+ style (does not require a heavy duty graphics card), all the way up to full desktop compositing.

Hmm.. Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I'm gonna run longhorn on my PII 450 mhz...

Wait, was I going to do that anyway? No! It's got linux, and it doesn't even have X!

Who needs all that fancy GUI stuff anyway, terminal is good enough for anybody.

WGF or WTF

[mvdde_xh]

Am I the only one that read WGF as WTF?

Re:WGF or WTF

[ddefenba]

No. See my post below. Curses for stealing my thunder!

In the future people will brag how many fps...

[scotay]

...they got on the start button or blue screen with full ansio filtering and 8x anti-aliasing.

Oh WOW! What a nice toy!

[PocketPick]

Honestly, is 3-dimensional menu's, icons, or windows that wave like water really necessary? A user may be initially impressed with it at first, but beyond that, it's just eye candy. And I can't image tight integration of a 3-Dimensional sub-system into an OS making a programmers life any easier. Perhaps this is just Microsoft throwing a bone to the card manufacturers, or trying to revitalize slowing desktop PC sales.

Lobby-Back in the day...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Back in the 80s when the Mac was released People said the same thing. Why do you need a GUI Interface where we can get all that we need done in text mode."

This may be before your time? But GUI's predate even Apple's Lisa.

Boosting performance on Windows

[parvenu74]

Slightly OT, but something that would also help to boost performance in Windows Server would be a mode in which the Graphical environment/window server is never even loaded, similar to unix/linux command line mode.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Omniscientist]

This is a definite truth, however to the best of my knowledge, people who specialize and are only familiar with server OS's like Windows heavily rely on being able to click around than knowing what to type. Kinda like Windows' user base, but to a lesser degree since your average Windows network admin probably knows a bit more than you average Windows user.

It would definitely make Windows look alot better in that market if they did in fact have a purely command line mode just like unix/linux which you could do everything that the GUI allows you to do. My guess is that this would just confuse people who are used to using the old fashioned Windows Server OS's though.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[myov]

All the admin tools are GUI based. A text mode won't change that.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[bpbond]

Oh, please. This is the same argument people use as to why Mac OS X can't be a good server OS. The fancy-pants antialiased drop-shadowed GUIs consume a small fraction of the CPU...when being used...which is, practically speaking, never. The rest of the time it's all paged out and not affecting performance at all.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[ant_tmwx]

I'm sure a non graphical mode would use less resources, but usually no one is logged onto a server machine locally, and it just shows a logon screen...nothing too intensive.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

All the admin tools are GUI based. A text mode won't change that.

This was true 9 years ago, have you even heard of Win2K or WinXP or Win2003 Server?

Microsoft even sells headless Windows system, does everyone here live in a cave?

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[bazmonkey]

something that would also help to boost performance in Windows Server would be a mode in which the Graphical environment/window server is never even loaded, similar to unix/linux

...Loading UNIX/Linux would do that too.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[timeOday]

Supposedly WindowsXP can be administered entirely from the CLI.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

I'm sure a non graphical mode would use less resources, but usually no one is logged onto a server machine locally, and it just shows a logon screen...nothing too intensive.

Exactly, even with WindowsNT4, with an administrator signed into the Server console, the CPU usage for the GUI was 0, since the GUI was completely IDLE. And the Memory Usage for even having Explorer loaded with someone signed in was about 4.5mb.

With no one logged in to the Server, Memory Usage for the GUI is virtually NIL, and CPU usages is NIL.

Why people don't realize that an IDLE GUI consumes NO resources even after 20 years just freaking amazes me.

Thank you for bringing this point up.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[myov]

Basic tools. I've yet to completely admin a Win 2K server from a console. Everything I've seen is based on the MMC console.

While MS may supply some tools, third parties don't. Especially, some in-house VB app.

Realistically, unloading the gui isn't much of an option.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Megane]

Exactly, even with WindowsNT4, with an administrator signed into the Server console, the CPU usage for the GUI was 0, since the GUI was completely IDLE.

Except when you had people who would set the server's screen saver to a 3D cycle-hog, without any 3D accelleration in the video card. You know it happens all the time. Of course this isn't the fault of the GUI, just clueless lusers.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Grab the Microsoft Official Curriculum textbooks, and nearly every GUI action is available as a command line with extensive options. There are many, many command-line tools available for Windows Server 2003. Check 'em out.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Hamsterdan]

Agreed. I've always wondered how a WinNT server would compare to a *NIX box if we would be allowed to boot it in CLI only. I mean, running a GUI on a *server* is pretty pointless. My file server doesn't even have a monitor (it's on NT, so kill me :p

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[peawee03]

There is a lot of pointy-clicky, but enough can be done at a console for Microsoft to put a telnet server into server products for remote admin (such as the "netsh" network configuration utility).

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Maserati]

Heck, when I took an NT4 admin class back in 1998 the instructor specifically mentioned which screensavers to never run on a server (hint, *GL* is bad).

Not that it's a real server if it has a monitor plugged into it (KVM doesn't count).

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[MightyMartian]

> Agreed. I've always wondered how a WinNT server would compare to a *NIX box if we would be allowed
> to boot it in CLI only. I mean, running a GUI on a *server* is pretty pointless. My file server doesn't
> even have a monitor (it's on NT, so kill me :p

I never did it myself, but I did see OS/2 v4 (reasonably close to NT3.51) running as a file server on an old Pentium 100mhz with 16mb of RAM in pure CLI mode and it was kick-ass. I bet that configuration could still work reasonably well on a small network.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[rainman_bc]

Slightly OT, but something that would also help to boost performance in Windows Server would be a mode in which the Graphical environment/window server is never even loaded, similar to unix/linux command line mode.

You can do that with the web server flavour of win2k3. You use MMC from another computer to adminster it.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[gad_zuki!]

> in which the Graphical environment/window server is never even loaded

Change your default shell to cmd.exe

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[rfunches]

Windows? In a command line mode? Isn't that a paradox?

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

You COULD do that with the first version of NT, but for whatever reason, that functionality was removed.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[NaDrew]

Slightly OT, but something that would also help to boost performance in Windows Server would be a mode in which the Graphical environment/window server is never even loaded, similar to unix/linux command line mode.

You can do that with the web server flavour of win2k3. You use MMC from another computer to adminster it.

Actually you can use MMC ("Manage" from the "My Computer" context menu) to administer remote 2000 Pro/Server and XP Home/Pro installations, as well as the various 2003 Server versions. I do it every day. Most of the command-line management tools are also network-aware, e.g. iisreset takes an optional serverName parameter to reset a remote server.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[micolous]

Microsoft even sells headless Windows system, does everyone here live in a cave?

That use MS Remote Desktop Protocol. Still, it's a GUI. Not everyone wants that. I am far more productive administering a computer with a CLI than a GUI, for example. Every time your hand moves to the rodent (mouse) and back, you waste time.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Bert64]

But the gui component runs on the headless machines still,a total waste... And you have to use the admin tools via a remote gui like rdp or vnc.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Bert64]

It's called DOS.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[orin]

Describe any administrative task on Windows Server 2003 and I'm sure someone here on slashdot can give you a script or set of command line arguments that performs that administrative task.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Administered maybe, but just try to get rid of the GUI. It doesn't help much on the insane system requirements, as long as the CLI is an CMD.EXE window running on the same power-sucking GUI.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, it was removed because they later discovered you couldn't get to the Start button anymore to shut the fucker down.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[wild_berry]

Can we find someone to suggest that they leverage their expertise in the paradigm of web serving and secure internet internetworking to provide a web-based (or XHTML-derived) management system?

Can we also get the same person to tell them that crackers would already be saying 'pwned'?

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

Basic tools. I've yet to completely admin a Win 2K server from a console. Everything I've seen is based on the MMC console.

While MS may supply some tools, third parties don't. Especially, some in-house VB app.

All command built applications, EVEN VB apps, can directly modify, change or do ANYTHING in Windows with out ever even paintina BUTTON on the screen.

So if your third party vendors are not bright enough to create tools that access the STANDARD interface Microsoft has provided that DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY GUI activity, It is your vendors fault, NOT MICROSOFT.

That is why they are command line applications.

AND YES, there is a tool to do EVERYTHING from the command line, in fact, if you were a Windows administrator.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

Except when you had people who would set the server's screen saver to a 3D cycle-hog, without any 3D accelleration in the video card.

Very true, even the Beziers screen saver on NT3.51 and NT4 on a 486 would starve CPU cycles.

But again, if you have someone that clueless administrating a server, chances are, they should be doing something else, like finding a new job. lol

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

That use MS Remote Desktop Protocol. Still, it's a GUI. Not everyone wants that. I am far more productive administering a computer with a CLI than a GUI, for example. Every time your hand moves to the rodent (mouse) and back, you waste time.

Actually you can fully admin a GUIless version oF Windows Server using Telnet, have you ever heard of telnet?

You can also use command line remote tools that flip commands to the server in a command line application running on your client.

GUIs on a SERVER are NOT BAD. THERE ARE EVEN MANY REASONS WHY A GUI ON A SERVER is a good thing for some user environment. Take a clustered media server environment, or using servers for more than just file and printer sharing.

Servers are no longer just File and Printer storage and serving devices, they have evolved into so much more. If you want to dog on a company for offering more on their server, then you have no clue of what servers are capable of today or what they will be doing in the next 5 years.

I have even heard the same arguments of why Servers don't need sound cards, but yet you will find tons of servers today doing audio and video stream processing and require audio and video input devices.

Heck even in my own home, my main server process and records video, pulls in sound and redistributes the content to all the computers and devices in the home as well as to my clients when I am away from home. I can watch TV on my laptop using a 3g Verizon card from my SERVER at my house almost anywhere in the United States.

Oh, and I can also access files and print from the server too.

GEESH.

Re:Boosting performance on Windows

[TheNetAvenger]

But the gui component runs on the headless machines still,a total waste... And you have to use the admin tools via a remote gui like rdp or vnc.

The GUI consumes NOTHING, NO CPU, and less than 1mb of RAM. If your server hardware can't handle the extra mb, then maybe you should consider getting a 486 for your server with 32mb of RAM. - GEESH

And yes, you can fully administer ANY windows Server via Telnet and command line tools, you never even have to use a GUI from the client or click a button if you don't want to.

People must be confusing Windows9x with WindowsNT or else they are just talking out their butt and have never really administrated Windows Servers.

Windows is a lot like any *nix variant, you can use Xwindows for remote managmenet if you want on *nix and you can use a GUI interface on WindowsNT if you want. BUT NEITHER of them require you to do so.

Additionally, people are used to XWindows on *nix that does take a chunk of RAM and CPU resources from the server, WINDOWS NT is NOT designed like that. The GUI is nothing more than the video card popping into a graphical and non text mode.

In a headless configuratin, there isn't even a video card on the Windows Server, so the only GUI that gets initialized is the RDP protocol waiting in case a client wants to remote administer the Server using a GUI.

Except that...

[brunes69]

.. the applications that require 3D (mostly games, some 3D apps), and the portions of the OS that will make use of the 3D capabilities (menus, translucent background windows) will never be in use at the same time.

Re:Except that...

[neXus_umr]

Unless you are playing a game that does not go into full screen mode, then they would have to cooperate.

Re:Except that...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Everything on earth (or on screen) is just a little OpenGL canvas. What ever resolution you want, inside the canvas area.

Tilt the canvas, twist the canvas, paint it around a cube and spin it... Heck, even run it corner-to-corner, full-screen!

Re:Except that...

[maxwell demon]

Tilt the canvas, twist the canvas, paint it around a cube and spin it...

Hmmm ... that reminds me of a GGI demo. Yes, exactly: A spinning cube with X running on it (even multiple times)!

Re:Except that...

[Taladar]

The only difference being that almost nobody uses these things in day-to-day work. With Windows you would be forced to do exactly that.

Longhorn HW requirements will be off the hook

[gelfling]

This totally sucks. Anyone want to bet that 95% of all laptop machines will not be able to run Longhorn and the ones that will will cost $2400.

The only remaining question is how soon MS's bitch, Intel figures out a way to embed that graphics performance into their CPUs thereby keeping THAT dysfunctional relationship alive.

Re:Longhorn HW requirements will be off the hook

[dj42]

I can't imagine any hardware upgrades in a new laptop, from say, Dell, costing more than $100 to exceed longhorn specs from the default configuration with Longhorn is released. Pure speculation, but already Dell includes considerably over-powered video cards for pure-2d operations.

Re:Longhorn HW requirements will be off the hook

[gelfling]

I have a Thinkpad T40 that I wouldn't want to rely on if I was a 3D gamer.

Re:Longhorn HW requirements will be off the hook

[Jugalator]

Then don't play 3D games.

As for Longhorn, it will scale back graphics if your card sucks:

At its simplest level, Longhorn will have the ability to display a Windows XP-like interface known as Windows Classic.

The next two levels are known Aero and Aero Glass. Aero Glass will be the most immersive level of Longhorn featuring three-dimensional shading and transparency. Aero Glass will likely require at least a 128MB video card. Aero will be a scaled down version of Aero Glass and will likely only require a 32MB video card.

Hmm, that quote is btw a bit misleading. "Windows Classic" is NOT the XP theme, but the Windows 2000 theme.

"Trusted" Computing requirements coming?

[tepples]

Mom and Pop don't need longhorn if they just need to check mail and surf the web.

So what happens once the residential ISPs require each customer's computer to run a Treacherous Computing operating system in order to get an IP address?

Do Macs have a runlevel 3 like command line?

[tallbill]

When running Redhat Linux and having problems setting up the graphics hardware, there is runlevel 3.
This is set in the initab file I think.

When configuring graphics hardware you can set this runlevel so that the system will not load Xwindows. If you want to mucky around with the Xwindows intialization it is possible to ssh over to the box and change the X windows initialization files. Or you can do it from a command line which is what you get at runlevel 3 in Redhat. I was wondering if there is the same kind of thing on a MAC. Or does it not matter because it is all propriatory? This is a very important feature when you have stated in use the wrong device drivers.

Re:Do Macs have a runlevel 3 like command line?

[bahamat]

OS X doesn't have a runlevel 3 because being BSD based, it doesn't use runlevels.

That being said, you're understanding of what is going on is fairly faulty. Firstly, you'll have a really hard time loading the wrong drivers in OS X. Secondly, you can use OS X without the windowing server all you like. Holding cmd+S while booting will bring you into single user mode, or you can type >console in the login window to switch to a vty.

Re:Do Macs have a runlevel 3 like command line?

[tallbill]

I was just curious.
There are many more things that one can do with a computer than just use it for graphics. As a matter of fact there are a lot of systems that don't have graphics in them at all.

Thank you for answering my question. I have never had experience with either OSX or BSD.

And that is why I said runlevel 3 like command line.

And so even though your response seemed a little bit insulting you still answered my question.

Again, thank you.

Re:Do Macs have a runlevel 3 like command line?

[bahamat]

I was just pointing out that text only is not a "mode", that's the real OS. The graphical stuff is just an extra program that runs on top of it.

You should learn more about UNIX. It'll enrich your life. But be prepared, it's nothing like you expect.

Hell Yea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for my fully-featured DOOM UI so I can blow up old log files, and camp near the ethernet ports and cover my team engineer from while he switches the default gateway to the new firewall appliance.

Fuck Yea!

You people need a real perspective

[Transcendent]

By the time longhorn is out, the required graphics card will probably cost 30 bucks. Hell, I have a Voodoo 3 in my firewall just because it was one of my cards laying around.

What's wrong with a fancy interface? Just because most of you are used to consoles (perhaps maybe with a transparent background! oooooo!!! ...) doesn't mean there's no point. I personally would prefer a console to a GUI since it gives me more flexability, but even though I only need a 2D card for my firewall, I could only find a Voodoo3 to throw in. I can't even think of any currently produced major card that is 2D only (go ahead and list them... it's not an argument, I'm just saying that I don't know).

Microsoft even spelled it out in one of their comparisons between their methodology and unix (please, no flaming the obvious cliches). Basically, they said that unix requires the use of console commands, while Windows overlooks that and focuses on graphical interfaces for the end user. Which one is better greatly depends on the user and the intended use.

It isn't suprising that MS wants to spiffy up their UI, and I think it'll be pretty cool to see what they pull together.

Just remember, when XP came out people were raving about how it required 128MB of Ram (minimal), but now the norm is to have practically 512.

And, of course, I would imagine, that you can turn this 3D feature off, much like you can turn off the "pretty" windows theme in XP... for the "gma and gpa" who only want to check their e-mail... but you have to really ask, why would they be using longhorn in the first place if it requires a high end machine?

price

[dioscaido]

Won't be an issue. By 2006 the current middle tier cards that can rock Doom 3 will be lower end, and cost next to nothing. And for those of us who like to run on older systems, well, we wouldn't run windows anyway, right?

the more bullshit they add on........

[Indy1]

the more that needs to be turned off.

I even wrote a faq on how to setup and streamline Win xp so it doesnt run like crap.

Business case for OS that likes cheap hardware

[tepples]

I can see why where I come from the linux heads are called 'green screeners'.

And the Windows heads are called 'blue screeners'.

Or again- more with simpler hardware.

Better yet, make a business case out of it: more with less expensive hardware.

y'all just cant hack the real projects- the real complex problems- the things that would make your OS kick real ass

Some projects call for complicated solutions; others call for simple solutions. For example, a highly efficient HTTP server for static files does kick serious behind when a company with a very popular web site needs several redundant servers for the site's images. If your product can saturate the site's outbound connection with a lower total cost that the wincompetition, then the better return on investment can boost your customers' bottom line, which is the only thing that matters to shareholders.

Or- The worst software implementation for the latest hardware.

A lot of residential users and businesses can't always afford the latest hardware, you insensitive clod!

Re:Business case for OS that likes cheap hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

"And the Windows heads are called 'blue screeners'."

Oh! This is simply the most solid comeback I've heard in weeks. It actually stopped my heart for a moment!

But as I always say, "you can do anything you want in kernel mode!"

Windows isnt broken. Its all those crap as 3rd party drivers leaking nonpaged pool, referencing null pointers, overflowing the stack and abusing system PTEs. Microsoft cant do anything about that. When you click 'yes please install the untested 3rd party driver from podunk xxxxx" then you accept all of the politics that come with the development of that driver. All it takes is one bit to be wrong. Y'all know what I am talking about here :)

"Better yet, make a business case out of it: more with less expensive hardware"

So you mean doing more with less? So lets all say FUCK IT to nice web pages and pictures and go back to the old web style with the browsers? Who needs nice LCD monitors? Who needs a fast workstation wtih phat graphics? Who needs all that fancy stuff? Who needs new fancy tech?

"Some projects call for complicated solutions; others call for simple solutions. For example, a highly efficient HTTP server for static files does kick serious behind when a company with a very popular web site needs several redundant servers for the site's images. If your product can saturate the site's outbound connection with a lower total cost that the wincompetition, then the better return on investment can boost your customers' bottom line, which is the only thing that matters to shareholders. "

You are changing the context of this argument. To get pack to the point- My argument here is that thinking that virutalizing the GPU is bad step is wrong. I also strongly disagree with cutting on forward movement.

"A lot of residential users and businesses can't always afford the latest hardware, you insensitive clod!"

You must be talking about the bell curve... Nice, I went to high school too

Anyone look at the source?

[Transcendent]

An afterthought to an earlier post.... did anyone notice we're fretting over an artice from The Inquirer???

Re:Anyone look at the source?

[KirkH]

My god, someone says this every time. It is not the National Enquirer you bozo, it's The Inquirer -- a legitimate source of tech news.

We all knew it was coming anyway...

[Low2000]

Microsoft has proved again and again that security and usability come second to simply just being there as a first choice to all the users who jump into the world of computing.

OSX is becoming more and more appealing to people and on the surface, thats in no small part to it's pretty, elegant degign and neat GUI effects. With things like the minimac, Microsoft needs to keep it's OS from looking dated in comparison because price is becomling less of an obsitcal for potential Apple switchers.

Outlawing old hardware

[tepples]

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade you will not be put in Jail if you use your 8088XT

Have you read Congressional proposals such as SSSCA, CBDTPA, and INDUCE?

The reason is simple

[Brandybuck]

The reason for this is simple. By forcing everyone to upgrade their hardware, there is less chance for people to put those "old" PC back into service with Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Of course, "old" means anything Bill Gates would be embarassed to have sitting on his desk.

Re:The reason is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for us to understand the big picture,
we have to realize one simple fundamental fact:

FreeBSD is dying

Come to terms with this fact, and you're home free.

Welcome to the Present-Bug-eyed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mmm, no. Commodore was the first to really do this. The original Amiga had native graphics capabilties that still aren't available (like multiple resolutions onscreen) in PC hardware. "

Well setting aside workstation class equipment in the question of "first". Of what use is multiple-resolutions in a modern day setting?

Re:Welcome to the Present-Bug-eyed.

[fyngyrz]

Multiple resolutions have numerous uses. Fewer bitplanes means less bandwidth consumed. Fewer bitplanes in one area means more bandwidth available for other screen areas. Sprites allow XY manipulation of graphics elements without having to disturb other bitmaps in any way. Sprites in various resolutions allow the display to meet the needs of the software, rather than the other way around. If you're not used to thinking in these terms, then you can easily miss the benefits. The cost, of course, is additional complexity at the hardware level to take the load off the software, complexity that can, if care is not taken, lead to compatibility problems down the road.

And that whole "workstation class equipment" thing... in its time, the Amiga was workstation class equipment, far outstripping the PC and the Mac of the time in native capabilities.

The Amiga was never a bottom feeder in either the hardware of software realms. The parent company, Commodore, was the bottom feeder. We developers used to say that if Commodore owned the Kentucky Fried Chicken francise, they'd market it as "Lukewarm, Dead Bird." It was very frustrating to try and work in the marketing worldview that Commodore created.

I don't think you understand

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Nobody (almost) will be buying the boxed copy to upgrade their old rickety system. Dell and friends will ship new systems with the OS and needed card preinstalled. So grandma can either use her old system that she has or she can use the new system. She will not need to go out and buy a new card.

What about the machines with onboard video? Dell will either not ship them or ship better onboard video.

Good, I've been waiting forever for new interface

[dj42]

I'm tired of people in movies having way cooler interfaces for their computers than me. I've got 3ghz and a Radeon9800 pro. Bring on the new 3d interfaces with vastly more potential for organization, features, and efficiency. Don't any of you play games and already have decent video cards? I could care less about Grandma and Grandpa. I want this for MY computer. Sometimes it can be smart to design something for the future, where the graphics hardware will be considerably faster and cheaper, than to listen to anti-Microsoft folks bash Windows advances for no particularly good reason. Smart business move? I don't know. I also, don't care. I just want it on my computer anyway.

uh, hello, options maybe?

[MuNansen]

What I find funny is how many people think the OS will absolutely REQUIRE these graphical bells and whistles. They were smart enough to let XP buyers use the old graphics if they didn't like XP's shiny new buttons, why wouldn't they let them turn off the options to run the higher graphics? Seriously. Now how easy and well-integrated the options are, now THAT's up for discussion.

Not Fisher-Price but Playskool

[tepples]

Either Fisher-Price's Little People or Playskool's Weebles, and I'm almost leaning toward Weebles given that the MSN Messenger guy has no legs.

Re:Not Fisher-Price but Playskool

[Megane]

I'm almost leaning toward Weebles given that the MSN Messenger guy has no legs.

But Weebles don't fall down. The might wobble, but they don't fall down.

role of console and 2d

[SanityInAnarchy]

Maybe eventually someone will have a 3d UI that is significantly easier to use than 2d, and is even really necessary for some apps.

I mean, who would have thought that graphics would make email so much easier? But it does.

For now, I have to laugh at the fact that NT people have to reboot to use the "recovery console", which is barely multitasking, if at all!

So, I don't worry that it will be pointless, or that it will waste cycles. Think about the speed of Firefox vs the speed of Links. Eventually the speed will be tuned and I will have some apps that I can't live without the 3d.

For now, my concern is that there be an easy fallback. With Linux, it's CTRL+ALT+F1. Windows already has 2d in the kernel.

I suspect there won't be a fallback at all!

Re:role of console and 2d

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, who would have thought that graphics would make email so much easier?

Are you talking about a graphical interface for creating mail or embedding graphics into mail? Embedding graphics into mail is among the worst evils of the Internet.

Re:role of console and 2d

[Anonymous Coward]

>I mean, who would have thought that graphics would make email so much easier? But it does.

I'm way more efficient with Mutt than I am with any web-based or gui mail program. I tried different mail clients (balsa, sylpheed, evolution, etc...) until finally trying mutt. It was a revelation in email use.

I have mutt bount to 1 key (multimedia keyboard). I can check my mail, delete anything I don't want, and exit before most peoples' email clients are even finished loading.

I am running Panther on a G3 350

[cyfer2000]

We are running it as a web server + jsp + mysql, but I also browse web with firefox on it. It works pretty well. I am not sure what kind of graphics card it is using. But the fact it is old is important.

Re:I am running Panther on a G3 350

[Anonymous Coward]

I just installed Panther on my wife's old G3 iMac (circa 2000) and it runs like a bat out of hell. I'm amazed at how snappy and responsive the user inetrface and all the bundled apps are. I have other issues with the user interface and the OS in general but I can't argue with the plain fact that Apple have built an incredibly lean and fast desktop OS.

Re:Great, but. MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

its an overall trend, not just limited to Longhorn.

Slashdot news post is incorrect.

[figleaf]

First of all the source of the aritcle is the Inquirer. Which is know for deliberabely twisting news. It therefore not a credible source of information.

Second If you have closely followed Microsoft previous statements at WinHec and in MSDN articles you would knbow that Longhorn will provide XP style rendering on older graphics cards. Systems with newer graphic chips will have full 3D accelerated graphics thereby taking the rendering work away from the CPU and improving performance.

Re:Slashdot news post is incorrect.

[westlake]

Longhorn will provide XP style rendering on older graphics cards. Systems with newer graphic chips will have full 3D accelerated graphics thereby taking the rendering work away from the CPU and improving performance.

never let truth get in the way of a good story...

*BSD 0wn5 j00 411!

[Thud457]

So much for " headless " " servers ", eh Microsoft?
Eh, probably only runs on x86, which as Netcraft confirms, is dying!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

or maybe you wanna talk TPS?
Or top 500 clustering?
Take your toys and go home, Bill.

Apple is a hardware company

[SanityInAnarchy]

That is why nobody complains. Because few people even consider running OSX on different hardware, or running different software on a G5. Because there just is no meaningful difference to a Mac user between "new OS" and "new computer". And because Windows always looks ugly compared to a mac, and lots of mac users are mac users because they like stuff pretty.

Inquirer lives up to it's name

[DaveCBio]

It's the tech version of the newprint rag that we all laugh at. Does anyone take them seriously?

Re:Inquirer lives up to it's name

[TheKarateMaster]

Maybe I'm wrong or thinking of a different 'rag', but isn't that the national ENquirer?

Microsoft's friends

[mcrbids]

Microsoft is not out to make you, the consumer happy. No, their customers really are the system builders and integrators. They're the ones who hawk their software, they're the ones who take the !@# phone calls, they're the ones who preload the Windows software.

By making the new software with stiff software requirements, they all but force consumers (that's you and me, folks) to upgrade hardware too. That makes system integrators and builders happy, and the mild collusion continues.

Microsoft did this with Windows 3.x, 95, and NT. Recent talk is of a very stagnant industry. Why wouldn't they do it again?

34t m3!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm John Carmek, and I'm releasing the next Doom on knoppix, beeotch!

It's an inroad for Treacherous Computing

[tepples]

What this really feels like is Microsoft pushing hardware adoption again.

And why would Microsoft push hardware adoption? Easy. A new motherboard is more likely to include a Treacherous Computing Module to verify the boot process.

WGF?

[ddefenba]

More like WTF?

It's the end of the desktop (metaphore)...

[erwin]

that's the real benefit of a 3D based UI. The Desktop metaphoere is over 30 years old. It's based on a set of technological assumptions and capabilities that were the reality in the until the mid-late 90's. 2D graphics, popularized with the intro of the Mac in 80 and jumpstarted with Windows is the door through which the current hot UI, 3D graphics, entered the game.

Just as 2D GUIs were a huge improvement over text-based interfaces, so will "true" 3D interfaces be an improvement over the 2D methaphorical "desktop". The problem is, we haven't found the right metaphore. We've been trying to for 20 odd years with a whole bunch of the VR-ish schemes, but we haven't found the right combinations of controls and abstract representations of the information.

I think some of the problem is the impedence mismatch between the data sets in the information being displayed and our cultural expectations of the 3D, semi-immersive experience. How exciting is a text email in a 3D space? Is an interface that had a 3D model of the person who sent it to you speak the message be a better metaphore? Would it make you more "productive?" Maybe that's a bad question to ask the Slashdot community, but it would certantily make my grandma more willing to use a computer system.

The fact is, the productivty enhancement curve of desktop interfaces is flattening. They're still being deployed more widely, (out of the office and into industrial automation type applications), but the high-water mark of the amount of productivity/economic benefit they bring to most tasks has been established.

So where to go next? How do you make a better interface to Amazon to keep customers coming back, offering them a better experience? Make the interface "thinner". Well, let's start by making the metaphore into the information less bound by a 30 year old view of how to progamaticlly visulize information. And, say, there's a lot of specialized processing power lying around in GPUs that most people already have (the same people who also tend to buy a lot on line, concidentialy).

So I see this requirment as essential to the continued growth of the computer and IT sectors (i.e., our jobs). And that's not just a purely self-interested statement. I don't really see the IT and computer sectors going away barring a massive change to society today. What I really want the industry to take on is a way to make things more accessible for the people like my grandma - the people who don't choose to use technology the way we do, but rather are being forced to use it by the commercial adoption of technology (think of how much banking is done through ATMs, and how hard it can be to actually see a live person).

I don't think either MAc OSX or Longhorn will get us there, but they're logical steps in the right direction. This requirement may make the PC industry wake up and realize that if X86 is platform and is going to be for the forseeable future, standards are going to need to be a lot tighter going forward. Not just standards of hardware and OS-level interoperation, but true data-to-users interaction. Of course "getting it right" might not be in the interests of some of the market's players - planned obselence goes a long way toward makeing the quarterly figures for the stockholders.

My $0.02

The good news is

[Truth_Quark]

that this should create larger price gap between entry-level Linux on the desktop and entry-level windows on the desktop, which, in many home and not-too-processor-heavy office situations, will strengthen the case for upgrading to free software.

But the best thing that could happen is if Longhorn can't run efficiently without a mid-range graphics card, this could create a market for low to mid budget hardware that requires a non-windows OS to perform.

Its a choice...

[TheKarateMaster]

You don't necessarily HAVE to upgrade to Longhorn. You can either jump on the bandwagon and shell out $50-100 for a new Graphics card, or you acn just wait until the next time you buy a PC. I don't think this will be a problem. It will probably be a VERY good thing for gamers though. Since more PCs will need higher-end Graphics cards, price will probably drop, making gaming less expensive.

What else is it going to make important?

[Chris Daniel]

Money.

Current notebooks?

[Goonie]

My new Centrino notebook has one of the random Intel video chipsets. I assume that means that it won't run Longhorn.

Not that I care - it runs Linux like a charm - but it seems likely to generate a lot of pissed-off users if they try to update their laptops and discover that their near-new laptop isn't capable of running the new Windows...

Not worth..

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not worth discussing really.
We'll all be dead by the time longhorn ships.

Looked like a pretty short story to me...

[Duke Blazingstix]

The Inquirer has a story about MS Longhorn and its need for better than entry level graphics cards. Am I the only one who was disappointed reading this article? I thought a "story" had to be longer than two paragraphs. 'Course, for an Inquirer story, two pargraphs is pretty long; and hey it looks like they got some real facts in there (scant though they may be.)

Never mind whether it will affect performance...

[sepluv]

...will it affect the development speed?

I sure hope so...I mean I can wait for Longhorn to come out because I know it will be worth the wait 'cause it will have loads of really awesome stuff like this...I always know that when the good Sir Billy spends ages working on something it's gonna be really mega sexy looking like XP was 'cause the graphics are so sweeet in that and I know that they're really kool and it gets the most out of my peecee 'cause it uses up all my RAM even when I don't have any apps open--it must be doing some awesome graphics work--its just like WindowsBlinds and that was just so amazingly l337 on 9x--now you get it built in and XP even emulates the bit were WindowBlinds crashes and your windows lose their totally awesome theme and that is like totally kool 'cause it totally makes you realise like how totally dull the graphics were before and how boring it was when you like didn't have fun timing how many minutes it takes the start menu to popup--and check out the longhorn start menu--that is gonnaa like be 10 times more awesome than even XP--I mean it rocks--I could just spend hours looking at it--in fact I probably will waiting for it to load pixel by pixel and wetting my pants all along.

But even the aptly-named Longhorn is gonnaa be soooo totally last century compared with Blackdown 'cause you know like they dropped some of the really mega features from Longhorn to fit the revised revised timeframe-- those'll all be in Blackdown which is gonnna totally blow your mind...it will make you cum...i mean they must really be working hard on it 'cause it was supposed to be out like sooo ages ago like when XP was out but is now cuming in 2012 (long waits for MSW versions always mean loads of kool stuff like I have to buy a new peecee and all n00 k00l software to work with it and it has really kool viruses and syware and stuff...totally l337 right?). ANd like Blackdown is sooo totally unbelievably shit-your-pants awesome right that they couldn't finish in time so they made Longhorn as a stopgap interim release..or at least they haven't made Longhorn yet but they're making an interim release for Longhorn callled XP 2 but they haven't released that yet but they're making an interim release for that called XP reloaded (which is soo totally gotta be kooll cuz like trinity was like so totally hot in xp reloaded) and then there is the totally sweeet brain-damaged XP version called XP lite which you have sooo got to add to ur collection and xp reduced media is soo gr8 cause you dont get loads of koool stuff like to watch movies with embedded viruses...acually...no..right..was joking...it sucks..i mean u got to be a total n00b to not realise..its called "reduced" for Billy's sake. Janus is gonna really rock though--its named after the two-faced Roman god of Gates--why couldn't you love it? And its soo totally l33t--ur computer will like be able to control your mind and do kool stuff like wipe all ur docs off ur harddrive without even asking you first...sssoooo fucking awesome, man.

Getting rid of pixel units

[captaineo]

This is a very good thing, if only because it will force developers to think in terms of arbitrary units (like "inches on the screen") as opposed to hard-coding pixel dimensions into their software*. Recent high-resolution monitors have exposed painful problems of hard-coded pixel interfaces - like text that becomes virtually unreadable at 3840x2160.

As a side benefit, this move towards a more vector-oriented display architecture means anti-aliasing will be easy to perform. Imagine dragging a window around with sub-pixel precision, and having the window contents and edges anti-aliased with a high-quality filter.

Not to knock Apple, but from what I have heard, Microsoft's implementation goes further in making the graphics API completely resolution-independent.

* and if you still want to use bitmaps for certain things, go right ahead, just let the graphics card re-size them to the appropriate pixel dimensions with high-quality filtering.

Re:Getting rid of pixel units

[Pecisk]

Yeah, but big difference is that Apple has it all NOW. Microsoft implementation is still theoretical and at least two years ahead, if not more. And if we are talking about showing, promising and doing - Apple has done much more about brining REAL new technologies and products in the market than Microsoft.

About whole your post - yeah, I agree. It is time to get rid of pixels. And AFAIS(See), this is where industry is moving.

What was the reason for dos 4?

[tallbill]

What was the reason for dos4?

It did nothing.
It was nothing.
It cost the government millions.

The reason for an upgrade can be as simple as a greedy company.

It's not just (or even primarily) for 3D tricks..

[Senjutsu]

It's used extensively in 10.2 and later version to implement all that lovely real transparency you see, because such transparency demands speedy image compositing and your GPU is much better at that sort of work than your CPU.

Re:MICHAEL SIMS ANALLY RAPES NIGGER BABIES DAILY

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty cool, I guess.

Broken window fallacy

[yorkpaddy]

This is a broken window fallacy. You say that the OS requiring a 3d graphics card will cause people to buy more 3d graphics cards and expensive computers, you say, "aha, more money being spent, that is good for the economy". Not necesarily. The money on 3d graphics cards has to be spent to get your computer what it did well without 3d graphics cards (draw a gui). Unless the new UI adds a lot to the experience we have no net gain, we have just spent money to get back to where we originally were (a "usable" GUI).

Wikipedia: Broken Window Fallacy

Now we get...

[Yaa 101]

Wow, we are treated now with 3d buffer overflows... yummy...

Thank you Bill...

Graphics qaulity?

[yorkpaddy]

I have heard that the signal qaulity of most 3d graphics cards lacks compared to dedicated 2d cards like Matrox's cards. I care a lot about the qaulity of the displayed image and am worried about this. Hopefully card makers will start producing better qaulity graphics card (in respect to signal qaulity). I might be wrong about all this, just what I have read.

Re:Its a choice...

[RoboRay]

Considering that a video card capable of running Longhorn costs less than a copy of a Microsoft OS, I don't really forsee this being a problem.

Okay

[SunFan]

So is Longhorn going to have any new useful features or just sit there and look pretty?

Re:Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear it sports a big, shiny clock in a sidebar!

J

Re:Okay

[Xophmeister]

From the screenshots I've seen, I wouldn't say it was there to even look "pretty"... I think of it as some ugly, inbred hick, dolled-up to the eye balls with make-up and botox, trying vainly to stand out in the crowd ;)

hrrrm

[MrArmyAnt]

As I recalled, a more heavy os makes it run slower, and mac was coded better to begin with. I believe this to be true becaue I used to have to kill explorer to have enough speed to play UT2k4 on and OLD pc i had. so now there makeing something ugly, unstable and slow, possibly more ugly, more unstable and slower? ~T ModLife.Net

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think this is a great thing. I have a 6800GT and it feels like it's only a pure piece of gaming hardware. Besides games, and obviously 3D tech demos and what not, I really don't see any improvement in my normal daily computing. DVD's and videos still play like they always do. It'd be great to see some extra 3D graphics and even offload some stuff from the main processor to the GPU.

That's mainly swapping...

[sp0rk173]

I had a dual usb ibook which, for various reasons we won't go into, was crippled into only taking 128 mb of ram. It ran slow with 10.2. When i decided to figure out why, I fired up a terminal when the system was more or less idle, then fired up open-office (this was before X11 on OS X was using Quartz and whatnot). Almost immediately top showed 128 mb ram in full use, and the hard drive started cranking. So, I figure the slowdown was just caused by insufficient ram triggering swap to fire up on a nice, slow ATA 66 hard drive. All of the visual effects, however, stayed quite smooth the majority of the time.

Some people actually use the GPU too.

[BFaucet]

I'm a computer animaton/FX guy and I need every little bit of speed out of my GPU... in many cases my GPU ends up holding me back, not my CPU. I don't really need menus and windows to be taking video RAM either.

I wish MS would work to make computers cheaper and more a part of everybody's life instead of trying to make companies spend $1000 to upgrade each system so they can continue to use Office (on top of the already unbelievable MS Office tax.)

Free zooming

[jfengel]

I regularly zoom my browser window. It lets me sit further back from the screen and I can read the text more comfortably. It's not 3D per se, but it could use the 3D features of the video card to do it more smoothly than my computer today can. That's not eye-candy; that's a usability feature.

I've seen a lot of people set their resolutions down because higher resolutions make the text too small to read. The monitor should run at the highest resolution it can refresh comfortably at, and the text should zoom to the appropriate number of pixels.

I suspect that when this feature comes out, I'll be able to zoom any window I like, because it'll be a feature of the graphics system, not of the particular software.

MOD TROLL DOWN

[TrancePhreak]

MOD TROLL DOWN

It's quite obvious the parent doesn't know anything about the topic and is just trolling.

Re:MOD TROLL DOWN

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

MOD TROLL DOWN

It's quite obvious the parent doesn't know anything about the topic and is just trolling.

Dude, if I made a factual error, go ahead and correct me. But calling me a troll just because I'm skeptical of Longhorn (based on the information in the article) is uncalled for.

Re:MOD TROLL DOWN

[PhrostyMcByte]

It has been stated several times that Longhorn will have different levels, degrading graphics for crappy graphics cards. The minimum level requires DX7, which is a Geforce2 (available in 2001, I think). It steps up with each DX version you support. If your computer doesn't have Geforce2 capabilities by 2007, chances are the rest of your computer is old enough that graphics should be the last thing on your mind.

Re:MOD TROLL DOWN

[TrancePhreak]

The other poster already pointed out the Windows side, while I'll point out that those pretty OSX eye candies choke on older hardware (as if this wasn't obvious). Expose is a good example.

Microsoft Learning

[thrift24]

I work at a computer training center and the new requirements for Microsoft Learning courses include graphics cards with 128MB of RAM. I was wondering if this was due to Microsoft's newest OS and I guess it is. It's going to be really nice knowing that I can play Enemy Territory on all the machines at work, but I don't relish the thought of replacing graphics cards in nearly 100 machines....or trying to diagnose network problems while we have a bunch of students LAN gaming across the network.

Buy Now While Supplies Last!!!!!!

[halfridge]

Get Windows Longhorn, the ultimate bloatware! Now complete with 3D icons, 4D textpad, and a fully integrated Doom 3 filebrowser so that you can truly "hunt" for that missing file. It's so sluggish you'll almost go back in time.

outrageous

[krayfx]

the average joe, the family man moe, and maybe designers - like graphics or eye candy. c'mon i am a designer myself - and i'd hate photoshop and other apps load with an animated hourglass, or something thats glitzy. surely there are people who want thier machines work in peace minus all the eye candy. yeah - if it helps the functionality fine. or else - i'd be happy to wrk with a 2-d interface. or even commandline. apple could afford the xtra glitz - 'cos they have a good card on board. i used my freinds' ibook, and with all its prowess was still sluggish with too much eye candy. the interface should be the last thing that impedes your work. i'd be happy using ANY amount of memory available to the applications rather than windows hogging half of it. windows is the cake, the apps are the icing - it should not try to be the icing.

This is an emerging trend...

[bechthros]

Just recently I bought the Sims 2, only to find that I then had to go out and buy a new video card just to play it! Couldn't return it cuz I'd already opened it... Bastards... $150 video game, basically...

"Who Cares"

[The Cisco Kid]

I will continue with this new version of Microsoft Virus Longhorn as I have with all the past ones - completely ignore it.

Re:"Who Cares"

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Virus Longhorn

hahah, omfglol

did you think up that one yourself?

*worships the cisco kid*

M$, the innovator....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we can have BSODs in 3d! Just don't try to
use paper 3d glasses with it. :)

Why Pixel Shader 2.0

[MatthewNewberg]

I am guessing pixel shaders are going to be used to do opaque rendering of mutliple images in one pass. Pixel Shaders allow combining multiple textures all at the same time thus speeding up windows by reducing the number of passes over the same area. This is also called Multitexturing .Multitexturing has been around for awhile.It was normally only for two textures becuase that is all games like quake required. Pixel Shaders allow greater fexiablity and performance enhancements. That is my guess I could be wrong. Pixel Shaders are really powerful, and could do alot of things. I totatlly agree with Microsoft for making it a requirement of a future operating system.

excuse me

[Trepidity]

As a proud enlightenment user, I'll have you know that e does not tie up my 3d graphics card at all. It merely ties up my CPU, as things were meant to be.

WT?

[miffo.swe]

Id rather see them spend the time they put into copying the MacOS X UI on getting a more secure and faster system. The system sucks today where the OS software drives performance instead of real applications that can do new things. Can we ever get a new system with power left over to do something new and cool?

Yes to all, No to all

[Sonar]

I will be happy when Microsoft just gives me a Yes to all and a No to all button on every yes or no question.

This is rediculous. Oh yeah, and when I am copying something, don't tell me it can't copy one file and stop the entire copy process all together. #%!^!^#$!

Can your enchanced graphical, pixel shader GUI do that for me? PLEASE!?

Re:Yes to all, No to all

[zmollusc]

Hehe! I can sympathise, there. My wish feature would be when I am logged in at SuperAdminRootGodOfEverything and I tell the system to 'shut down now' it shuts down now without popping up 43 windows saying lame things like 'Media player(no file open) is running, do you wish to shut it down now?'.

Clippy

[ZeroExistenZ]

This is fine with me unless you're forced to upgrade your graphicscard every x-months, 3D interfaces sound pretty cool -yet currently unnecessary.
Each new windows version always has required more power, and wasted yet more power. (everyone always has accepted that, and will remain to do so.)

Just as long they don't make a 3D version out of Clippy following you everywhere, or the silly search dog in XP. (seriously, what's up with that?)

Re:Clippy

[suman28]

The best thing for that as I found out recently is, to download TweakUI for Windows XP (be carefuly...The download from MS site does not install unless you have XP SP2) and there is a feature to use "Classic Search" for IE and the Windows Shell. This works best.

It's a big deal to OEMs

[rsilvergun]

who've gotten used to Windows letting them put crap in their PCs. Back in the Days of 98, There used to be a reg hack that was needed before the OS would use all your memory, before that it used the page file after filling things up to 2/3 full or so. OEMs took advantage of this to through a bad stick of RAM in and advertise more RAM. This worked great until people startup upgrading to XP, whose setup process would use all available RAM (and promptly crash when it hit the bad RAM). I'm a computer tech and I still have to rescue busted upgrades on Gateways, Compaqs and Dells almost daily. And I always hear the same damn thing: "but it always worked before....." (said with a nasally whine)....

Frankly I'm glad, since this kind of stuff makes it harder and harder for OEMs to through cheap junk hardware in the computer when the OS actually uses that hardware. I suppose the OEMs feel betrayed, and maybe they should. But fuck 'em. In the long run, they and their customers will get what they deserve (can you tell I'm bitter).

How wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Trey're not taking the load of the cpu away. They're CREATING load for the gpu. That means, more heat production in you server, more power usage. So what's with TCO of the hardware? I think this is un-cool. But hey, there are admins who really aren't capable of maintaining a server without a flashy graphical userinterface, controlled by the rodent. Add the cost of these incapable admins to the cost of you expensive hardware, expensive software licences and the higher maintenance costs. This adds up to a *nix machine and a capable *nix admin. The admin might cost more, but reduces the cost en increases the stability.

Strange logic, but logic nonetheless.

[bombshelter13]

It could be, just maybe, that Microsoft is doing something that, in some twisted, demented way, makes some sort of sense as a move to strengthen it's hold on it's primary market - the average, barely computer literate home user. Think about it. Longhorn comes out. All the typical, non-geek home users run out to buy a new computer so they can use Longhorn. Why? Because, as has been established so often, the average user is ~used to~ buying a newer computer sothey can run the newest version of windows. So, now they have Longhorn, and good god is it pretty. Unnecessarily pretty, yes. Inneficiently pretty, since it takes up all kinds of resources to keep running. But the average user is unaware these kinds of resources even exist, so what does he see? Damn, that's pretty... those are some sweet transparency effects, and don't you love all the neat little animations? Now, what happens when this same user sees someone running a Linux desktop? Even with the prettiest set of KDE themes and widgets you can find. I'll tell you what he thinks. He thinks, 'Hey, that doesn't look nearly as nice as my Windows box... it barely even looks any better than that old version of Windows (i.e. Windows XP)' and immediately dismisses Linux as being obsolete and 'old-fashioned' because 'look how much prettier Longhorn is, it must be more advanced'. A bit of a twisted thinking from Microsoft, but if you look at it like that, you have to admit it does kinda make sense.

Um, OSes don't have to have a GUI

[Venner]

>>don't call DOS a "plain text OS." If DOS is an OS, then so is SYSLINUX. (http://syslinux.zytor.com/) (http://syslinux.zytor.com/comboot.php)

What the...? Of course DOS is an OS. It is OS I ran until I "switched" to win95 as my primary OS, in '96.

Slackware Linux - which I have also been using since 1996 and which is still my favorite flavor of linux - is also a "plain text OS" for me. I use it as a server OS and a personal PC OS and never install a graphical UI.

As an aside, in one of my senior college classes, there was a senior computer science major who couldn't figure out how to do one of our assignments.*

Idiot: "How do I do xxxxxx?"
Me: "Well, first, open a command prompt and..."
Idiot: "A what?"
Me: "A command prompt and then..."
Idiot: "What do you mean?"
Me: "You know, DOS? Or at least, what passes for DOS on Win2k."
Idiot: "Where's the icon?"
Me: "Just go to start, run, and type in 'cmd' "
Idiot: "Run...? Oh, I had a friend of mine take that off the menu. I've never used it."
Me: ". . ."

*basically to write a little command-line program that took arguments and could use pipes. Not exactly rocket science.

Re:Um, OSes don't have to have a GUI

[andreyw]

Yeah, I perfectly understand your point. In fact, most people probably consider DOS to be an OS. However, in my view, it doesn't pass the test as it is really nothing more than a program loader (just like SYSLINUX, or the GRand Unified Bootloader [GRUB], or OpenFirmware, or PC BIOS). Its a pretty weak resource allocator/manager. Unless you're in command.com, the "OS" never actually has full control over the machine, neverminding the ability to multitask. In my opinion, if DOS is an OS, then so is GRUB, SYSLINUX, BIOS, the OpenFirmare prompt (any ROM monitor really).

Re:Um, OSes don't have to have a GUI

[Venner]

Ah, see, as a computer engineer who likes to do a lot of assembly and low level stuff, I see it somewhat from the other perspective. I think that an OS should handle only the most basic of tasks, like disk and direct memory access. So I'd say, yes, BIOses, etc, are, in fact, little stub operating systems.

The pretty GUIs, etc, should all be handled on the application layer. Microsoft basically blurred the distinction on the PC with 2k, XP, etc.

Whether it is a good move or a bad move remains to be seen, imho. It is certainly a good PR move to get novices using computers.

Don't stand in the way of progress

[filipvh]

On the one hand people complain there's no need to buy new hardware because there's no "quantum leap" in software technology to take advantage of it. Then on the other, they complain that new software requires up-to-date hardware.

Come on, people, we're supposed to be computer geeks here. Bigger better faster more is a good thing, because maybe 3D menus aren't that exciting, and maybe MS is always the bad guy, but anything like this raises the bar for other innovations.

It doesn't mean you're going to need an ATI Super Turbo Wonder Extreme Plus ++ Exclamation Point either - most boards with built-in graphics today have a pretty capable 3D engine (no good for Doom 3, but probably fine for 3D menus, more visual manipulation of home photo libraries, more innovation of user interfaces, etc) and with halfway-decent Geforce or Radeon cards available for 50 bucks already TODAY (not in, say, 3 years when Longhorn hits the shelves) this is NOT a problem.

Does it NEED a card, or is the mode optional?

[Jugalator]

The Inquirer has a story about MS Longhorn and its need for better than entry level graphics cards

Does it need one, or is the new GUI optional ala Windows XP? I've personally heard of the latter, and too many months back to recall the actual article, I read something about there being about three modes -- one bare bones, one spiffed up and one bells & whistles mode.

Apple...

[vought]

will sell a ton of Mac Minis in two years. When people realize they can't run the latest and greatest, they will have to buy a new machine to keep up with the Joneses.

Given the creeping resource requirements of Longhorn, you'll need something relatively powerful to run it. Powerful usually means big and loud. The mini suports quartz extreme with it's 32MB Radeon, but $500.00 mass-manufactured PCs definitely don't, Buy a new $500.00 PC today and you'll get shared DRAM video memory, unsuitable for Longhorn's graphics model.

When Longhorn finally ships, you get to spend money and time upgrading your video card and buying more RAM - or you can just buy a new machine ready to run, virus-free, and which requires only an upfront investment in a keyboard and mouse. Everyone has a TV - and the Mac mini connects to a TV out of the box.

And do you really think even a midrange PC today will be capable of running any decent video editing app in Longhorn?

Now remember, these people already have monitors, keyboards, and mice. The mini comes with none of these. Just replace your old, decrepit PC with a Mac mini.

Apple is introducing this new idea and expression of the home computer now, because it gives them time to gradually inform the market, generate buzz, and work up to a similar condition to what we se with the iPod today.

They will learn from this first, good product, and make something even better. The iMac was the first example of this thinking; iPod was the most successful. Start with only the best ideas and build upon them. Kill the bad ideas quickly. Drop the size, drop the cost. Apple is innovating at hyperspeed, catching up for years lost wandering in the wilderness.

If you're going to spend $500.00 on a new machine so you can run a new OS, what's to keep you from geting one of these Mac Mini things anyway? Especially when you can just hook it to the TV, put it in Simple Finder, and give one to granny for e-mailing pictures of her fancy dog to her friends with fancy dogs?

Just my two cents. Everyone's in the PC business has been secretly that afraid Apple would do this for years now. Now they're left to squeeze their margins even further, remaining at the sole mercy of Microsoft - who appear to be displaying an incredible ability to screw up nearly everything they've touched over the past couple of years.

Re:Apple...

[mikrorechner]

Everyone has a TV - and the Mac mini connects to a TV out of the box.

That's not entirely true. According to the technical specifications, the Apple DVI to Video Adapter is a Build-to-Order option.

Re:Apple...

[Pecisk]

I have to agree with you on this. Apple has is very sure about itself now and I actually happy to see this - because, even If I don't use their products everyday, I happy to use OS X (by myself I am musician and yet, open source and Linux advocat on this case too) and see the quality of the products they present to the market - specially about hardware. Yes, I love the Apple brand as it is - even If I don't use it - because I believe that sometimes have a good brand around in market gives a warm, good feeling about all whole thing.

And I happy to see that Apple finally comes out of ninche and pushes PC industry to move their asses forward to not be left behind. Because all the time PC industry was about features, not about quality of the product. Maybe Apple will push them to rethink this point for once more.

Re:Apple...

[Niddix]

But the part number they link to specifically says its only for the G5... they should fix that ;)

Important: Requires Power Mac G5 with DVI port.

"Classic experience" like W2K (software rendering)

[MojoStan]

I hope there's an option to disable all that cycle-wasting crud or MS may be shooting itself in the foot: how many offices will spend a few hundred dollars on individual video cards just to upgrade the OS?

Apparently, there is. From Graphics Hardware and Drivers for Windows "Longhorn":

For Longhorn, graphics requirements for desktop experiences are defined in relation to differentiated experiences:

• Aero Glass experience: Delivers the full-fidelity Longhorn user experience on the desktop, including support for 3D graphics and animation.
• Aero experience: Delivers the minimum hardware acceleration and desktop composition for the Longhorn user experience.
• Classic experience: Equivalent to Windows 2000 capabilities, using software rendering.

What about those machines with onboard video (ala Dell?)

Intel's newest integrated graphics (GMA 900) apparently meets the requirements for "Aero." Pixel Shader 2.0 is needed, but not Vertex Shader 2.0. I think Intel had Longhorn in mind when they designed GMA 900.

GMA 900 is the integrated graphics that comes with Intel's PCI Express chipsets. It will also be included with their Sonoma notebook platform (next version of Centrino), which will be released next week.

I think AGP 4X or PCI Express x8 needed...

[MojoStan]

You can get a card today for ~80 bucks that fit the bill. Even PCI models, if you're that far out of the loop.

From the "Best Practices" section of Graphics Hardware and Drivers for Windows "Longhorn":

Implement graphics system on high bandwidth AGP 4X or PCI Express 8 lane bus on discrete GPU solutions
Required for discrete GPU-based graphics systems

The Aero experience requires a minimum pipeline to support basic performance requirements, including scaling for high-density displays. These newer buses have stability and performance benefits over older buses.

Re:Good, I've been waiting forever for new interfa

[zmollusc]

Screw the interface, I can't see the cool way the screen is projected onto my face anyway, I want the movie style infinite bandwidth data transfer and instant searching and pattern matching.

Obviously the reason is

[Maksym]

So I can play doom 3 when ever I'm stuck over there!

-ShadeS

oh how cute

[otterpop378]

someone still gives a crap about windows.
that's adorable. no really. we're happy for you.
seriously. and in 2 years (maybe?) you can tell us how it all worked out for you. Supposing your system doesnt get owned by the time you finish installing the os.

You may not realise it but

[burnttoy]

Text mode has gone. Text mode disappeared years ago! I worked in graphics HW up until about 5 years ago and all the EGA/VGA/CGA/MDA modes were emulated, right down to scan line raster effect like multiresolution displays and palette effects.

Of course the host apps don't realise that and it doesn't require any CPU time so it's still fast(ish).

Re:You may not realise it but

[Viol8]

Well those modes displays have to be created somehow by the hardware anyway so how do you distinguish between a "real" mode and one thats "emulated" if its all done by a bunch of video chips anyway?

Re:You may not realise it but

[burnttoy]

As I said you can't. Or at least the apps can't tell. It's a shame they just carried on with the old modes rather than implement a full colour tiled mode with 16 bit tile indices. It wouldn't take a lot of doing and it'd be a damn sight more useful... In my experience getting competing video companies to agree on standards is akin to beating youself up with an iron bar.

All new cards are sufficient, even cheap ones!

[ponos]

You should note that ALL the latest cards from NVidia are able to do DirectX9, including pixel and vertex shaders 2.0 (and 3.0). ATI cards are also feature-complete across their whole range. Maybe some video acceleration or other exotic feature is missing from the cheapest parts, but they can run almost anything (even if at ridiculously slow speeds). For example, ATI X300 (~70-80$) and NVidia FX5200 (sub-50$ range) both fully support DirectX9 and OpenGL 1.5. It is even possible that you could get away with a directX8.1 part (e.g. Radeon9200 or NVidia 4000) for slightly less $$$. So, just stick *any* ATI X??? or NVidia 5??? or 6??? and you have full support. This is probably the cheapest upgrade MS has forced on windows users ;-) P.

Bloat...

[Eternal Annoyance]

which is not needed.

Instead of making the interface more beautiful to look at. They should make it more useful, and while they're at it, they might also consider making it more lightweight. Perhaps it might even become (shudder) more stable.

But wait! We are talking about Microsoft here. The only thing they know how to do well is integrating 'new' things in their user interface, so it will be more bug-prone, less secure and more resource hungry.

Oh well, perhaps longhorn will make faster cpu's cheaper.

Haven't you heard what X.org is doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to break the bubble of people that are against hardware GUI acceleration, but X.org is working on a accelerated vector library called cairo, and once it's done (surely before Longhorn) - our ol' slow-redrawing X will finally have some power. I believe GTK+ will use cairo to draw their widgets, but don't know about Qt (I've heard they're about to use some thingy developed by the Enlightenment team for E17).
Personally, I can't wait ;)

How about Apple][ in1979?

[mr. spike 2]

Not only Amiga and Atari had multiple-mode-at-the-same-time capabilities.

I've got an Apple][plus for a pretty long time and still like to tinker around it from time to time. It also allows mixing graphics and text modes at the same time, however at fixed transition place. But it's handy (and looks great) when you have scrolling text mode where you work (sort-of) and over it you have hi-res or lo-res graphics. :)

battery life issue

[nudnikmeow]

Does anyone know if this will this help or hinder battery life of laptops? Does offloading work to the GPU tend to increase power consumption or decrease power consumption? (I bet it increases)

Or should I say "notebooks", since today's portable computers tend to burn one's crotch and are really not designed to be used on one's lap.

--

free ipods

Make use of....

[gilesjuk]

Sure, make use of the power if it is there, but don't force it upon people.

The only time I'd agree with all the fancy animated menus and gizmos is if it improves the usability and clarity of the interface. If it's all about branding and making Windows look flashy then it's pointless.

Having lots more code running when clicking a menu just results in poorer timing and stability when doing timing critical work like MIDI and audio work. It's hard enough getting decent timing from Windows as it is.

Amiga was ahead of even this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Amiga used its graphics power for all sorts of co-processing. Disk drive access, I believe, was helped along by the blitter somehow; general bit-level operations on data, etc. where done with it too. The OTHER graphics co-processor, the copper was also used for some non-graphics things if I recall correctly.

Basically, the OS treated its graphics processors a computing resource, rather than just something to do graphics with, as I've been advocating that we do on Linux for a while now. A number of projects to use modern GPUs and/or DSPs as for (relatively) general processing exist now, but we need to do more, and use them for anything the OS *can* use them for.

Re:Amiga was ahead of even this.

[Anonymous Coward]

A slight clarification, if memory serves... The blitter (which I believe lived on the 'Fat' Agnes chip, along with the copper) was a general-purpose data mover. Set source & destination addresses, define which of 256 possible transformations you wanted it to do, and let it rip. This was useful when doing video games, obviously, but I remeber someone re-wrote Conway's Game of Life to use the blitter as a computation engine. It could play an entire round with 9 blits, which meant the game SCREAMED, especially compared to other hardware of the time which had to do all the work in the cpu.

Now the copper was literally another CPU of sorts, except it only had 4 instructions (read, write, skip and wait IIRC). The neat trick to do with the copper was to use the CPU to write a copper program during the vblank (when the CPU had full access to the bus), and then during the frame, the copper program would execute, making calls to the blitter, sound chips (denise? paula? one was sound, the other was the floppy controller). This is where the "copper bars" demos came about from -- just the copper executing a program to make calls to the display chips to change screen background colors on the fly, including the overscan areas.

I spent way too much time coding my amiga :P

Wish I had my login here :/
Vorx #876

Re:Amiga was ahead of even this.

[Vorx]

Found my password, re-posting my post so it gets seen :P

A slight clarification, if memory serves... The blitter (which I believe lived on the 'Fat' Agnes chip, along with the copper) was a general-purpose data mover. Set source & destination addresses, define which of 256 possible transformations you wanted it to do, and let it rip. This was useful when doing video games, obviously, but I remeber someone re-wrote Conway's Game of Life to use the blitter as a computation engine. It could play an entire round with 9 blits, which meant the game SCREAMED, especially compared to other hardware of the time which had to do all the work in the cpu.

Now the copper was literally another CPU of sorts, except it only had 4 instructions (read, write, skip and wait IIRC). The neat trick to do with the copper was to use the CPU to write a copper program during the vblank (when the CPU had full access to the bus), and then during the frame, the copper program would execute, making calls to the blitter, sound chips (denise? paula? one was sound, the other was the floppy controller). This is where the "copper bars" demos came about from -- just the copper executing a program to make calls to the display chips to change screen background colors on the fly, including the overscan areas.

I spent way too much time coding my amiga :P

Essential preference setting

[hcdejong]

"Waste cycles drawing trendy 3D junk" checkbox

(thanks to Eudora 3)

matter of time

[G-News.ch]

that all doesn't matter, as there won't be any cards that do not match these requirements, once longhorn ships in about 20 years.

Well how far is longhorn off completion?

[fozzmeister]

add a year on it coz MS is nearly always late. your "better than entry level" is now very very very bargain bucket.

Paradox Times 2

[pandrijeczko]

"Micro" and "Long", "soft" and "horn"...

It just gets worse

[fishbot]

Many people consider Windows GUI integration to be a bad idea when the OS is used as a server. The server may not even have any console devices attached, so the use of powerful graphics as a requirement seems to be fundamentally wrong in this case.

The second problem with this is the proliferation of 'display export' systems in use. How would the display be rendered to a non-graphics device (e.g. terminal server virtual display) with any kind of speed if this reliance on complex 3D interfaces was mandatory?

Windows is bad enough to use as a server, thanks to the fact that remote administration is an absolute nightmare, without making display export a near impossibility too! Tying the GUI to the kernel was one problem. Tying it to the hardware sounds like a step backwards to the early to mid-nineties!

This MS Doc says something completely different

[zerojoker]

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/graph ics-reqs.mspx They describe the graphic features as follows: ---- For Longhorn, graphics requirements for desktop experiences are defined in relation to differentiated experiences: Aero Glass experience: Delivers the full-fidelity Longhorn user experience on the desktop, including support for 3D graphics and animation. Aero experience: Delivers the minimum hardware acceleration and desktop composition for the Longhorn user experience. Classic experience: Equivalent to Windows 2000 capabilities, using software rendering. --- so I think it will be no problem just to switch off those nice graphic effects if you don't have such a powerfull graphic hardware. I really don't like Microsoft at all but I have read a lot of those "Longhorn will need a something like a cray" articles and all those articles were written by authors who seemed to not really well informed about technical details...

But longhorn won't be popular for another 5 years

[walterbyrd]

Lots of people are still using Win98 and NT4 (esspecially NT4 server in business). In fact XP only recently overtook Win98 in popularity.

The super-zowie graphics cards of today will be junk by the time longhorn is popular - but longhorn will probably work with them.

vendor lockin

[sl4shd0rk]

and more proprietary formats. I find it interesting that this many intelligent people up here let themselves be marketed into a money pit. Longhorn has been delayed since 2003, yet the claims of "grandeur" continue. The viruses continue, the strongarming continues. The only vendors that will "adore" Longhorn are the ones that Microsoft chooses to let live, instead of squashing them like a grape because they refused to conform.

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

[ShinmaWa]

And it was so OBVIOUS too. LaTeX for secretaries.... jeez.

Battery life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a complaint no one seems to be bringing up. Sure, 3D effects may look pretty, won't overload the CPU (if it's done in the GPU), etc. But modern graphics cards are power-hungry! This is an important concern for laptops. For "normal" windows-stuff, most of the 3D hardware on my laptop's grpahics card actually stays in a low-power mode. As soon as I do anything 3D, the power consumption jumps. (The "Use Graphic Device Power Management" option in my power management settings helps a bit, but not much, and noticeably degrades performance.)

Computers are getting faster and faster, but battery technology is having a hard time keeping up. Has MS put in much thought about how this will affect the usability of laptops and tablet PCs?

clearly not a server o/s

[TheGratefulNet]

no o/s can be taken seriously as a server if they NEED a gfx card. not even talking about needing a special KIND of one, just the fact that one is even needed at all.

does this mean they won't let the box be remotely manageable until you have long video and mouse cables?

how silly. think of the heat and power that will be a result of this requirement.

I laugh at how they dig their graves, those MS fellows..

linux already owns the embedded market (I've seen nothing by 'embedded linux this and that' jobs in my recent job search). bsd owns the server market (at least technically; since bsd is superior in terms of headless networked server stuff). and I guess this will give the mac another opp. to come in and steal the desktop.

we can only hope..

Re:clearly not a server o/s

[benzapp]

Have you ever used Windows 2003 Server? It comes with the standard Windows 95 interface. I imagine they would do the same thing with the next release of Windows.

Command line

[eneville]

Perhaps MS press are confusing UI with OS. The OS is the kernel etc, the UI should make optional use of the graphics cards. Why windows requires a graphics card is beyond me, to an extend OpenBSD can be installed and configured over a serial port, without the requirement of any graphics card beyond what the BIOS will allow the system to boot with. Longhorn is likely to become "long list of requirements". A UI that //requires// highend graphics is likely to be a bad UI. Consider a vital system that looses it's graphics hardware through natural hardware failure and then refuses to load the OS because of a graphics card requirement, sheesh, I won't be running anything important in those conditions.

Re:Good, I've been waiting forever for new interfa

[Anonymous Coward]

Output to flickering LED with 1s and 0s? Human I/O with computers is much more important than you think as data complexity and availability goes up. Exactly how are you going to use all that capability... if you can't see it in a way that makes it useful?

Is this a video game

[trendescape]

based off of Windows XP?

Older but functional machines

[bigredmed]

I have 1 kid in school and next fall will have 2 in school. I have a i686 machine at home that works fine. While I don't have a low end video card, I don't have 3D graphics either. Yes, that would be nice, but it means a new graphics card at the least. Why? I get on the net, do word processing, do my taxes, and pay bills just fine without it. I changed to Linux after Win98 got dropped by microsoft support. I didn't consider XP due to its cost and my computer's slow speed. Thing is, why would I go back to microsoft? My machine does what I need it to do. I miss out on some of the KDE and Gnome games, but I don't play games much anyway. I hope that they come up with some way to run this version of windows like Linux does where it simply notes that the 3D video is not supported and goes on. I doubt it. If microsoft holds to its usual "prop up dell and gateway by making all the current machines obsolete" MO, they will probably run all screen I/O through the 3D part of the video card and require a terrabyte of ram to load the kernel.

who cares

[suezz]

who cares what microsoft wants or requires. I am sick of them dictating standards and requirements - Windows is not even part of my work - I use linux, macs, BSD, - I don't even care what they want or require. But I am sure they will force the vendors to their ways regardless of what the consumer wants and especially regardless of what macintosh, linux, and bsd want or need.

I knew it was coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a flash two years ago, when I was talking to someone fairly technical about how the next generation OS was going to have a lot more animations. I recall, in my mind's eye seeing the graphics, just so gorgeous. Unfortunately, it might been slightly annoying also. Think Clippy on steroid.

Aside from looking good, thought, there wasn't much point. What I (fore)saw this was not going to be the three-D navigation interface we've all been expecting since, oh, 1998? But I do think that once more animation and partial 3D make their way to the desktop, average people will want more "depth".

If OS devs are reading this, think of using the cards onboard memory to store an image of the drive filesystem.

I don't need a graphics card.

[Esel Theo]

I only do text processing on my PC. So do I really need a graphics card at all?

(I've actually read this question in a magazine some years ago.)

3D card not a requirement to run MacOSX...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could run MacOSX Jaguar on my old PowerMacG3 with no 3D acceleration at all.

Of course some of the UI widgets and effects seemed slow... but the system was quite responsive, and it feels a lot faster than my Duron1.3 W2K box at work.

So, all I can say is that not only Apple got it first, but also they have a much better implementation.

Re:Good, I've been waiting forever for new interfa

[zmollusc]

No it isn't more important than I think. The data availibility lags the display capabilities so much it isn't funny.

Entry Level

[krgallagher]

"MS Longhorn and its need for better than entry level graphics cards."

If Microsoft requires it doesn't that make it entry level?

Windows' control trends

[Anonymous Coward]

How much $ do you think Microsoft gets from hardware manufacturers. Remember the switch from Windows 3.1 to 95?

Is this anything like...

[hkb]

e.g. bloat is coming, upgrade

Is this anything like FooOS 8.0 to make RAM more important?

Moot!

[DarthVain]

I am sure by the time it is released (in 2010), we will all be using quantom computers, or 12 Ghz Intel Althlon's with intergrated dual GeForce Ultra Extream happy fun time 9900 SLI PRO Limited Ed. intergated or some other such foolishness so it won't matter.

Except that the results appear to suck...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Second, modern graphics devices don't have any dedicated 2D hardware left in them. They all just use their 3D cores to do basic blit operations. Why waste silicon on specialist 2D blitting when you've got a gajillion megapixels of fillrate sitting right there in the 3D core?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a CAD phr33k, or a CAM phr33k, or a Graphics Designer, or even a Florist.

However, every graphics review I've ever perused indicates that Matrox's cards, with dedicated 2D hardware, put a sharper, cleaner, prettier picture on the screen than any 3D card from nVidia, ALi, 3D Labs/Oxygen, or their ilk.

Re:Except that the results appear to suck...

[tc]

The sharpness of the output image might have something to do with the quality of the RAMDAC used, but has nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of specialist 2D hardware.

The RAMDAC reads the contents of the framebuffer, which is just a chunk of memory on the card. The 2D or 3D hardware you refer to is merely the equivalent of a CPU which operates on that memory. 2D hardware is optimized for filling and copying rectangular axis-aligned arrays of pixels. 3D hardware is more flexible and in general renders arbitrary triangles which can be used to build up simple rectangles if you choose. However, in both cases they're just whacking bytes in memory. The sharpness of the output image cannot possibly be affected by how those bytes are computed.

The reason for specialist 2D hardware in the past has been that it's possible to optimize for the simple axis-aligned rectangle case, and get extremely high performance with relatively little silicon. These days, there is so much fillrate available in the 3D core, than an optimized piece of silicon to do restricted 2D operations is pointless.

Re:Except that the results appear to suck...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

The sharpness of the output image cannot possibly be affected by how those bytes are computed.

Assuming the computations come to the same conclusion.

But e.g. 96-bit extended floating point calculations on Intel/AMD hardware will generally give different answers than 128-bit Sparc or Altivec calculations, and I'm sure you encounter similar problems in the high-end graphics market.

Compare: Matlab's Loss is Nobody's Gain or How JAVA's Floating-Point Hurts Everyone Everywhere . (Scroll down to the bottom of the page; they're PDF files, which is why I didn't link to them directly.)

Re:Except that the results appear to suck...

[tc]

This is true for 3D. The 3D output from two different devices is likely to be slightly different due to floating-point rounding issues and the like affecting polygon edges, interpolants, and so forth. They also tend to fudge their anisotropic and/or mip-map sampling in different ways, with varying results. In some cases vendors 'cheat' a little to improve perf, again affecting results.

However, for basic 2D blitting, I would expect identical results. The common operation is a straightforward copy, no math involved. The next most common case is a simple copy with a 1-bit mask, again no room for rounding differences. Anti-aliased line-draws might be very slightly different, but those are pretty rare in the average desktop app. Ditto for alpha blending.

So it's really highly unlikely. If Matrox cards look 'sharper' for regular 2D desktop apps, it has nothing to do with dedicated 2D hardware (a copy is a copy), but rather better RAMDACs and the like.

Re: Admin Tools

[parvenu74]

I do remote administration of server services of several Windows Servers in my job. Typically I don't pull up a desktop but I connect with a graphical tool that is running on *my* machine that talks to a server process on the remote machine (SqlServer Query Analyzer and Enterprise Manager; IIS MMC Controller; Computer Manager; Active Directory's MMC control thingie). In these cases, there is no interaction with the GUI interface of the remote server since the GUI tool is running on *my* workstation.

(And and even if the server were in a currently-non-existant command-line mode, there's no reason why the window server process couldn't be spawned on an as-needed basis -- like when I pull up a remote desktop of the server.)

And Microsoft will still be behind

[Quila]

As others have said, Microsoft is touting features that Panther currently has for inclusion into their 2006 OS.

But Tiger will also bring Core Image, which will let developers quickly do image processing on pretty much anything. If the user has a programmable video card, then the GPU will take care of the calculations. If not, then Altivec will take care of it. All automatically.

What this all means is that any application such as Photoshop or Final Cut Pro will be blazingly fast on a Mac if the user has a good graphics card.

waah hwaah!

[torpor]

why, oh my, i remember my hazeltine-20 really 'pushed the limits of my graphics hardware' at times too, you know, and its only job in life was to serve its giant master ..

sheesh. its not as if "hardware is as software does" is an old computing maxim, invented by an '8bit toy computer company'...

and geeze, next thing you know, there'll be someone out there writing operating system code that never uses any hardware at all, wow!

Longhorn

[wickedj]

I know that there was recent speculation into Longhorn that would take advantage of DirectX 9 compatible cards and Shader 2.0. There was a blurb on Slashdot as well.