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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

Shocking..

[Gorffy]

Using Windows as a way to sell more hardware!

Yeah, but today's high end

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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]

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

But...

[rune2]

Can it run Longhorn? oh wait....

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.
>_

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.

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.

[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.

[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?).

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

[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

[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.

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?

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.

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?

BSOD

[datafr0g]

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

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: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: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: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.

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.

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: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: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

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

[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?

It's all about timed release.

[Trejkaz]

Grandpa & Grandma will probably be dead by the time Longhorn comes out.

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

[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: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.

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.

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: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

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]

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

[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: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....

Anyone look at the source?

[Transcendent]

An afterthought to an earlier post.... did anyone notice we're fretting over an artice from The Inquirer???

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!

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:Lobby

[FuzzieNorn]

A Radeon 9200 doesn't support PS2.0.

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.

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...

Okay

[SunFan]

So is Longhorn going to have any new useful features or just sit there and look pretty?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.