Slashdot Mirror
One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface
ThinSkin writes "While integrated graphics seem to handle Windows XP and 2000 just fine, they won't be able to handle Vista's 3D 'Aero Glass' compositor, which will prevent roughly half of all PCs from running Microsoft's new OS. Performance class cards that can handle DirectX 9.0c are up for the challenge." From the article: "After years of delays and several feature revisions, one of Vista's main selling points is the Aero Glass interface. However, as Peddie notes, users already have the ability to start constructing a PC that should be Vista-ready before the OS even ships. Microsoft also said this week that it would reserve its Halo 2 videogame for Vista."
Back in 2004, Microsoft announced that Longhorn would automatically detect a computer's graphics capability and show one of three GUIs: Aero, Aero Glass (the really high-end interface) or a classic Win2K-style interface.
This new article doesn't actually say the PCs won't be able to run Vista, but that they won't be able to take advantage of Aero Glass. It doesn't mention the three tiers of interface, but it does say this:
Sounds like one in two machines will be stuck with classic. Or maybe even some of those will get the mid-level GUI. But it doesn't say they won't be able to run the OS.
Jeez, it seems to me that Microsoft should be very careful about the marketing of this, because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista, then why not just simply make the switch? After all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I say this can be a good thing. We'll finally either:
A) Get some decent integrated graphics systems (or see NForce boards take off in popularity)
or
B) See big computer retailers putting at least adequate graphics cards into their base systems.
This will do wonders for the ability to play games on cheap laptops.
The people with older graphics systems that can't run Vista? Chances are most won't need to upgrade anyway, and XP-compatible consumer software won't be going anywhere for a long time. Sure, they won't be able to run Halo 2 PC, but hell, if they can't meet Vista specs, they sure as hell can't meet the game's specs.
Not only is it inaccurate summary, it's pretty trollish too... sure running Aero Glass takes some horsepower, there is nothing preventing a user from turning it off and running it in a more 95/98/2000 style and not have the benefits or eye candy they could have if they had a more powerful system
Hell, go back to 2001, I remember knowing many people whose PC's ran awful slow when running XP in Fisher Price mode, so they'd revert to the classic look and things were fine until they had a slightly better PC a little later.
Same will happen here.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They can run the OS, just can't take advantage of Aero Glass.
Did MS ever hear of the bauhaus design theory at all? Last thing I care for is an OS that tries its hardest to blow moonbeams and fluffy bunnies up my ass. If you cant go back to the no-frills win2k classic interface I plan to squeeze every last drop of life out of XP Pro. That is, until M$ does evil things to force people to upgrade, like releasing Vista-specific software and dropping patches for XP altogether.
"To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
The Intel 900 series graphics chips are good enough to run World of Warcraft. They aren't all that fast, mind you, but it works, I've met a couple people that do it.
I'd wager that at least the GMA 950 will be enough for the more advanced interface, and even the GMA 900 will be.
This is just a way to get large coroprations to spring for the $500 video card on their desktops. No really, this is just like Windows pushing everything to 24 bit color when everyone was doing 8bit. Within a year or so EVERONE was at 24bit. Well, almost everyone, but you get the idea.
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
All I have heard about aeroglass is that it makes the windows desktop look like the OSX desktop. Why does that take so much horsepower? I'm running OSX on an old Imac G3 450.
Why does the desktop requre more graphics calculations than a modern video game? Somebody please whack me with the cluebat.
One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface
That's nothing, zero out of my three PC's will!
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
When you're faced with a hostile audience (e.g. Slashdot), it can be tricky to slip your PR messages past the filters. After all, you aren't AMD; you don't want to have your own Slashdot Vendors section to give you a straight feed to the PR bin, since you know that skeptical readers will just ignore your message.
So what you do instead is construct a message that seems threatening for about forty-five seconds -- just as long as an editor will review it in the pending articles queue: you say, hey, my new software product is going to have really stringent hardware requirements. Oh, the editors say, this is perfect! It's interesting, controversial, and definitely front page material.
What they don't see is the second touch: you subtly phrase the article so that the impression left on reader is not that your product is incompatible, but that it is exclusive. Oh, they think -- I have a high-end system! I've got to try out this Vista thing on it!
Suckers.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Never is a long time.
Unless you are still running win3.1, eventually you will 'upgrade' if you want to use windows. Drivers wont exist for old machines, software wont run.. They will win in the end.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...because by the time it's released, those computers will be in a landfill!!
please excuse my apathy
This is NOT true, do the Slashdot editors even know people that are in the Vista Beta or have a MSDN subscription?
Vista scales its graphics to three levels, the basic level which still supports all of the WPF applications, scales the OS UI back to look like Windows 2000. This level however does not use WPF effects for the UI, such as transparent 'glass' Window Frames, etc.
The second level is a cross between WindowsXP and the Vista Interface. Again it supports all the WPF applicaitons, however the UI, visually is themed and looks somewhat like the higher level 3D 'Glass' Vista UI.
The third level is the 'high' level 'glass' and basically works on any Video Card that has basic DirectX 9.0 features built in. This level brings the WPF and 3D effects to the UI.
You get Glassy WIndow Frames that not only are transparent but also do a blur effect on the Windowsw Frames with Shading. This level also takes full advantage of your cards 3D Acceleration features throughout the basic Windows UI.
However even in the 'basic' mode Vista will run on ANY video card, Vista will still do amazing looking 3D effects on a crap card with the WPF, and if possible take advantage of any 3D GPU acceleration features in your video card.
For example if you are running a 1998 ATI Rage 128 32MB Video card, you are going to run in the seconde level of quality, and can turn it down to the basic level if you choose. (See, even old cards run in the second level, just like they would be themed in WindowsXP.)
Now even if your video card is only able to run in the second level or lets say, it has no 3D acceleration features, Vista will still properly run WPF and 3D WPF designed applications.
For example the WPF Chess game that comes with Vista, has reflective tile, smooth lines, is a full 3D applciaiton workspace, and runs with or without a 3D GPU in the computer. (The power of software rendering of WPF and DirectX.)
What Vista won't do on older video Cards is map the UI to 3D RAM on the GPU, and slow down your computer interface to display cute animations or glass if your Video card is not fast enough to do that.
So if you are running a computer with a video diplay older than a Geforce FX 5200, then you won't get the pretty UI, but if you have an old FX 5200 you will, and most people can pick this level of card up for almost any computer for like 30-50 US. (You can even buy a PCI version for your 500mhz system that has no AGP port, get the pretty Vista high level Glass.)
There are some recent 'cheap' Intel onboard chipsets that don't support enough 3D to the high level 3D display mode, and there are also some onboard Video that uses shared Memory, etc that won't support the high level Vista display mode.
Sure these people won't get the 'glass' effect, but they will be able to do everything else. And if they want the prettier interface, buying a video card that is considered 'low level' by today's standards is not such a big thing. If these people are playing WoW or any other game released in the past few years, they already have had to buy a newer video card anyway.
And Vista without Glass is not ugly or losing a lot for people, all it means is that Windows itself won't be sucking your GPU power and RAM for 'pretty' effects, when it is not necessary.
This not much different than people turning off themes in XP, expect there is a new level of UI themes in Vista that is a full 3D UI implementation that Windows itself uses for displaying runing applicaitons and the Windows Shell Interface.
If anyone has any doubts or questions go to the WinSuperSite, he seems to have the ability to release information on Vista without breaking an NDA. http://www.winsupersite.com/ (You can even see him explain this, screen shots of the different modes, and why and how it works.) -It is actually pretty slick and smart of Microsoft.
One thing Microsoft if introducing with Vista is a new Display Driver Model Called the LDDM an
Performance class cards that can handle DirectX 9.0c are up for the challenge.
Should something as simple as a UI require as much horsepower as a top of the line first person shooter?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Simple. Every OS Sucks:
http://www.deadtroll.com/video/ossuckscable.html
I would guess over 90% of /.ers (when forced to use Windows) use the W2K Style, with the rest enjoying XP's Aero or a 3rd party skinning app. I hope Microsoft opens up the format for the Themes so such an additional app isn't needed. It would be a step up in my book, and I imagine the big OEMs will want to tweak their own a bit.
Wasn't the purpose of operating systems to run the hardware, and not the other way around? When did the shift arrive when you were expected to change your hardware to run a new OS?
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I wonder if this is even supported with the new 3D interface?
Faced with such a choice, I think I'd just stick with the fully-functional system I already have. Luckily, there's no such issue anyway, as for 99% of Windows users, Vista doesn't require a new box to run at all.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
They tend to only get OS upgrades when they get a new computer [...].
- disasters. They're going to be wiped out. I'm sure that the market will find a new acceptable lowest common denominator, but it won't be as cheap as before.
This is probably the most insightful comment in this entire story. Think about what Vista is going to do to the bottom end of the PC market - the Sempron-and-256M-and-integrated-graphics-for-$300
Making people spend additional money in order to be able to do the same things they already do today does not "help" the economy in any sense. It just decreases efficiency and increases expenditure without creating new wealth.
I watch with glee and hope that M$ suffers tremendously at the hands of large companies and regular consumers that are just not willing to upgrade their hardward to Captain Amazing levels, and are pretty pissed that they get to have a threadbare UI as a substitute.
Thank God I'm switching to a Powerbook on my next purchase. Maybe I'll get an inexpensive linux laptop, too just because I can and look at pretty windows with E or Gnome or whatever. I just can't imagine that M$ will come up with a new UI so amazing that I will start shitting bricks immediately when I see it because I need it so badly.
Pretty windows or sufficiently functional windows and $1000 in my pocket? Gee. I just can't decide.
While it may wipe that demographic out, who's to say that other hardware generally considered useable won't take its place? I'm not especially looking forward to the day that a mid-range Athlon XP with 512 MB RAM and a Geforce3 is dissed as being marginal for the purposes of running an operating system.