Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Graphics: Microsoft Has Hardware-Accelerated Everything
MrSeb writes "Microsoft has detailed the extensive changes made to the Windows 8 graphics subsystem and DirectX 11.1. In short, everything in Windows 8 is hardware accelerated, and as a result its text, 2D, and 3D performance will blow Windows 7 away. DirectX 11.1 has also received a significant overhaul that should result in faster and more efficient games and applications. The bulk of the graphics changes in Windows 8 pertain to hardware acceleration for simple, typographically-rich Metro-style apps. In Windows 8, the rendering speed of text and simple shapes has been massively increased across the board: Title and heading text renders 336% faster than Windows 7; Lines render 184% faster; Rectangles render 438% faster; and so on. The rendering of JPEG, PNG, and GIF image files has also been improved in Windows 8, mostly by expanding SIMD usage. In one demo, Windows 8 decodes and renders 64 JPEGs in 4.38 seconds, while Windows 7 performs the same task in 7.28 seconds. Amongst a few changes to DirectX, the most significant feature in DX 11.1 is the new, simplified, unified Direct3D 11.1 API, which finally brings together the many API offshoots that MS has implemented in recent years."
but I have a fairly modest PC and I couldn't tell you the last time I said "Man, I wish I could render these 64 JPEGs in 4 seconds instead of this lousy 7." As far as I'm concerned, text and image rendering hasn't noticeably changed in 10+ years. But, I suppose you have to have something to make up for alienating your userbase with an interface designed for a machine it's not running.
Over the years I've knocked Microsoft quite a bit. But I have to say that after 2 years of using Windows 7 I am still happily pleased. I've had one crash with blue screen of death. And very few problems outside of trying to run iTunes.
So let's be a bit fair. Heck, Windows 7 crashed less than my OS X experience of the same amount of time. Not saying it's perfect. But on decent hardware with good drivers, it's pretty darn good. And a lot better than anything Microsoft did in the past.
In Gnome,(Meacity) and other xwindow managers use of composite extentions and other stuff has been long and painful, full of fuck ups.
Something tells me pain for windows users has just began!
Yes I know you trying to be funny but as an IT consultant for small and midsized businesses, I haven't seen a Windows system totally crash since XP and even then rarely saw any crashes after SP3. For all the haters here on Slashdot, Windows is still by far the best desktop environment available for use in a business setting.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
Jesus, these initial comments bore the hell out of me.
Here's the way I see it: Microsoft has finally gotten off their asses and recognized that efficiency really does matter when dealing with power efficient mobile GPU's. Given that Metro's ethos is stark simplicity, it'll be entertaining to watch how developers exploit the new capabilities. If the result is silky smooth navigation in nearly all apps, that'll be a big win. If the result is a rebirth of gradients, glows, glass, and other crap, I'll be pretty disappointed.
Hats off to Microsoft for focusing not just on Metro speed, but speed for all apps.
End users will never, ever notice this speed because I've never waited for Windows 7 to render text. Ever.
You do realize that the less time the CPU or GPU has to spend doing something the more time it can spend idling, thereby consuming less power and producing less heat, so even if the end-result is not visible to the eye it is still a beneficial effect nevertheless. Especially on mobile devices any improvements to battery-life directly translate to end-user satisfaction and better useability.
Do you understand what happens when you give applications direct access to the hardware? The #1 source of crashes on the NT line has always been video card issues. Windows 8 will have the same problem. These idiotic moves will destabilize the OS until they can patch it in Windows 8 SP3.
And why do you give a shit about hardware acceleration on a desktop computer in business? Do your Office fonts not load up fast enough? Is that 336% faster going to help you? From my experience, the only thing that matters for speed in business settings is antiquated hardware, database settings, and network speeds.
Are you trying to imply rendering things in less time than before and more efficiently with a GPU produces more heat than the previous method of using more time to render the same thing less efficiently on the CPU? You might wish to rethink that.
Those areas aren't really where hardware acceleration is important. We've got overpowered CPUs with cores just waiting for jobs.
Why would I care if text renders in 100 microseconds or 300? There has always been some 2D acceleration for text and scrolling and such. Not everything has to be a video game with graphical effects.
As for DirectX 11.1, just fuck off. Very few games even bother to overlay a few DirectX 10 or 11 effects for those who qualify. No, they use DirectX 9, because Microsoft has alienated previous versions of Windows (and the consoles use DX9 too of course)
A boring, crippled user interface with a seriously insulting attempt to lock people into their application store. THAT is what I see in WIndows 8. I very much despise it and I will actively fight against it.
I was a Linux guy for many years, ran RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian... all on servers and all on the desktop. I am more satisfied with Windows 7 than I was any of those OS's. They were good, and when I was in the Linux server business, they were vital for remaining integrated with my servers. But anymore, Windows 7 has better apps available (OMG you have to PAY for them?! OMG!! yes who cares they're good) and is plenty stable. I no longer have to reboot every day. I reboot when its needed for an update or something else, but not because "windows is acting weird, I had better reboot."
The truth of the matter is that I am impressed with MS's bounce back from Vista, moving forward with a nice stable OS that is easy to use and easy to work on, too. I look forward to Windows 8, although I'm nervous about the huge paradigm shift and what it'll do for computing at large. I've had the start menu for almost 20 years, I'm kind of used to it. But, times change and we've got to change with them, like it or not. The hardware acceleration is about time, IMHO. They've apparently streamlined it enough that they can start optimizing for every day tasks. I wish them the best, because frankly, like it or not, the Desktop OS's run throughout the world, are Windows based. Anyone who is still waiting for the "year of the Linux Desktop" will be waiting for a long time.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
you mean hardware has outpaced software, right? this is true, though instead of providing unique, useful and NEW functionality in a sane footprint, today's software is bloated up with a bunch of 'experience' aesthetics and rearrangements that, in many cases, hinder workflow for the sake of looks. proper software is functional first, intuitive next, and pretty last.
But it isn't just office. Active directory is much easier to deploy and manage than an assortment of linux servers running ldap, DNS, etc. Business isn't just email, word, and excel. It is about effortless collaboration and communication.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
just like every single operating system in service today.
There, FTFY.
I don't understand. From what I can see the "selling point" of Windows 8 is metro, is touch screen, is the new UI. You, and many others, I'm sure, will be instantly disabling these features? Guess what, I don't blame your for this, I just wonder why you don't choose an operating system to fit your needs, whether it's sticking with Windows 7 or moving elsewhere. Is it a good idea to "upgrade" and then spend time and effort working around those upgrades to have what you had before?
In a corporate environment? HELLO?! If your shop is so small, that you actually can look at the desktop environment without your networking, then it's not really a corporate environment.
Yeah, your point may be factual and correct but in the real world, it's mighty useless...
Windows is only the "best" desktop environment for business purely because most business use MS Office. Those businesses that DON'T use MS Office (and there a a surprising number, which is increasing with each "improvement" in Office releases), funnily enough would say that Windows is NOT the "best" desktop environment for business.
Crap. Window is the best because Microsoft offer a complete suite of products catered to integrating all the common back office functions. Directory, file, print, email, proxy, database, web and Office (and a whole bunch of other stuff too long to list here) all integrates seamlessly out of the box. I've seen plenty of MS haters attempt to replicate this functionality with a bunch of bespoke home brew 'free' solutions that are undocumented, unreliable and impossible for another employee to figure out what is going on.
osx for estheticity
linux for diversity
windows for jobsecurity
For me it's -
Windows for games
Linux for getting stuff done
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well then you can't blame the software for a hardware failure. I was running my original Windows 7 installation until a few days ago, when I decided to start fresh. 3 years without any significant problems, it's been the smoothest experience so far. I distinctly remember the day it launched, my coworkers asked about it, and they had to ask twice when they heard me speak the words "Windows 7 is fucking awesome". This, coming from a guy running a heavily-modified Gentoo-KDE workstation, bragging about 300-day uptime with XP relegated to a tiny VM on a side monitor.
3 years later, well, I still think Windows 7 is great. Does what I expect from Windows, nothing more, nothing less. Runs fast, supports all my hardware, sleeps/resumes without a hitch, uptime is dependent on whether I care to install monthly updates. Pretty much my only gripe is I wish the default shell were Bash instead of CMD (and Cygwin still sucks).
Wow, this is probably the first honest and thoughtful yet believable post I've seen on the tubes actually giving win7 the praise it deserves. I also was running xp at home and linux at work until win7 came out, and now I have it in both places. Just can't justify the "hassle" of setting up and configuring linux - which always takes a lot of time for *me* (maybe not a more leet haxxor) because win7 really does just work in a very non-annoying fashion.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
I use Linux (fedora/ubuntu), OS X (personal rMBP), and Windows (7 64bit ultimate at home, 32bit professional at work).
I have always wanted to "hate" windows, and "love" Linux, and in the past I have wanted to "love" mac os too.
in the past I have had plenty of reasons to hate windows, but by XP sp3, it was less, thoguh now that I am on 7, i actually HATE xp.
I was probably one of the few people that didn't hate Vista. Maybe because i used the 64bit version, I dont know, but it was stable if not particularly spectacular. It got the job done.
Windows 7 is a phenomenon in comparison. Together with the SSD, it just worked. Being able to send movies to my TV with a right click on the file, and without installing anything. Windows 7 just works, and although i do have a dual boot Ubuntu partition on my computer, i rarely use it. My chief annoyance is its inability to read any file systems on USB Mass Storage other than FAT/FAT32, and is the real remaining evilness of MS (forcing manufacturers of devices such as cameras to support FAT and pay their "tax" to MS)
OSX, is pretty, but not necessarily better than 7. It is not more easier either (keyboard shortcuts are more extreme). OSX is just different in my books. It too has some evilness such as the restriction on supporting TRIM only on Apple approved SSDs. It also has in some ways less application support (excluding BSD)
Linux is the OS i prefer to use for development, and also servers. However, I still spend way too much time configuring it than I have time for. When I was younger, and have time, it was fun. These days, I am married, a professional, and simply don't have time.
Have a nice day!
PowerShell is to administrative shells like the car some 15 year old kid builds in his garage with spare parts from a junkyard is to top-of-the-line race car or luxury car engineering from world leading engineers. It's just not even remotely close to what we get in *nix shells. And all it does is provide you with a CMD + script environment. Everything you can do in it could be done trivially via VBScript or JScript with COM. Microsoft once again instead of embracing technologies just re-invents them and poorly. They could have ported bash and the entire GNU environment with lots of other goodies over to Windows legally and we'd have the best of both worlds, but they instead decided to create some convoluted and terribly designed "competitor." This is similar in many respects to what they do for web browsers. Instead of embracing what we've already created (WebKit is open source, so is V8, WebKit + V8 is almost Chrome, and Microsoft could easily leverage both of these and even contribute back to the community by improving both), they create their own stuff which is years and years behind every other modern browser and which holds the entire industry back because they don't have an insignificant market share. This is the Microsoft way. It needs to stop, now. This is a golden rule, and one of the only rules we adamantly enforce in software engineering: if it isn't broke, don't fix it. More specifically, if something already exists that does what you're doing, use it or improve it. Unless you have a revolutionary approach that is significantly better (demonstrably), such that it is your business value to provide a better implementation, don't ever re-create something that already exists. Microsoft routinely violates this rule. I'm not sure why, maybe because they want to demonstrate to the world that they're still relevant somehow, but instead they end up looking like fucking idiots and pissing everyone off in the process.
When you need to heat your food, do you grab some iron and create an alloy of it to achieve a higher electrical resistance then wire it into your home's grid? No, you buy a stove, because someone already fucking did that. When you need to keep something cool, do you find a gas with a very low boiling point and create a phase-exchange system for moving heat from a small confined and insulated space to a larger heat dump? No, you buy a refrigerator, because someone already fucking did that. When you live 40 miles from work and need to get there today, do you invent an internal combustion engine, refine crude oil to obtain gasoline, invent strong rubber-based inflatable tires, create a mechanism for distributing power from your engine to the wheel assemblies, etc? No, you buy a fucking car or use public transportation, because someone already solved that problem. In all of these cases, you need TO DO SOMETHING, not make something better than what already exists. You don't decide "well I need to use a linux shell in Windows, let me go ahead and completely invent my own shitty version." No, you port the existing open-source implementation to your platform, at the very most. Because someone already fucking did that.