Re:Journaling File System: for those who don't kno
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
This is becoming off-topic but there are reasons not to use ReiserFS, i.e. it's not supported by Ghost or DriveImage, it's not as mature, and as mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't do data journalling.
It's simply common sense that offloading graphics interface tasks to the graphics chip will improve performance over all. Do we really want to do software window transparency forever?
Sure, but is it really the big benefit (apparently the only benefit of Longhorn...) touted by the article?
No, I haven't seen Quartz Extreme, so I am at a disadvantage.
I understand the notion that 3D acceleration provides hardware acceleration for operations which are really 2D transforms (like scaling and transposing). So an OpenGL window will move and resize without requiring a CPU / softare overhead - and hence will be smoother.
But "jump in speed and responsiveness"? When I move or resize a window, I click, move, release. The speed is the speed of my hand and finger. I do not have to wait for the screen to catch up!
Seriously. This thread started with "3D desktop is time wasting eye candy". Although I can see that the accleration itself may not be harmful, it is hardly the great benefit people here are claiming.
A: 3D desktop - unnecessary eye candy B: But it's faster because it's 3D accelerated! Even if it's only 2D! A: So if it's only 2D, why not just have 2D acceleration? Haven't you heard of that? B: Yes but if it's there in 3D why not use it?
Where did I say a 3d accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2d graphics?
Paragraph 3.
And why do you think I've never heard of 2d acceleration? What did I say to imply that?
Because you think a 3d accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2d graphics...
Here's a trick: Lets say you have to manage 15 windows. With 3d acceleration you can take advantage of the Z/height buffer to keep track of all of them, since they all live on different levels. Without 3d acceleration, you have to create a data structure and window managment system, which necessarily requires the CPU and memory subsystems to deal with all the windows.
Sure but 15 windows on different levels is a 3D desktop!
Point 4 - surely "full screen" is not a 3D attribute. Granted, it may be something that 3D accelerated cards optimise, but it's not a 3D attribute. What I'm saying is, the difference between a window and the full screen can be described using only 2 dimensions, or axes.
There used to be video cards that had 2D acceleration as a selling point. I take it the manufacturers forgot how to do 2D acceleration, so everything has to be 3D now.
Are perhaps you are just talking rubbish.
Re:These sorts of questions apply to all devices..
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
None of the things you mention about cars get in the way of, or slow down driving.
The things humming mentioned get in the way of computing.
I can understand excluding gcc from the term "operating system" (understand, mind, not necessarily agree). But excluding bash, or at least "a shell", seems illogical.
How else does a user operate the system but with a shell?
I don't know what the debate would be; the (new, advertising clause-free) BSD license is warranted by the FSF as a Free Software License and it meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
The BSD license is GPL compatible in that you can take BSD code and incorporate it into GPL'd code, the whole licensed under the GPL. The reverse is not true.
This reminds me, superficially, of H.U.R.G., an extremely restrictive games development environment for the ZX Spectrum.
I was going to write the next Jet Set Willy, but I couldn't program (well, I knew BASIC), so I bought this thinking it would be just the ticket (I was only 10...). I can still remember the stomach-sinking disappointment when the reality displaced my golden hopes. I think it put me off the whole idea of games-authoring for life...
No, they also want to provide a body of packages to be managed by their package management environment, and they want the packages to meet defined metrics of quality and freeness.
But I want to know why you think it's stupid, and if it's mind bogglingly stupid, then surely anyone of even minimal intelligence will understand a very short, simple explanation.
Nevermind the fact that if it is mind bogglingly stupid then so am I, for thinking it's a reasonable choice.
Slashdot Mirror
This is becoming off-topic but there are reasons not to use ReiserFS, i.e. it's not supported by Ghost or DriveImage, it's not as mature, and as mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't do data journalling.
Fact 1: Most people like fancy interfaces.
I have to dispute this "fact" in the case of a person who wants to get some work done.
Dude, Quake III is in 2D if I close one eye... oh wait, it's in 2D even with both eyes open! Shit it's all an optical illusion!
It's simply common sense that offloading graphics interface tasks to the graphics chip will improve performance over all. Do we really want to do software window transparency forever?
Sure, but is it really the big benefit (apparently the only benefit of Longhorn...) touted by the article?
No, I haven't seen Quartz Extreme, so I am at a disadvantage.
I understand the notion that 3D acceleration provides hardware acceleration for operations which are really 2D transforms (like scaling and transposing). So an OpenGL window will move and resize without requiring a CPU / softare overhead - and hence will be smoother.
But "jump in speed and responsiveness"? When I move or resize a window, I click, move, release. The speed is the speed of my hand and finger. I do not have to wait for the screen to catch up!
Seriously. This thread started with "3D desktop is time wasting eye candy". Although I can see that the accleration itself may not be harmful, it is hardly the great benefit people here are claiming.
This whole thread reads:
A: 3D desktop - unnecessary eye candy
B: But it's faster because it's 3D accelerated! Even if it's only 2D!
A: So if it's only 2D, why not just have 2D acceleration? Haven't you heard of that?
B: Yes but if it's there in 3D why not use it?
You work it out...
Where did I say a 3d accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2d graphics?
Paragraph 3.
And why do you think I've never heard of 2d acceleration? What did I say to imply that?
Because you think a 3d accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2d graphics...
Here's a trick: Lets say you have to manage 15 windows. With 3d acceleration you can take advantage of the Z/height buffer to keep track of all of them, since they all live on different levels. Without 3d acceleration, you have to create a data structure and window managment system, which necessarily requires the CPU and memory subsystems to deal with all the windows.
Sure but 15 windows on different levels is a 3D desktop!
But I get your point.
OK you got me. the Start Menu, or more properly the Taskbar, is an improvement on Program Manager.
Tabbed windows? You mean tabbed dialogs? They had their equivalents. See the Word for Windows 2.0 Options panel.
Case modding is much more similar to the non-functional aspects of automobiles.
But when the glitz is in the GUI itself, and not the case, the glitz can get in the way.
"Hey, look at this, when I turn the steering wheel it goes all bendy and funky how cool is that **CRASH**..."
I'm not saying fancy graphics effects steal precios GPU cycles, I'm saying they steal precious human cycles.
"Woo look at the window animate all over my screen, oh there goes two seconds of my time..."
"Oh this funky transparency is cool, shame I can't read what's in the window, let's spend a minute reconfiguring..."
Well, points 2 and 3 make sense.
Point 1 - why not just use 2D acceleration?
Point 4 - surely "full screen" is not a 3D attribute. Granted, it may be something that 3D accelerated cards optimise, but it's not a 3D attribute. What I'm saying is, the difference between a window and the full screen can be described using only 2 dimensions, or axes.
I don't understand. You're the third poster I've seen who hasn't heard of 2D acceleration.
Why should a "3D accelerated desktop" be required to accelerate 2D graphics?
You must be the anonymous coward who posted this and hasn't heard of 2D acceleration.
Let's be honest, everything done GUI-wise since Windows 3.1 has been eye candy.
There used to be video cards that had 2D acceleration as a selling point. I take it the manufacturers forgot how to do 2D acceleration, so everything has to be 3D now.
Are perhaps you are just talking rubbish.
None of the things you mention about cars get in the way of, or slow down driving.
The things humming mentioned get in the way of computing.
Perhaps whoever puts together the distribution should be the one to name it. Hey! That's what happens now!
Exactly! It's Debian's distro so they get to call it Debian GNU/NetBSD.
without a shell.
I can understand excluding gcc from the term "operating system" (understand, mind, not necessarily agree). But excluding bash, or at least "a shell", seems illogical.
How else does a user operate the system but with a shell?
It would be cool to see the figures for this. I wonder if anyone has a web site with current stats?
I don't know what the debate would be; the (new, advertising clause-free) BSD license is warranted by the FSF as a Free Software License and it meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
The BSD license is GPL compatible in that you can take BSD code and incorporate it into GPL'd code, the whole licensed under the GPL. The reverse is not true.
This reminds me, superficially, of H.U.R.G., an extremely restrictive games development environment for the ZX Spectrum.
I was going to write the next Jet Set Willy, but I couldn't program (well, I knew BASIC), so I bought this thinking it would be just the ticket (I was only 10...). I can still remember the stomach-sinking disappointment when the reality displaced my golden hopes. I think it put me off the whole idea of games-authoring for life...
I hope this is better!
No, they also want to provide a body of packages to be managed by their package management environment, and they want the packages to meet defined metrics of quality and freeness.
But I want to know why you think it's stupid, and if it's mind bogglingly stupid, then surely anyone of even minimal intelligence will understand a very short, simple explanation.
Nevermind the fact that if it is mind bogglingly stupid then so am I, for thinking it's a reasonable choice.
But they are using the GNU/ prefix.