Sigh. We were talking about workstations here. Apple makes very nice laptops. I don't use one because I need workstation power, but I'm space constrained. But Apple's "workstations" are really not worth how much they cost, especially since I really don't like OS X (Linux person myself). Anyway, you're dead wrong. Windows are not the UI. Scrollbars, toolbars, icons, text, widgets, etc, are the UI. Just read Apple's own PDFs. They clearly show that OpenGL is used only for compositing (certain apps like FInal Cut also use OpenGL for transparency effects). However, actual drawing (Quartz 2D) is most definately not accelerated. You'd think it would be, because Quartz 2D is vector based, and the imaging model is pretty easy to support via OpenGL, but it isn't.
Please. My dinky (well, maybe not so dinky:) laptop runs circles around any OS X costing twice as much. And I don't have to pay a company that represents everything I think is wrong with the country (sub-par products driven by marketing and style gimickry). Besides, OS X DOES NOT HAVE A HARDWARE ACCELERATED DESKTOP. Quartz Extreme should be "Quartz Compositor Extreme." QE just accelerates window effects like transparency and shadows. All Quartz2D drawing is still done on the main CPU. This misconception is funny as hell. Even Apple's own documents show this clearly, and the Quartz Extreme webpage has the "compositing" qualification litererally written all over it.
To bad Apple's own tech documents don't bear that out. Just read the PDF. All 2D is rendered by the CPU to a texture using Quartz2D, and all the window textures are composited via OpenGL. QE is a misnomer. It's not acceleration for Quartz2D, but a replacement for QuartzCompositer. The performance improvements you're seeing come from the fact that the CPU isn't having to composit all those windows anymore, so it has more power free to redraw faster. It's kind of a dubious improvement, because Quartz Extreme simply speeds up the compositing step, which is a step other graphics systems don't even need. Compositing of all windows is necessary to achieve window shadows and real transparency, but don't be fooled into thinking that you're not paying a *huge* performance price for those two bits of eye candy.
In Longhorn and EVAS, OpenGL is used for actually drawing window contents. This could be a big improvement. For example, somebody did an SVG viewer that used OpenGL. There was a huge performance improvement. Current GUI's are all still largely bitmap based (OS X more so than most others, ironically). Icons are bitmaps, widgets are mostly bitmaps, text is bitmaps, etc. This is due to the fact that newer "shinier" GUIs require gradients and other effects that current 2D engines simply don't accelerate. However, with accelerated vector drawing, we could theoretically make all icons and widgets SVG images, allowing them to be more dynamic and scalable.
If you're writing to some windowing system (in this case, DirectFB) then what's the point of making the driver windowing system independent like you suggested. At that point, you're just advocating ditching X, falling into the same misconception of "X is slow and bloated" that many seem to believe.
Um, what if you want to do rendering in a window? In that case, the OpenGL driver has to interact with the window system. OpenGL drivers are written for X because X has a lot of code that the OpenGL drivers need. Not only does it support the GLX protocol, but (I'm using NVIDIA's drivers as an example) it provides certain memory management and emulation routines. Unless you are making something that runs full-screen only, you *can't* have an OpenGL driver without tying it to the window-system.
Do a simple bitblit benchmark. The GDI doesn't perform anywhere near as well as X (4.1, in my tests). It isn't until you start writing DirectX code that you can get blit performance as good as X. Then, you've got 3D. 3D in Linux (through GLX) is just as fast as 3D in Windows (assuming a good driver like NVIDIA's).
On the client server bit -- Windows is more client-server than X! For example, when you create a process in windows, Win32 calls a thread-create function in the NT kernel, then sends a message to the Win32 server to set things up. The server runs in kernel space, but it still communicates via IPC mechanisms.
A codec (with an 'e') server is not a logical part of X. aRts, however, already does that. As for cut and paste, again, middle click paste isn't required anymore. Cutting and pasting (CTRL-C, CTRL-V) works just fine, as does (Edit->Cut, Edit->Paste)
Well, I'm currently using my card for 3D modeling, which works really well because of NVIDIA's stable drivers. In the future, stuff like Longhorn and EVAS will bring 3D accelerated to desktops. If you've seen the EVAS demo, you're already impressed!
Does the MPEG compression adversely affect picture quality. We get DirecTV, and I can't stand all the compression artifacts. They're particularly irritating when watching weather broadcasts, when there is a sharp color boundry between the weatherman and the map behind him.
What do you consider funny? Honest question. My family and I find Dave Barry hilarious, but I understand some may not. OTOH, I don't find MadTV funny, while many do.
1) Make sure your keyboard layout has the Windows key. In Kontrol Center, go to 'Regional & Accessibility' -> 'Keyboard Layout'. If the text is grayed out, but lists "Generic 104 Key Keyboard" you're fine. Otherwise, check the 'Enable Keyboard Layouts' box, then select "Generic 104 Key Keyboard' as the model.
2) Go to 'Regional & Accessibility' -> 'Keyboard Shortcuts', then in the "Modifier Keys" tab, make sure that one of the mod (usually mod4) modifiers is mapped to the Win key.
3) Now, set your keyboard shortcuts in the "Shortcut schemes" tab, and use the Win key where you want to.
The main reason is to provide the quickest access to certain features. I too am a keyboard shortcut junkie. However, a lot of the time when I'm just surfing the internet or something, I don't have any hands on the keyboard (don't get any ideas). I don't want to put my hands on the keyboard to access a program or something. So the whole idea is to have the fastest access no matter what the situation.
Is software becoming like the scientific community of the not to distant past? Where people proved themselves by contributing to the common good and made money by *applying* the knowledge gained from those contributions. Interesting concept.
I don't know. IBM may have been just as much of a monopoly as Microsoft (or even bigger). But it's hard to argue that IBM did as much damage to the software industry as Microsoft has. How many segments of the software industry no longer exist because of Microsoft? Is there a viable market for professional C++ compilers (aside from specialized products like VectorC and Intel C++). Word processors? Spreadsheets? Presentation software? Heck, if it weren't for a few companies (NVIDIA and id mainly) OpenGL on the PC would've been one of those casualties as well. Think about that. If MS had got their way, and OpenGL on the PC had died, do you really think that the current trend of using commodity PC's in the pro 3D market could have happened? What else could we have today if MS hadn't killed entire market segments in the 90's?
Linux is nice. OSS is better. I use Linux not only because it is technically superior, but because I don't have to be under the thumb of a corporation. Some stuff is too important to be commercialized. I have no problem paying Nike for my sneakers, or Levis for my jeans. But my operating system? To a heavy computer user, the OS is so fundemental, that it is just plain dangerous to depend on a corporation, especially a monopoly, for it. If Levi's tries to screw me over, I can just buy Polo. What do I do when my OS vendor tries to screw me over? Get used to a whole new set of software and services, reimplement my entire system, so I can move to a competitor (if there is one!)
I really wish people would stop making jabs at people who need CPU power. Yes, I shell out a couple of thousand every few years to keep my hardware up to date. But I'm an engineering major that needs to run CAD software, I do scientific computing projects for work, run Mathematica for school, and my hobbies include C++ programming (gcc eats my CPU alive) and 3D modeling. I don't even do gaming, and I still find myself needing more CPU. Hardware freaks aren't all hardcore Quake'ers you know...
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. We were talking about workstations here. Apple makes very nice laptops. I don't use one because I need workstation power, but I'm space constrained. But Apple's "workstations" are really not worth how much they cost, especially since I really don't like OS X (Linux person myself). Anyway, you're dead wrong. Windows are not the UI. Scrollbars, toolbars, icons, text, widgets, etc, are the UI. Just read Apple's own PDFs. They clearly show that OpenGL is used only for compositing (certain apps like FInal Cut also use OpenGL for transparency effects). However, actual drawing (Quartz 2D) is most definately not accelerated. You'd think it would be, because Quartz 2D is vector based, and the imaging model is pretty easy to support via OpenGL, but it isn't.
Please. My dinky (well, maybe not so dinky :) laptop runs circles around any OS X costing twice as much. And I don't have to pay a company that represents everything I think is wrong with the country (sub-par products driven by marketing and style gimickry). Besides, OS X DOES NOT HAVE A HARDWARE ACCELERATED DESKTOP. Quartz Extreme should be "Quartz Compositor Extreme." QE just accelerates window effects like transparency and shadows. All Quartz2D drawing is still done on the main CPU. This misconception is funny as hell. Even Apple's own documents show this clearly, and the Quartz Extreme webpage has the "compositing" qualification litererally written all over it.
To bad Apple's own tech documents don't bear that out. Just read the PDF. All 2D is rendered by the CPU to a texture using Quartz2D, and all the window textures are composited via OpenGL. QE is a misnomer. It's not acceleration for Quartz2D, but a replacement for QuartzCompositer. The performance improvements you're seeing come from the fact that the CPU isn't having to composit all those windows anymore, so it has more power free to redraw faster. It's kind of a dubious improvement, because Quartz Extreme simply speeds up the compositing step, which is a step other graphics systems don't even need. Compositing of all windows is necessary to achieve window shadows and real transparency, but don't be fooled into thinking that you're not paying a *huge* performance price for those two bits of eye candy.
In Longhorn and EVAS, OpenGL is used for actually drawing window contents. This could be a big improvement. For example, somebody did an SVG viewer that used OpenGL. There was a huge performance improvement. Current GUI's are all still largely bitmap based (OS X more so than most others, ironically). Icons are bitmaps, widgets are mostly bitmaps, text is bitmaps, etc. This is due to the fact that newer "shinier" GUIs require gradients and other effects that current 2D engines simply don't accelerate. However, with accelerated vector drawing, we could theoretically make all icons and widgets SVG images, allowing them to be more dynamic and scalable.
If you're writing to some windowing system (in this case, DirectFB) then what's the point of making the driver windowing system independent like you suggested. At that point, you're just advocating ditching X, falling into the same misconception of "X is slow and bloated" that many seem to believe.
Gecko is really a G3. It's doesn't have AltiVec.
Um, what if you want to do rendering in a window? In that case, the OpenGL driver has to interact with the window system. OpenGL drivers are written for X because X has a lot of code that the OpenGL drivers need. Not only does it support the GLX protocol, but (I'm using NVIDIA's drivers as an example) it provides certain memory management and emulation routines. Unless you are making something that runs full-screen only, you *can't* have an OpenGL driver without tying it to the window-system.
The back up the performance thing:
Do a simple bitblit benchmark. The GDI doesn't perform anywhere near as well as X (4.1, in my tests). It isn't until you start writing DirectX code that you can get blit performance as good as X. Then, you've got 3D. 3D in Linux (through GLX) is just as fast as 3D in Windows (assuming a good driver like NVIDIA's).
On the client server bit -- Windows is more client-server than X! For example, when you create a process in windows, Win32 calls a thread-create function in the NT kernel, then sends a message to the Win32 server to set things up. The server runs in kernel space, but it still communicates via IPC mechanisms.
A codec (with an 'e') server is not a logical part of X. aRts, however, already does that. As for cut and paste, again, middle click paste isn't required anymore. Cutting and pasting (CTRL-C, CTRL-V) works just fine, as does (Edit->Cut, Edit->Paste)
Actually, QE is a bit of a sham. It does do windowing effects, but unlike Longhorn or EVAS, doesn't actually accelerate *drawing*.
Well, I'm currently using my card for 3D modeling, which works really well because of NVIDIA's stable drivers. In the future, stuff like Longhorn and EVAS will bring 3D accelerated to desktops. If you've seen the EVAS demo, you're already impressed!
If you don't need one, don't buy one. Everybody has an addiction, and computers happen to be addictions for a lot of people.
I've pretty much stopped watching TV these days. I now spend my time reading Slashdot.
Does the MPEG compression adversely affect picture quality. We get DirecTV, and I can't stand all the compression artifacts. They're particularly irritating when watching weather broadcasts, when there is a sharp color boundry between the weatherman and the map behind him.
BNF would be: ::= God | Allah | etc.
It could very well be, but the template syntax makes more sense given that it's on comp.std.c++
You. "Pullet Surprise" was clearly a joke. It's too funny to be a real mistake :)
What do you consider funny? Honest question. My family and I find Dave Barry hilarious, but I understand some may not. OTOH, I don't find MadTV funny, while many do.
In KDE its the following procedure:
1) Make sure your keyboard layout has the Windows key. In Kontrol Center, go to 'Regional & Accessibility' -> 'Keyboard Layout'. If the text is grayed out, but lists "Generic 104 Key Keyboard" you're fine. Otherwise, check the 'Enable Keyboard Layouts' box, then select "Generic 104 Key Keyboard' as the model.
2) Go to 'Regional & Accessibility' -> 'Keyboard Shortcuts', then in the "Modifier Keys" tab, make sure that one of the mod (usually mod4) modifiers is mapped to the Win key.
3) Now, set your keyboard shortcuts in the "Shortcut schemes" tab, and use the Win key where you want to.
How do I sart netscape with a right click menu in KOnqueror?
What icon? The one behind the window I'm working on? That icon?
The main reason is to provide the quickest access to certain features. I too am a keyboard shortcut junkie. However, a lot of the time when I'm just surfing the internet or something, I don't have any hands on the keyboard (don't get any ideas). I don't want to put my hands on the keyboard to access a program or something. So the whole idea is to have the fastest access no matter what the situation.
Dude. Just remap the Windows key to a meta key. In KDE I've got the following keyboard layout:
Win + Fx = Window operations (minimize, maximize, etc).
Win + [1:9] = Shortcuts (Run Command, Task Manager, Kill Window)
Win + [q,w,a,s] = Switch to desktop [1:4]
Win + keys on right hand side = launch apps
Is software becoming like the scientific community of the not to distant past? Where people proved themselves by contributing to the common good and made money by *applying* the knowledge gained from those contributions. Interesting concept.
I don't know. IBM may have been just as much of a monopoly as Microsoft (or even bigger). But it's hard to argue that IBM did as much damage to the software industry as Microsoft has. How many segments of the software industry no longer exist because of Microsoft? Is there a viable market for professional C++ compilers (aside from specialized products like VectorC and Intel C++). Word processors? Spreadsheets? Presentation software? Heck, if it weren't for a few companies (NVIDIA and id mainly) OpenGL on the PC would've been one of those casualties as well. Think about that. If MS had got their way, and OpenGL on the PC had died, do you really think that the current trend of using commodity PC's in the pro 3D market could have happened? What else could we have today if MS hadn't killed entire market segments in the 90's?
Linux is nice. OSS is better. I use Linux not only because it is technically superior, but because I don't have to be under the thumb of a corporation. Some stuff is too important to be commercialized. I have no problem paying Nike for my sneakers, or Levis for my jeans. But my operating system? To a heavy computer user, the OS is so fundemental, that it is just plain dangerous to depend on a corporation, especially a monopoly, for it. If Levi's tries to screw me over, I can just buy Polo. What do I do when my OS vendor tries to screw me over? Get used to a whole new set of software and services, reimplement my entire system, so I can move to a competitor (if there is one!)
I really wish people would stop making jabs at people who need CPU power. Yes, I shell out a couple of thousand every few years to keep my hardware up to date. But I'm an engineering major that needs to run CAD software, I do scientific computing projects for work, run Mathematica for school, and my hobbies include C++ programming (gcc eats my CPU alive) and 3D modeling. I don't even do gaming, and I still find myself needing more CPU. Hardware freaks aren't all hardcore Quake'ers you know...