Since there are a very large number of desktops and laptops still being (successfully) used that won't even hold more than 1GB of RAM, I'd say the fact that 1GB of RAM will not provide good performance is beyond out of the ballpark. It's stupid.
As far as I know, Vista is the only OS in existence that won't run that great with 1GB of RAM. So is Vista so much more advanced that it needs that much RAM? Since all the new play pretty features seem to be ripoffs of OSX which runs just fine on 1GB of RAM, I'd say no.
I actually understand what you are saying, and you have some validity.
Our tech lab has laptops from 1997 that only support 80mb of RAM, and even though they actually run faster with XP, Vista is not an option for them in any stretch of the imagination. (And yes we force our techs to use them from time to time for software performance testing on projects we have.)
However... This is where progress breaks in the tech world.
Technology has to take steps forward with any OS. Vista wasn't designed for a computer that can't run with 512mb of RAM. OSX 10.4 wasn't designed for a performance point with less than 512mb of RAM either, and 10.5 definately will want 512mb of RAM.
However looking back at our lab's laptops, even our 2000-2001 laptops support 2GB of RAM, so I don't think it is a major stretch for MS to draw a line in the sand and shoot for 512mb as a baseline.
With *nix you can get away with older hardware to an extent due to the modularity, but you also have to give up some of the new features especially if you want to go graphical. For example, you can boot Linux on a low RAM box, but if you want to run XWindows with a Manager and use some of the newest features of the Window Manager, you are going to be forced to increase your computing power at some point as well.
Also if anyone 'really' wants to run the newest Windows on old hardware, wait for Longhorn Server, you can install the core version on a system with 128MB of RAM. However if this is your goal, everyone here would paint you as the ultimate MS Fanboi/gurl.:)
P.S. can anyone confirm or deny whether previous versions of NT held stuff in RAM? I've always been a bot confused by the ubiquitous amounts of "free memory" that could be put to better use; is it just that task manager doesn't report that memory as being used?
NT has always cached to various degrees, but it evolved over the years.
Rather than bore people or badly try to explain it myself, some of the details of what XP and Win2K did is used as an example of how Vista does it differently in this article:
It also has detailed info on Superfetch and other caching techniques in Vista.
PS Thanks for the patchset info and link, I will have to take a look at it. Just a quick glance it looks like it does some of what Vista is doing by moving user application RAM back for responsiveness. Check out the article above, and you will see what I mean.
I'm also glad to see that concepts like these are not lost in the OSS world, and also hope that other good ideas, whether from MS or not, that Vista is doing different than the norm. won't be overlooked, as some of things could truly benefit the OSS world.
When I see a slow startup, I presume it means an infected machine.
Or there is a serious hardware problem or configuration problem.
I think we all have ran into users that have horrible boot performance on a computer, only to find their 'genius' cousin 'tweaked' BIOS or other settings.
Just last week a friend's processor had been set to run at 1/4 the processor speed by an 'expert' friend, and sadly he had been running the computer like that for almost 6 months. Just setting the CPU and RAM frequencies back to normal he thought I was a god.
Sadly stuff like this is very common, and sometimes even makes me question how much control 'novice' end users should be allowed to have to their computer settings. But like most, I would rather they have the control at their own peril.
There is also the bad pairing of components or the failing HD/bad RAM, etc. People go buy all the lastest components but don't realize that how well they work together is as important as the performance of the individual hardware itself.
"...Even with 1GB you are good with AERO,..." I disagree... I was running an AMD 3000+ (Barton) w/ 2X512MB and an ATI Radeon 9600SE (software OC'd to take advantage of the R350 graphics engine), and M$ wouldn't let me enable AERO. Nor could I multi-task without severe performance degradation/crashing. And this machine was rated 1.0 on the performance index, hilariously! It runs perfect on XP (which I am back to using, btw), I can play any game with ease (and full graphics!), and multi-tasking has never been an issue.
Well your hardware supports it, sounds like you have an issue with your system.
This is my morning coffee computer, running Vista as I type. AMD +2800 with 1Gb RAM and ATI Radeon 9800. And Aero runs like a champ...
My family plays CoH on this computer, and as anyone that has played it knows, it is very memory and graphics hungry - and they run CoH with Aero enabled in game, as they sometimes play with CoH in a Window on the desktop, Glass, transparency and all. They love the fact I threw Vista on this old computer as FPS is 5-10 higher than XP, and load times are 5-10x XP when traveling to new zones.
I do apologize if your 'case' is not typical, but your system is very capable of running Vista, and running it better than XP.
(Make sure you download the latest ATI drivers, and don't install any chipset drivers that were made for XP for your mainboard. I have seen users install XP mainboard chipset drivers (like from an OEM disk thinking it is needed) which do not work with the new architecture of Vista. In case you installed any drivers like this, remove them, or roll them back in the device manage.)
Also after installing the ATI drivers for your video, re-run the performance evaluation tool as they system recommends, if not your Video might still be listed as 1.0 and Aero will not enable.
Not to be picky, but OS/2 (even assuming 2.0, since it was the first 16/32bit release) REQUIRED 4MB of RAM, but didn't run well unless you 12MB of RAM, although I do know some people that got by with 8MB of RAM, I also even know peeps that ran NT 3.1 with 8MB of RAM as well, even though it was just as painful to watch.
So bascially people are here making fun of Vista for wanting 512MB, and running 'much' faster than XP when configured with > 512MB...
Last I checked OSX even wants 512MB and 1GB of RAM for acceptable performance if you run a lot of concurrent apps since the windows are double buffered in system RAM for the composer.
Also any *nix distribution with XWindows and a Windows Manager like KDE running, easly scale to where 512MB and 1GB are a sweet spot as well.
Since this is the year 2007, I don't see Vista being far out of the ballpark, except for the fact it has some really smart caching technology that allows it to better use > 1GB of RAM via its Superfetch caching technology in ways other OSes don't unless they have the application load demanding it.
Which is the point most everyone seems to keep missing in this post. They are in a fuss because Vista continues to get faster and faster as more RAM is added.
Most OSes 'desktop performance' top out at 1-2GB of RAM and don't use the extra RAM for anything but dumb/lazy caching.
So instead of making fun of Vista for actually taking advantage of this extra 'free' RAM and scaling it in a way that 'continues' to add performance even when applications don't need it, maybe we should focus our efforts in the OSS community to work on caching technology so all OSS OSes will scale RAM as well as Vista.
(PS, Even though I'm responding to your OS/2 numbers, this post is meant more of a general response to everyone in here, so nothing personal to you, the OS/2 numbers were just a fun place to jump in:).)
it is a well known fact that anyone describing operating system performance in terms of "snappiness" has no idea how to measure operating system performance, and is probably a victim of the placebo effect.
It's always been true for Mac fanboys, and it's true for Vista ones too...
I don't know anything about the parent poster you were responding to, but there are a lot of people relate 'snappiness' to application startup and switch times, you know, 'responsiveness'.
Here is a link; he doesn't use the word 'snappiness', but I think he means what the parent post was talking about. Also, even in the SlashDot world, I don't think many people would argue this person doesn't know what they are talking about.
Okay then, if what you say is true with regards to Aero then how exactly did they manage to make the POS operating system SLOWER than XP? What else have they added to the OS (and hell they didn't add anything new as far as I can tell but DRM, Aero and UAC) to explain the performance loss and the excessive system requirements?
Strange that not only our test center, but most of the industry agress that Vista IS faster than XP if you are running 512mb of RAM.
Which I don't think any person would call unreasonable considering the amount of features added to Vista. And if you really don't know what new features are in Vista, take a minute to look it up. There is a magical site that has 'technical' documents on it all about Vista. It is www.microsoft.com or msdn.microsot.com
BTW, This has to do with DRM how again? Oh ya, crazy rants...
Your understanding of the LDDM (WGL, or whatever the heck you want to call it) is grossly oversimplified and vastly fanboyish.
First off, LDDM was the code name from back in 2005, (Longhorn Device Driver Model); however, since Vista is NOT called Longhorn, the name is now referred to as WDDM (Windows Device Driver Model). Ever hear of Wikipedia or Google? This is easy stuff to look up, even for causal SlashDot readers.
As for my understanding of Vista's driver model and handling of GPU textures I won't repeat myself, and instead will point you to find the answers for yourself because you do seem either angry or confused.
"WDDM enables multiple applications to utilize the GPU simultaneously by implementing the following:
GPU memory manager--arbitrates video memory allocation GPU scheduler--schedules various GPU applications according to their priority With these technologies, applications no longer have to cede the GPU when another application requiring its services starts-up. Instead, the GPU is scheduled in a more efficient fashion."
"WDDM now allows for "virtualized" video memory. Virtualization abstracts video memory so that it is no longer necessary to think about creating a resource in either video or system memory. Just specify what the resource is going to be used for and the system will place the memory in the best place possible. Additionally, virtualization allows for the allocation of more memory than actually exists on the hardware. Memory is then paged into the correct hardware as needed."
I would pull more technical stuff for you, but based on the 'quality' of your response, I grabbed the first non-technical documents on this for you to read and reference.
Next time, do your own homework before attacking someone's post that you have NO CLUE what you are even responding to.
PS - Will the person that modded the parent post 'Insightful', please also take a minute to actually look some of this stuff up before clapping like a silly schoolboy on something they ALSO know nothing about.
Are you claiming that there will be no TV or movies on the iPhone? Or are you saying that streaming shows over a cell connection is better than loading up from the iTunes store?
No they will be on the iPhone, but you will have to run home and load them from your computer unless you want to wait 4hrs to download a video clip.
High speed 3G streaming is VERY common on cell phones for the past 2-3 years. That is why when you buy a new Motorola Razr, you get an ad to sign up for TV services, that stream TV quality video to your phone in REALTIME.
So REALTIME streaming is the key here. Also if you buy a song on your phone, users with 3G phones get the song as fast a someone on DSL, they don't have to use a dial-up comperable speed connection to wait for it to download as you will on the iPhone. Think how long and painful downloading a new album from iTunes at dial-up speeds will be, when others can get the same album on their phone instantly from the music store.
It is all of that other crap like DRM running in the background that is causing everything to slow down.
Just to clarify what is the DRM process/service running in the background that you speak of?
I want to find this so I can tell my friends at MS that someone slipped it in when they were not looking...
There is no DRM running in the background, unless you are subscribed to a porn site with DRM contents and you have Windows Media Player loaded in the background playing it.
PS. Your correct that Aero has very littler performance cost, in fact it increases the performance of application drawing and redrawing due to the composer and the 3D GPU acceleration for GDI/Fonts/WPF operations even in older applications.
Turning of Aero will force applicaitons to use software rendering to draw the interface, and also will force application to consume CPU cycles when another window paints on top of it, as it has to redraw its contents.
With Aero these performance losses no longer happen.
Turn off aero. Turn on "Windows Classic" desktop theme. You're good to go with 1GB of memory. Microsoft could tell you the same thing, but then the best features that they offer in this bloated release won't even be used (and it is these features MS is stressing based on print ads and commercials).
Even with 1GB you are good with AERO, as Vista only uses a fraction of system RAM for the AERO effects, since it intelligently co-shares system and video RAM.
For example, Aero is consuming only 12Mb of system RAM on the computer I am typing this on at the moment. I also have an animated wallpaper (video) and this window is partially transparent so I can see my applications behind it.
Vista does NOT double buffer like OSX, so there is not this massive overhead for RAM by using the AERO interface like there is in OSX to get tear free applicaiton drawing.
People forget that turning off Aero and effectively the DWM, reduces ALL application performance on Vista.
This is because it disables the acceleration drawing in hardware at the GDI/WPF level, and also pushes application redrawing back to the applications like WindowsXP.
So you not only get a worse 'visual' experience with it off, as you get tearing and extra redrawing with the composer turned off, you also get a massive performance reduction as this tearing and redrawing forces the application to consume CPU cycles to redraw when you do anything, just as Windows XP did.
When you turn off Aero you lose the composer and some of the 3D GPU acceleration of Vector and Bitmap drawing functions of the core graphics subsystem that assist the appliation in drawing the interface before it even gets to the composer.
And even though Vista gets the 'effect' of double buffering Window textures, it doesn't technically double buffer them, so the RAM overhead to do all this is quite minimal as the GPU RAM is used instead of both System and GPU RAM being used as in OSX.
See Vista's driver model gives it some cool tricks, and this is just one side effect. And since the driver model allows Vista to draw directly to the screen from GPU or System RAM without having to shove the System RAM image into the GPU before drawing like OSX does, you don't have to double store images in the composer.
So Vista can use system or GPU RAM intelligently and draw directly to the screen from either memory pool. Which is also why AGP and PCI/e are needed for the Aero interface in Vista.
So even with 1GB of RAM, don't be so quick to turn off Aero.
In fact several 3D games run faster with Aero enabled,(even on 1GB systems) because if you only have 128MB of Video RAM, and the game wants more for textures, Vista will intelligently use free System RAM to hold the less performance intensive textures. And since the application via the Vista WDDM sees the GPU and Vista allocated System RAM for textures as the same it can draw or use them directly as if your Video card had 512mb of GPU RAM instead of 128MB.
So if your video card lacks the GPU RAM for the 'high quality' textures in your game, leave Aero on and you can shove the texture quality in the game up beyond what your card would normally be capable of handling.
Also with respect to how the OpenGL driver is made by ATI or NVidia, Vista can even do this for OpenGL applications as well.
Good luck and don't be so quick to turn off Aero, you might be surprised how much performance it adds to the system, even with 1GB of RAM.
(Our techs even leave it enabld on 512mb systems as it still gives more of a performance boost than the 8-20mb of RAM it consumes on average.)
I NEVER said they were stolen, they were as far as I know, ALWAYS Job's ideas. I give him full credit for Apple and Next.
The point I was making is that even some of the 'good' UI concepts and development concepts from Next are STILL not even used in OSX, and Jobs or his peeps had these ideas back in 1989.
And many of the things that people think are cool ideas in OSX are from the 1989 Next as well, not something I would call modern or new or the cutting edge.
I think the reason Mac users find them cool is they never had a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS before that could even handle RAM properly, with a good graphics subsystem until OSX, so sure a lot of OSX is really cool and new 'to them'.
However, these concepts are VERY old to the rest of the computer users of the world.
The iPhone is NOT a cell phone. It is an operating system that includes cellular networks as a source for its network data requirements. The iPhone will host the first OS that places a brilliant interface on just another input/output stream called voice data. It's radical because Apple actually seems to be placing hardware innovation first.
Ok, you do realize that that iPhone is NOT a high speed device, and DOES NOT support high speed network access like 3G phones from other companies have for SEVERAL years in the US alone?
If it is truly the 'network' device you describe, would you care explaining why it will barely do better than dial-up speeds? Especially when other phones have been streaming movies, are used to VPN into their office computers, and even getting Live TV and XM radio on them for several years now.
(And this isn't even including the cell phones that do VoIP over a real high-speed network and bypass cell charges because they pay a flat data rate price for their near DSL speeds. People are using freaking things like Skype on cell phones, you do know this right?)
My freaking Kyocera phone from 2002 had faster data rates than the iPhone, and yet you are arguing the iPhone is a divine network device?
Translation - "The "Rest of Us" is.03% of the whole phone market, but we are so uber cool because we know how to pair devices that no-one else matters and therefore do not exist"
So dragging a file to the device, the transflash card, or hitting send to bluetooth device is that complicated for the rest of the market?
I will be happy to inform my non-techie aunt that she is a super tech genius in the top.03% because she can put music on her phone.
Of course she only as a 2GB card, so she isn't quite as hip or a tech genius as my mom with her 8gb transflash device on her phone.
iPhone nerds act like this is the first freaking device to offer storage or music and other COMBINED features with a freaking phone. There IS a reason Windows Media PLAYS on Windows Mobile phones, people actually use it. There is a reason my work cell is a Windows Mobile, so I can use Remote desktop and actually operate my computer at my office from my car if I need to. These are NOT new concepts, in fact, freaking OLD ONES, and it scares me that people like you don't realize this.
PS, This is not an 'ad' for Windows Mobile, my aunt and Mom have Motorola phones and are quite happy with the UI, voice dialing, and playing music on them, my second cell phone is also a Motorola Razr.
Yes phones today come with lots of expansion capability - that only the most technical users make use of.
They also can sync via USB or even bluetooth to computers. Yet people hardly sync anything over this connection. The more advanced among us actually make use of address books and contact lists.
But wouldn't it be great if many more people could make use of a lot of storage and computer syncing through an interface they use today? iTunes phone syncing means that a lot more people will be able to access features that really only the most technically inclined people use today.
Considering that both my non-tech aunt and mom have Motorola phones with TransFlash cards and they are always putting new music on their phones and even video clips.
It is as simple as dragging the song to the card and dropping it. My mom even knows how to hit the 'Send to Bluetooth' and hit accept on her phone to copy songs.
And people act like it takes special software or a degree in engineering to do simple crap like this? No wonder two buttons on a Mouse confused so many Mac Users. OMG.
Yes, and how do you transfer files to it? Either you drag files manually into weirdly laid-out folders, or you have to use some kind of flaky, slow, ugly application the manufacturer had some moron throw together, with bitmapped graphics all over the place.
Well on my phone, lets see how hard... I find the song or movie on my computer click on it and then select "Send to Bluetooth Device". I then have to hit the accept button on my phone.
Wow, that is wicked hard, let me see if there is another way.
Oh ya, I can yank the transflash card, I put it in my computer, the window for it pops up, and I just drag my songs and movies to the card.
Ya, the last one is much easier and faster too.
Of course this is an OLD phone from 2004, I'm sure it is probably easier on 'modern' phones. Geesh...
The word of the day for your post is 'daft', you win a prize.
As someone who's developed on a product that used Windows Mobile (and still owns a few units...) I can't help but laugh at this. Windows Mobile is anything BUT easy to use. "Pushing the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity", yes, perhaps the envelope of poor design and badly implemented functionality...
As for pushing the envelope, I was specifically talking abot Windows Mobile 6.0, and if you have ALREADY developed a product for it or even used it, I will be a bit shocked, because that means you work at MS since it is NOT Released yet.
Besides Windows Mobile is just one example of the point I was trying to make, and also note that you 'did' develop an application on Windows Mobile (if you really did), since this is not something anyone will be 'allowed' to on the iPhone as it might destroy all the cell networks in the world accroding to Jobs. Geesh.
Contrary to popular opinion, "Good User interface" does not mean "Identical to what Windows users are accustomed to." Dissociating windows and applications makes as much sense today as it did in the '80s. Mimicking the MS Windows paradigm is not a path to superior user experience.
Wow, you nailed that out of the park. That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. (gag)
This is about Apple, I never said MS or Windows were the holy grail of UI, nor did I imply that they were even great.
So do you assume when someone talks about an OS paradigm that doesn't have a locked single menu bar at the top, they COULD ONLY be talking about Windows?
I think you need to look around at other OSes, you just might be surprised that most DO NOT use the OLD SINGLE MENU metaphor, and many are even getting away from Menus all together.
Translation -" I know nothing about UI design, and are pleased to advertised the level of my ignorance."
Odd, when Netscape wanted to hire me in 1999 to be a lead on their UI team, they seemed to think my knowledge was pretty good.
Although I do admit I'm glad I didn't move to take the job.
This is one of the times that your assumptions about people are about as far off as you could get. Go look up a couple of projects called X11 and Motif, you will find my name in the documentation.
Please don't try and defend the Windows Mobile interface as being "easy to use". Sure it works and can do some powerful things...but it's not very intuitive, it's cluttered, and a pain to use for the average user.
A. That is your opinion B. Since we haven't seen Apple's ideas, they could be far worse. C. There is also the new Windows Mobile 6.0 and I doubt you have used it.
However, I am not here to tell everyone how great Windows Mobile is.
I would just as easily defend the UI on a Motorola Razr or V710 or V815, they are all easy to use, can watch movies, play MP3s, and have voice recognition so you NEVER EVEN NEED TO TOUCH the keypad of the phone. Oh, and you can also stream Movies and Live TV on them too, something again iPhone won't be able to do.
And THESE are all examples of fairly OLD PHONEs and old UIs in terms of when they were released.
Innovation is more than a patented 'multi-touch' display. Apple is good at some things but UI innovation has NOT been their bag for a LONG LONG time.
Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. Compare this to windows, where you have to hit a target of about 20 pixels or so to select a menu. I suppose it might not be completely intuitive, but in the long term it is a much better solution.... That's why Vista's UI is so great, right? I've seen it on several machines now, and it's a freaking mess.
So if hitting the menu on an appliation is too hard and you need the edge of the screen to find it, then maybe you should try Vista, it is virtually menu free, a paradigm even easier than the dated menu concepts still in use on OSX. Or even really blow your mind, try Office 2007, again no menu and a nice large ribbon to find (that can auto-hide if it gets in your way). (And being Menu-free or using a Ribbon are neither MS nor Apple innovations.)
I can't believe you actually had the guts to defend the Apple menu bar that is carried over from 'UI Innovations' of 1983 in an argument about how Apple's UI is always better and 'more' innovative. Either it is guts or you just don't get it.
Did you completely miss my point? I realize that these things are all technically possible on Windows Mobile and Motorola devices - the point is that the interfaces are lousy. I guess it's a matter of opinion - but I know a lot of people share mine
I actually didn't. There are lot of people that actually do like the UIs on some of these devices and is also a reason for their success, even the Motoral Razr has nice easy interface with voice activated dialing that is a great selling point for users.
So Windows Mobile 6.0 is a lousy interface? That is YOUR opinion, and considering it hasn't even been released, I kind of doubt you have used it.
Even PalmOS has some 'innovative' ideas that made it a success and a success on Phones years ago.
Oh, and there is the fact people can develop applications for not only the dated PalmOS, but Windows Mobile and even JAVA or Brew applications for MOST phones, again something the iPhone won't be able to do.
Considering I have been using 3G and other high speed cellular techology from my phone for OVER 3 years now, it is frankly SCARY that Apple thinks its users will want to try to browse the web, download songs or do anything on their phone at barely better than dial up speeds.
So when you are using your shiny iPhone, and notice the guy in the corner of Starbucks watching TV or streaming a movie on their cellphone, don't be jealous. Just remind yourself that Apple is so innovative, they know better than the other companies and you can remind yourself you didn't want TV or Movies because Apple told you so.
So, that's the best Microsoft UI innovation you could think of?
Ya, that is only one I could think of, what a great counter-argument.
Oh wait there is also the concept of select and modify, so next time you highlight some text and then change the Font/Color/Size/etc, think of MS, again they did it first.
Do you think it is just possible that I might be using rather simplistic examples of 'innovative' concepts in UI usage that is littered THROUGHOUT any modern GUI based OS?
So after the industry realizes the iPhone doesn't do anything that hasn't been done for years on other phones, and people realize they can't even develop for it, the new marketing hype is that Jobs has made it great because of the deal he made with Cingular?
The iPhone just gets better and better via the Marketing machine, maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new', right now their best 'new' thing is an OS based on 1989 Next concepts. And the UI paradigm from the 1989 Next still outclasses OSX.
So I guess Apple is radical and innovative if you date everything back 18 years.
Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.
Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.
You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.
Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone.
It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately
It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do.
If you are a CS major at MIT, then my faith in the next generation has been destroyed.
If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?
If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.
Sorry, you're wrong. You're thinking of Quartz Extreme, since then apple has introduced Quartz 2D Extreme (what a terrible name). Here's (for example) an ars article
Actually I'm not...
Yes Quartz 2D Extreme is something available on OSX 10.4 as you can find me discussing in another post in this thread, but is a developer test feature, and works far from well. (You know get developers to actually start using Quartz 2D before it is outdated by seeing it finally be faster than QuickDraw that is twice the speed of Quartz 2D without Extreme enabled.)
Quartz 2D Extreme is also something that probably will not see the light of day even in 10.5 due to the problems and compatitibility issues it causes.
Has anyone else played with a 10.5 beta, still no Quartz 2D Extreme with the last build I was involved with, not a good sign...
You sounded like you were on track, and a lot of what you state is correct, however this line is a bit of a stopper.
Microsoft DOES NOT make the Video Drivers, nor do they have control over what features the MFR puts in the drivers. They can certify or require features for certification, but they do NOT write the drivers, and this is where the optimizations would need to be if the hardware even supported the acceleration features.
There are issues with the GDI+ features that are GDI like but perform poorly, but if the Video Driver from the MFR doesn't accelerate this as they are DIFFERENT calls, GDI+ will be slow.
However, with that aside, WPF is fully accelerated, even on XP via DirectX7. So MS didn't make the same mistake as they did by leaving GDI+ out in the cold.
Slashdot Mirror
Since there are a very large number of desktops and laptops still being (successfully) used that won't even hold more than 1GB of RAM, I'd say the fact that 1GB of RAM will not provide good performance is beyond out of the ballpark. It's stupid.
:)
As far as I know, Vista is the only OS in existence that won't run that great with 1GB of RAM. So is Vista so much more advanced that it needs that much RAM? Since all the new play pretty features seem to be ripoffs of OSX which runs just fine on 1GB of RAM, I'd say no.
I actually understand what you are saying, and you have some validity.
Our tech lab has laptops from 1997 that only support 80mb of RAM, and even though they actually run faster with XP, Vista is not an option for them in any stretch of the imagination. (And yes we force our techs to use them from time to time for software performance testing on projects we have.)
However... This is where progress breaks in the tech world.
Technology has to take steps forward with any OS. Vista wasn't designed for a computer that can't run with 512mb of RAM. OSX 10.4 wasn't designed for a performance point with less than 512mb of RAM either, and 10.5 definately will want 512mb of RAM.
However looking back at our lab's laptops, even our 2000-2001 laptops support 2GB of RAM, so I don't think it is a major stretch for MS to draw a line in the sand and shoot for 512mb as a baseline.
With *nix you can get away with older hardware to an extent due to the modularity, but you also have to give up some of the new features especially if you want to go graphical. For example, you can boot Linux on a low RAM box, but if you want to run XWindows with a Manager and use some of the newest features of the Window Manager, you are going to be forced to increase your computing power at some point as well.
Also if anyone 'really' wants to run the newest Windows on old hardware, wait for Longhorn Server, you can install the core version on a system with 128MB of RAM. However if this is your goal, everyone here would paint you as the ultimate MS Fanboi/gurl.
P.S. can anyone confirm or deny whether previous versions of NT held stuff in RAM? I've always been a bot confused by the ubiquitous amounts of "free memory" that could be put to better use; is it just that task manager doesn't report that memory as being used?
s /2007/03/VistaKernel/
NT has always cached to various degrees, but it evolved over the years.
Rather than bore people or badly try to explain it myself, some of the details of what XP and Win2K did is used as an example of how Vista does it differently in this article:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issue
It also has detailed info on Superfetch and other caching techniques in Vista.
PS Thanks for the patchset info and link, I will have to take a look at it. Just a quick glance it looks like it does some of what Vista is doing by moving user application RAM back for responsiveness. Check out the article above, and you will see what I mean.
I'm also glad to see that concepts like these are not lost in the OSS world, and also hope that other good ideas, whether from MS or not, that Vista is doing different than the norm. won't be overlooked, as some of things could truly benefit the OSS world.
When I see a slow startup, I presume it means an infected machine.
Or there is a serious hardware problem or configuration problem.
I think we all have ran into users that have horrible boot performance on a computer, only to find their 'genius' cousin 'tweaked' BIOS or other settings.
Just last week a friend's processor had been set to run at 1/4 the processor speed by an 'expert' friend, and sadly he had been running the computer like that for almost 6 months. Just setting the CPU and RAM frequencies back to normal he thought I was a god.
Sadly stuff like this is very common, and sometimes even makes me question how much control 'novice' end users should be allowed to have to their computer settings. But like most, I would rather they have the control at their own peril.
There is also the bad pairing of components or the failing HD/bad RAM, etc. People go buy all the lastest components but don't realize that how well they work together is as important as the performance of the individual hardware itself.
"...Even with 1GB you are good with AERO,..." I disagree... I was running an AMD 3000+ (Barton) w/ 2X512MB and an ATI Radeon 9600SE (software OC'd to take advantage of the R350 graphics engine), and M$ wouldn't let me enable AERO. Nor could I multi-task without severe performance degradation/crashing. And this machine was rated 1.0 on the performance index, hilariously! It runs perfect on XP (which I am back to using, btw), I can play any game with ease (and full graphics!), and multi-tasking has never been an issue.
Well your hardware supports it, sounds like you have an issue with your system.
This is my morning coffee computer, running Vista as I type. AMD +2800 with 1Gb RAM and ATI Radeon 9800. And Aero runs like a champ...
My family plays CoH on this computer, and as anyone that has played it knows, it is very memory and graphics hungry - and they run CoH with Aero enabled in game, as they sometimes play with CoH in a Window on the desktop, Glass, transparency and all. They love the fact I threw Vista on this old computer as FPS is 5-10 higher than XP, and load times are 5-10x XP when traveling to new zones.
I do apologize if your 'case' is not typical, but your system is very capable of running Vista, and running it better than XP.
(Make sure you download the latest ATI drivers, and don't install any chipset drivers that were made for XP for your mainboard. I have seen users install XP mainboard chipset drivers (like from an OEM disk thinking it is needed) which do not work with the new architecture of Vista. In case you installed any drivers like this, remove them, or roll them back in the device manage.)
Also after installing the ATI drivers for your video, re-run the performance evaluation tool as they system recommends, if not your Video might still be listed as 1.0 and Aero will not enable.
Good luck...
OS/2 reccomended 4MB
:) .)
Not to be picky, but OS/2 (even assuming 2.0, since it was the first 16/32bit release) REQUIRED 4MB of RAM, but didn't run well unless you 12MB of RAM, although I do know some people that got by with 8MB of RAM, I also even know peeps that ran NT 3.1 with 8MB of RAM as well, even though it was just as painful to watch.
So bascially people are here making fun of Vista for wanting 512MB, and running 'much' faster than XP when configured with > 512MB...
Last I checked OSX even wants 512MB and 1GB of RAM for acceptable performance if you run a lot of concurrent apps since the windows are double buffered in system RAM for the composer.
Also any *nix distribution with XWindows and a Windows Manager like KDE running, easly scale to where 512MB and 1GB are a sweet spot as well.
Since this is the year 2007, I don't see Vista being far out of the ballpark, except for the fact it has some really smart caching technology that allows it to better use > 1GB of RAM via its Superfetch caching technology in ways other OSes don't unless they have the application load demanding it.
Which is the point most everyone seems to keep missing in this post. They are in a fuss because Vista continues to get faster and faster as more RAM is added.
Most OSes 'desktop performance' top out at 1-2GB of RAM and don't use the extra RAM for anything but dumb/lazy caching.
So instead of making fun of Vista for actually taking advantage of this extra 'free' RAM and scaling it in a way that 'continues' to add performance even when applications don't need it, maybe we should focus our efforts in the OSS community to work on caching technology so all OSS OSes will scale RAM as well as Vista.
(PS, Even though I'm responding to your OS/2 numbers, this post is meant more of a general response to everyone in here, so nothing personal to you, the OS/2 numbers were just a fun place to jump in
it is a well known fact that anyone describing operating system performance in terms of "snappiness" has no idea how to measure operating system performance, and is probably a victim of the placebo effect.
s /2007/03/VistaKernel/
It's always been true for Mac fanboys, and it's true for Vista ones too...
I don't know anything about the parent poster you were responding to, but there are a lot of people relate 'snappiness' to application startup and switch times, you know, 'responsiveness'.
Here is a link; he doesn't use the word 'snappiness', but I think he means what the parent post was talking about. Also, even in the SlashDot world, I don't think many people would argue this person doesn't know what they are talking about.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issue
Okay then, if what you say is true with regards to Aero then how exactly did they manage to make the POS operating system SLOWER than XP? What else have they added to the OS (and hell they didn't add anything new as far as I can tell but DRM, Aero and UAC) to explain the performance loss and the excessive system requirements?
Strange that not only our test center, but most of the industry agress that Vista IS faster than XP if you are running 512mb of RAM.
Which I don't think any person would call unreasonable considering the amount of features added to Vista. And if you really don't know what new features are in Vista, take a minute to look it up. There is a magical site that has 'technical' documents on it all about Vista. It is www.microsoft.com or msdn.microsot.com
BTW, This has to do with DRM how again? Oh ya, crazy rants...
Your understanding of the LDDM (WGL, or whatever the heck you want to call it) is grossly oversimplified and vastly fanboyish.
. aspx
x .aspx
First off, LDDM was the code name from back in 2005, (Longhorn Device Driver Model); however, since Vista is NOT called Longhorn, the name is now referred to as WDDM (Windows Device Driver Model). Ever hear of Wikipedia or Google? This is easy stuff to look up, even for causal SlashDot readers.
As for my understanding of Vista's driver model and handling of GPU textures I won't repeat myself, and instead will point you to find the answers for yourself because you do seem either angry or confused.
"WDDM enables multiple applications to utilize the GPU simultaneously by implementing the following:
GPU memory manager--arbitrates video memory allocation
GPU scheduler--schedules various GPU applications according to their priority
With these technologies, applications no longer have to cede the GPU when another application requiring its services starts-up. Instead, the GPU is scheduled in a more efficient fashion."
From: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220
"WDDM now allows for "virtualized" video memory. Virtualization abstracts video memory so that it is no longer necessary to think about creating a resource in either video or system memory. Just specify what the resource is going to be used for and the system will place the memory in the best place possible. Additionally, virtualization allows for the allocation of more memory than actually exists on the hardware. Memory is then paged into the correct hardware as needed."
From: http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/wvddirect
I would pull more technical stuff for you, but based on the 'quality' of your response, I grabbed the first non-technical documents on this for you to read and reference.
Next time, do your own homework before attacking someone's post that you have NO CLUE what you are even responding to.
PS - Will the person that modded the parent post 'Insightful', please also take a minute to actually look some of this stuff up before clapping like a silly schoolboy on something they ALSO know nothing about.
Are you claiming that there will be no TV or movies on the iPhone? Or are you saying that streaming shows over a cell connection is better than loading up from the iTunes store?
No they will be on the iPhone, but you will have to run home and load them from your computer unless you want to wait 4hrs to download a video clip.
High speed 3G streaming is VERY common on cell phones for the past 2-3 years. That is why when you buy a new Motorola Razr, you get an ad to sign up for TV services, that stream TV quality video to your phone in REALTIME.
So REALTIME streaming is the key here. Also if you buy a song on your phone, users with 3G phones get the song as fast a someone on DSL, they don't have to use a dial-up comperable speed connection to wait for it to download as you will on the iPhone. Think how long and painful downloading a new album from iTunes at dial-up speeds will be, when others can get the same album on their phone instantly from the music store.
Hope that clears it up.
It is all of that other crap like DRM running in the background that is causing everything to slow down.
:)
Just to clarify what is the DRM process/service running in the background that you speak of?
I want to find this so I can tell my friends at MS that someone slipped it in when they were not looking...
There is no DRM running in the background, unless you are subscribed to a porn site with DRM contents and you have Windows Media Player loaded in the background playing it.
PS. Your correct that Aero has very littler performance cost, in fact it increases the performance of application drawing and redrawing due to the composer and the 3D GPU acceleration for GDI/Fonts/WPF operations even in older applications.
Turning of Aero will force applicaitons to use software rendering to draw the interface, and also will force application to consume CPU cycles when another window paints on top of it, as it has to redraw its contents.
With Aero these performance losses no longer happen.
Take Care..
Turn off aero. Turn on "Windows Classic" desktop theme. You're good to go with 1GB of memory. Microsoft could tell you the same thing, but then the best features that they offer in this bloated release won't even be used (and it is these features MS is stressing based on print ads and commercials).
Even with 1GB you are good with AERO, as Vista only uses a fraction of system RAM for the AERO effects, since it intelligently co-shares system and video RAM.
For example, Aero is consuming only 12Mb of system RAM on the computer I am typing this on at the moment. I also have an animated wallpaper (video) and this window is partially transparent so I can see my applications behind it.
Vista does NOT double buffer like OSX, so there is not this massive overhead for RAM by using the AERO interface like there is in OSX to get tear free applicaiton drawing.
People forget that turning off Aero and effectively the DWM, reduces ALL application performance on Vista.
This is because it disables the acceleration drawing in hardware at the GDI/WPF level, and also pushes application redrawing back to the applications like WindowsXP.
So you not only get a worse 'visual' experience with it off, as you get tearing and extra redrawing with the composer turned off, you also get a massive performance reduction as this tearing and redrawing forces the application to consume CPU cycles to redraw when you do anything, just as Windows XP did.
When you turn off Aero you lose the composer and some of the 3D GPU acceleration of Vector and Bitmap drawing functions of the core graphics subsystem that assist the appliation in drawing the interface before it even gets to the composer.
And even though Vista gets the 'effect' of double buffering Window textures, it doesn't technically double buffer them, so the RAM overhead to do all this is quite minimal as the GPU RAM is used instead of both System and GPU RAM being used as in OSX.
See Vista's driver model gives it some cool tricks, and this is just one side effect. And since the driver model allows Vista to draw directly to the screen from GPU or System RAM without having to shove the System RAM image into the GPU before drawing like OSX does, you don't have to double store images in the composer.
So Vista can use system or GPU RAM intelligently and draw directly to the screen from either memory pool. Which is also why AGP and PCI/e are needed for the Aero interface in Vista.
So even with 1GB of RAM, don't be so quick to turn off Aero.
In fact several 3D games run faster with Aero enabled,(even on 1GB systems) because if you only have 128MB of Video RAM, and the game wants more for textures, Vista will intelligently use free System RAM to hold the less performance intensive textures. And since the application via the Vista WDDM sees the GPU and Vista allocated System RAM for textures as the same it can draw or use them directly as if your Video card had 512mb of GPU RAM instead of 128MB.
So if your video card lacks the GPU RAM for the 'high quality' textures in your game, leave Aero on and you can shove the texture quality in the game up beyond what your card would normally be capable of handling.
Also with respect to how the OpenGL driver is made by ATI or NVidia, Vista can even do this for OpenGL applications as well.
Good luck and don't be so quick to turn off Aero, you might be surprised how much performance it adds to the system, even with 1GB of RAM.
(Our techs even leave it enabld on 512mb systems as it still gives more of a performance boost than the 8-20mb of RAM it consumes on average.)
rather than "stealing" the ideas from Next
I NEVER said they were stolen, they were as far as I know, ALWAYS Job's ideas. I give him full credit for Apple and Next.
The point I was making is that even some of the 'good' UI concepts and development concepts from Next are STILL not even used in OSX, and Jobs or his peeps had these ideas back in 1989.
And many of the things that people think are cool ideas in OSX are from the 1989 Next as well, not something I would call modern or new or the cutting edge.
I think the reason Mac users find them cool is they never had a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS before that could even handle RAM properly, with a good graphics subsystem until OSX, so sure a lot of OSX is really cool and new 'to them'.
However, these concepts are VERY old to the rest of the computer users of the world.
The iPhone is NOT a cell phone. It is an operating system that includes cellular networks as a source for its network data requirements. The iPhone will host the first OS that places a brilliant interface on just another input/output stream called voice data. It's radical because Apple actually seems to be placing hardware innovation first.
Ok, you do realize that that iPhone is NOT a high speed device, and DOES NOT support high speed network access like 3G phones from other companies have for SEVERAL years in the US alone?
If it is truly the 'network' device you describe, would you care explaining why it will barely do better than dial-up speeds? Especially when other phones have been streaming movies, are used to VPN into their office computers, and even getting Live TV and XM radio on them for several years now.
(And this isn't even including the cell phones that do VoIP over a real high-speed network and bypass cell charges because they pay a flat data rate price for their near DSL speeds. People are using freaking things like Skype on cell phones, you do know this right?)
My freaking Kyocera phone from 2002 had faster data rates than the iPhone, and yet you are arguing the iPhone is a divine network device?
Are you kidding?
PS, Paragraphs are your friend...
Translation - "The "Rest of Us" is .03% of the whole phone market, but we are so uber cool because we know how to pair devices that no-one else matters and therefore do not exist"
.03% because she can put music on her phone.
So dragging a file to the device, the transflash card, or hitting send to bluetooth device is that complicated for the rest of the market?
I will be happy to inform my non-techie aunt that she is a super tech genius in the top
Of course she only as a 2GB card, so she isn't quite as hip or a tech genius as my mom with her 8gb transflash device on her phone.
iPhone nerds act like this is the first freaking device to offer storage or music and other COMBINED features with a freaking phone. There IS a reason Windows Media PLAYS on Windows Mobile phones, people actually use it. There is a reason my work cell is a Windows Mobile, so I can use Remote desktop and actually operate my computer at my office from my car if I need to. These are NOT new concepts, in fact, freaking OLD ONES, and it scares me that people like you don't realize this.
PS, This is not an 'ad' for Windows Mobile, my aunt and Mom have Motorola phones and are quite happy with the UI, voice dialing, and playing music on them, my second cell phone is also a Motorola Razr.
Yes phones today come with lots of expansion capability - that only the most technical users make use of.
They also can sync via USB or even bluetooth to computers. Yet people hardly sync anything over this connection. The more advanced among us actually make use of address books and contact lists.
But wouldn't it be great if many more people could make use of a lot of storage and computer syncing through an interface they use today? iTunes phone syncing means that a lot more people will be able to access features that really only the most technically inclined people use today.
Considering that both my non-tech aunt and mom have Motorola phones with TransFlash cards and they are always putting new music on their phones and even video clips.
It is as simple as dragging the song to the card and dropping it. My mom even knows how to hit the 'Send to Bluetooth' and hit accept on her phone to copy songs.
And people act like it takes special software or a degree in engineering to do simple crap like this? No wonder two buttons on a Mouse confused so many Mac Users. OMG.
Yes, and how do you transfer files to it? Either you drag files manually into weirdly laid-out folders, or you have to use some kind of flaky, slow, ugly application the manufacturer had some moron throw together, with bitmapped graphics all over the place.
Well on my phone, lets see how hard... I find the song or movie on my computer click on it and then select "Send to Bluetooth Device". I then have to hit the accept button on my phone.
Wow, that is wicked hard, let me see if there is another way.
Oh ya, I can yank the transflash card, I put it in my computer, the window for it pops up, and I just drag my songs and movies to the card.
Ya, the last one is much easier and faster too.
Of course this is an OLD phone from 2004, I'm sure it is probably easier on 'modern' phones. Geesh...
The word of the day for your post is 'daft', you win a prize.
As someone who's developed on a product that used Windows Mobile (and still owns a few units...) I can't help but laugh at this. Windows Mobile is anything BUT easy to use. "Pushing the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity", yes, perhaps the envelope of poor design and badly implemented functionality...
As for pushing the envelope, I was specifically talking abot Windows Mobile 6.0, and if you have ALREADY developed a product for it or even used it, I will be a bit shocked, because that means you work at MS since it is NOT Released yet.
Besides Windows Mobile is just one example of the point I was trying to make, and also note that you 'did' develop an application on Windows Mobile (if you really did), since this is not something anyone will be 'allowed' to on the iPhone as it might destroy all the cell networks in the world accroding to Jobs. Geesh.
Contrary to popular opinion, "Good User interface" does not mean "Identical to what Windows users are accustomed to." Dissociating windows and applications makes as much sense today as it did in the '80s. Mimicking the MS Windows paradigm is not a path to superior user experience.
Wow, you nailed that out of the park. That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. (gag)
This is about Apple, I never said MS or Windows were the holy grail of UI, nor did I imply that they were even great.
So do you assume when someone talks about an OS paradigm that doesn't have a locked single menu bar at the top, they COULD ONLY be talking about Windows?
I think you need to look around at other OSes, you just might be surprised that most DO NOT use the OLD SINGLE MENU metaphor, and many are even getting away from Menus all together.
Translation -" I know nothing about UI design, and are pleased to advertised the level of my ignorance."
Odd, when Netscape wanted to hire me in 1999 to be a lead on their UI team, they seemed to think my knowledge was pretty good.
Although I do admit I'm glad I didn't move to take the job.
This is one of the times that your assumptions about people are about as far off as you could get. Go look up a couple of projects called X11 and Motif, you will find my name in the documentation.
Please don't try and defend the Windows Mobile interface as being "easy to use". Sure it works and can do some powerful things...but it's not very intuitive, it's cluttered, and a pain to use for the average user.
A. That is your opinion
B. Since we haven't seen Apple's ideas, they could be far worse.
C. There is also the new Windows Mobile 6.0 and I doubt you have used it.
However, I am not here to tell everyone how great Windows Mobile is.
I would just as easily defend the UI on a Motorola Razr or V710 or V815, they are all easy to use, can watch movies, play MP3s, and have voice recognition so you NEVER EVEN NEED TO TOUCH the keypad of the phone. Oh, and you can also stream Movies and Live TV on them too, something again iPhone won't be able to do.
And THESE are all examples of fairly OLD PHONEs and old UIs in terms of when they were released.
Innovation is more than a patented 'multi-touch' display. Apple is good at some things but UI innovation has NOT been their bag for a LONG LONG time.
Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. Compare this to windows, where you have to hit a target of about 20 pixels or so to select a menu. I suppose it might not be completely intuitive, but in the long term it is a much better solution. ...
That's why Vista's UI is so great, right? I've seen it on several machines now, and it's a freaking mess.
So if hitting the menu on an appliation is too hard and you need the edge of the screen to find it, then maybe you should try Vista, it is virtually menu free, a paradigm even easier than the dated menu concepts still in use on OSX. Or even really blow your mind, try Office 2007, again no menu and a nice large ribbon to find (that can auto-hide if it gets in your way). (And being Menu-free or using a Ribbon are neither MS nor Apple innovations.)
I can't believe you actually had the guts to defend the Apple menu bar that is carried over from 'UI Innovations' of 1983 in an argument about how Apple's UI is always better and 'more' innovative. Either it is guts or you just don't get it.
Did you completely miss my point? I realize that these things are all technically possible on Windows Mobile and Motorola devices - the point is that the interfaces are lousy. I guess it's a matter of opinion - but I know a lot of people share mine
I actually didn't. There are lot of people that actually do like the UIs on some of these devices and is also a reason for their success, even the Motoral Razr has nice easy interface with voice activated dialing that is a great selling point for users.
So Windows Mobile 6.0 is a lousy interface? That is YOUR opinion, and considering it hasn't even been released, I kind of doubt you have used it.
Even PalmOS has some 'innovative' ideas that made it a success and a success on Phones years ago.
Oh, and there is the fact people can develop applications for not only the dated PalmOS, but Windows Mobile and even JAVA or Brew applications for MOST phones, again something the iPhone won't be able to do.
Considering I have been using 3G and other high speed cellular techology from my phone for OVER 3 years now, it is frankly SCARY that Apple thinks its users will want to try to browse the web, download songs or do anything on their phone at barely better than dial up speeds.
So when you are using your shiny iPhone, and notice the guy in the corner of Starbucks watching TV or streaming a movie on their cellphone, don't be jealous. Just remind yourself that Apple is so innovative, they know better than the other companies and you can remind yourself you didn't want TV or Movies because Apple told you so.
So, that's the best Microsoft UI innovation you could think of?
Ya, that is only one I could think of, what a great counter-argument.
Oh wait there is also the concept of select and modify, so next time you highlight some text and then change the Font/Color/Size/etc, think of MS, again they did it first.
Do you think it is just possible that I might be using rather simplistic examples of 'innovative' concepts in UI usage that is littered THROUGHOUT any modern GUI based OS?
Geesh...
So after the industry realizes the iPhone doesn't do anything that hasn't been done for years on other phones, and people realize they can't even develop for it, the new marketing hype is that Jobs has made it great because of the deal he made with Cingular?
7 710
This sums up how I feel about it...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
The iPhone just gets better and better via the Marketing machine, maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new', right now their best 'new' thing is an OS based on 1989 Next concepts. And the UI paradigm from the 1989 Next still outclasses OSX.
So I guess Apple is radical and innovative if you date everything back 18 years.
Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.
Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.
You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.
Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone.
It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately
It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do.
If you are a CS major at MIT, then my faith in the next generation has been destroyed.
If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?
If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.
Sorry, you're wrong. You're thinking of Quartz Extreme, since then apple has introduced Quartz 2D Extreme (what a terrible name). Here's (for example) an ars article
Actually I'm not...
Yes Quartz 2D Extreme is something available on OSX 10.4 as you can find me discussing in another post in this thread, but is a developer test feature, and works far from well. (You know get developers to actually start using Quartz 2D before it is outdated by seeing it finally be faster than QuickDraw that is twice the speed of Quartz 2D without Extreme enabled.)
Quartz 2D Extreme is also something that probably will not see the light of day even in 10.5 due to the problems and compatitibility issues it causes.
Has anyone else played with a 10.5 beta, still no Quartz 2D Extreme with the last build I was involved with, not a good sign...
but Microsoft's GDI+ drivers don't use it,
You sounded like you were on track, and a lot of what you state is correct, however this line is a bit of a stopper.
Microsoft DOES NOT make the Video Drivers, nor do they have control over what features the MFR puts in the drivers. They can certify or require features for certification, but they do NOT write the drivers, and this is where the optimizations would need to be if the hardware even supported the acceleration features.
There are issues with the GDI+ features that are GDI like but perform poorly, but if the Video Driver from the MFR doesn't accelerate this as they are DIFFERENT calls, GDI+ will be slow.
However, with that aside, WPF is fully accelerated, even on XP via DirectX7. So MS didn't make the same mistake as they did by leaving GDI+ out in the cold.
Take Care...