I just don't understand where you're coming from. Are you just a plant, or do you seriously believe what you're saying? Your post basically degrades into an advertisement for Vista.
I've been using Beryl/Compiz since September. Why do people still say Vista is "new" and "impressive"? There is nothing new. There is nothing impressive. People like you just don't know any better.
You don't get what I am talking about, and I apologize for the miscommunication here.
I used an example of how well Vista scales GPU operations because of the changes in the multi-tasking and RAM sharing features added to the WDDM (Driver Model).
Sure your screen looks impressive, but that was not the point.
Imagine your screen with 2 other games running at the same time, that each max out the onboard GPU RAM available, and then view them in your version of Flip3D while they run at the same time and also run without dropping but a couple FPS.
Vista is doing this, and Vista already not only knows how to virtualize GPU RAM, but also multi-task and scale to GPUs so that several applicaitons can utilize the GPU, and vice versa, where Vista will scale one application across multiple GPUs, without having to resort to separate rendering concepts like Crossfire or SLI.
Truly take a minute and check out what MS is doing right with Vista in regards to Video and GPU usage and how it will change how a GPU plays a roll, but also advances gaming.
Check out some true technical articles on Vista and WDDM and its relation to DirectX10. People that know gaming and 3D, are going 'holy crap' because the way Vista is handling Video is new in several ways.
I truly don't want to push back and seem rude, but Beryl Compiz is just an OpenGL 3D bitmap based composer, and yes it goes beyond the simplistic UI concepts like the GPU double buffering you find in OSX, but it is FAR FROM what the WDDM in Vista is doing.
One other quick example of difference, Vista is a Vector/Bitmap based composer, so that applications written for Vista or WPF don't send bitmap Window information to the composer, they update the vector information and the composer manages the repainting and rendering, this offers speed because the composer is on top of what the applications need to repaint and the also makes programming easier on the developer.
It also uses less GPU RAM than a Bitmap only composer like Beryl Compiz because for newer applications it only has to hold the Vector data and not a bitmap; it also knows how to virtualize the GPU RAM for textures in a way that doesn't degrade the performance of high speed 3D games.
By Vista being a Vector/Bitmap composer there are also other side effects, like Vista even enables vector and 3D on a RDP connection (Remote Desktop/TS).
You can run Flip3D and Glass and a WPF 3D animated application on a computer you are remoting into over a ISDN level connection 12,000 miles away.
I know MS didn't add as much eye candy to Vista with regard to wiggly windows, or spacial positioning, but that was a choice of the UI and usability department, not because of limitations in the Vista Video Subsystem.
Some of the animation effects from projects like Beryl are fun and pretty cool, I will definately give it up to them for that. The base animations and Glass and Flip3D in Vista are very sterile in comparison.
Were you going for "troll" or "funny"? You mean it's different than ANY OTHER MICROSOFT OS. Unless you're talking about the new kinds of bluescreens - that's almost certainly Vista-only.
No idea what type of response you are even trying to get here, but you should maybe look up what I was talking about, you might surprise yourself in what you find.
Also when you see NVidia and ATI dropping multi-core GPU based cards and Vista automatically scaling games across all GPUs, you might want to encourage your OSS development friends to also take note.
Vista will essentially kill off the concept of something like SLI, where the hardware has to manage rendering the screens independantly and shoving them back together.
distinctly remember that the linux opensource nouveau driver [sf.net] has code to support all these features, that the code indicates that the hardware supports this since something like TNT cards, and that if nouveau does it the proprietary linux drivers probably do it since years.
Also the things "brand new" in Vista and "in no other OS" like running your game in a 3D window are sooo 2005 on linux (ever tried beryl [beryl-project.org] or compiz as your window manager ?).
Actually there are vast technical differences, you really should read up on what MS has done with the WDDM in Vista, and how ATI and NVidia both are very impressed with the technology. MS not only pulled what they learned from the co-development of the XBox 360 video, but also have introduced a new way of managing the GPU in a computer. It is as much of a change from a 286 try to multi-task to a 386 doing pre-emptive multi-tasking. Only now MS is bringing this concept to the Video/GPU.
The Vista WDDM and DirectX10 also has new features that allow applications to utilize the GPU for non-graphical calculations inherently for physics, etc, as well as also manage and multi-task these calls to single or multi-core GPUs. MS has set the stage so that computer's GPU will be more like the main processor in that you can have do multi-processing and even have multiple GPU Cores and the software will scale to use the power.
There is a lot to MS's WDDM and there are also a lot of new concepts of doing things with the video card introduced in Vista.
As for running a Game in a Window, actually that is more so like NT 3.1 back in 1992 (Wolfenstein 3D), or if you are talking about 3D GPU accelerated games, more like Win95, which had 3D accelerated games than ran in a Window or FullScreen.
Please note, running in a Window, was NOT the point of my post nor something new, it is very common for gamers to run a game in a Window and not full screen in the Windows world as well.
An FYI, Audible has their own software, so you don't have to use iTunes, and they also have a plugin for Windows Media Player. Audible is far older than iTunes, and works quite well with WMP or their own software and any MP3 player that doesn't have an Apple Logo on it. You can even stream your books from Audible directly from the internet via WMP and your Browser.
Also doing an OS upgrade kills your activations with Audible, so you have to reactivate if when you upgrade your OS. This has been a thing going all the way back to when I was in the WinXP beta and would forget to deactivate my player between beta build updates.
However, if you have exceeded your 3 activations, just go to their support page, and email them, telling them you upgraded your OS, lost your HD, your dog ate your homework, anything actually, and they will reset them.
They have reset my activations numerous times over the years, and I have even emailed them at 1 am, and got a real person email response with my activations reset within a few minutes.
Audible is a top notch company, even though they have to heavily use DRM to control the audio book content. (And no, I have nothing to do with Audible, nor any investment; I just like their service, with almost 200 books in my Audible library.)
Needless to say Audible's software and their WMP plugin work flawlessly with Vista; you won't be able to load your iPod, but you can at least listen to them or load them on another MP3 player. I recommend a Creative Zen, nice little units and you can buy songs from companies other than Apple.;)
Of course, apparently Audible noticed that Vista was being released Jan 07, like every other company in the world in the long delay for Vista, which is unlike Apple that still can't get iTunes to work properly on a product people have been waiting on for 6 years.
Maybe MS should have given Apple a 10 year notice about Vista, so Apple would of had time to make a software product that worked properly. Wait, even their OSX version sucks, let alone the buggy XP version.
But I guess it helps Apple to say, aw, our crap software doesn't work on Vista, so don't buy Vista.
(I would buy an iPod, but then I would have to use iTunes, and sadly I like the choice of software players and choice of music stores. I guess I'm just old fashioned in not going for the Orwell 1984 concept of who controls my songs and what I listen to them on and where I buy them.)
I'm trying to think of any other product where you can buy it at time X, it suits your purpose and you're happy, then at time X+1 something changes, it no longer suits your purpose and that is somehow the manufacturer's fault. Honestly, if you bought your card to use with XP and it now doesn't work with Vista, don't you solely have the option of not using Vista? Or buying a new card?
Ok, I really don't agree with the people's arguments or the lawsuit, as for the most part, NVidia has delivered Vista drivers that are better than the XP drivers at this point.
However, the reason your argument is wrong, is when NVidia came out with the 7800 and other 7xxx series Geforce cards, their advertising SPECIFICALLY said that this generation of card was already Vista Ready and had Vista WDDM called LDDM drivers availble for them. However, as many people in the beta of Vista would know, NVidia DID NOT have Vista drivers even at that time period, and they didn't even start dropping stable non-debug drivers until this month, which is a long time from June of 2005 when they advertised their cards were ALREADY Vista Ready.
As for the whole lawsuit, I disagree with it completely, yes NVidia was late, but they DID get good drivers out by the time Vista released.
As for people on here discounting NVidia or Vista, please remember that Vista has a Video driver model that is different than is used in ANY OTHER OS. It supports things like GPU multi-tasking and system RAM smart-realtime sharing with GPU RAM, as well as the driver is no longer a kernel level driver and runs in User mode, in addition to several very technical differences.
The other problem with the argument of this lawsuit is the pure fact, that WindowsXP drivers work on Vista, just as they worked on WindowsXP. They will not get AERO/Glass or the features I mentioned above that are new to the WDDM in Vista, but they will perform EXACTLY like they did in XP.
This is not like NVidia has screwed over users in any way, although during the beta process I could have smacked the marketing deptment of NVidia for advertising WDDM Vista Ready for the 7xxx series of cards when this was simply not even close to being true. And in fact, ATI had the first and most stable drivers during the entire Vista Beta, even though ATI didn't release OpenGL support until this month as well for their drivers.
A month ago, our techs would have told gamers to skip Vista for a while, but with the drivers released this month from both ATI and NVidia at the 11th hour for the Vista release, things have dramatically changed.
Both companies have a few glitches with a few games, but for the most part the drivers are solid, and deliver better FPS on Vista even when running with Glass still on and even in a Window. You can also run with higher quality textures than you could in XP since the WDDM shares system RAM with the GPU intelligently, so turn up the High Quality Textures that your Video card couldn't handle before and enjoy the view.
Another thing to notice is that in Vista you can run multiple games at the same time without worry about running out of GPU RAM, and even with multiple games running do the Glass Flip 3D with all the games and applicaitons. And even in Flip 3D the games FPS only drops maybe 2-5fps, even though it and other games are running at the same time on the screen in flip 3D. This is impressive and shows that Vista can squeeze a lot of performance out of the hardware and games beyond what any other OS, including XP has been able to acheive.
Now most people won't be running multiple games, but if you want to run WoW or Oblivion or CoH in a Glassy Window while you have Vent or TeamSpeak open and your messenger and a movie playing, you can, and without losing framerates like you would have in XP or any other OS, because of how Vista handles the Memory and GPU multi-tasking with the WDDM in Vista.
So everyone out there ha-ha-ing Vista's Video, instead of laughing at things you don't understand, you should be taking notes on what MS has done right with Vista technically, some of it is impressive architectually, especially if you are an OS theorist/engineer.
Make fun of this twit all you want, but the bottom line is this is the majority of the people out there, and most of them can barely type their freaking name correctly.
So at the end of the day, the extra polish MS puts on Windows to just make their desktop and servers a little bit easier to use and this is what you get, they win.
I know this is a crazy story, but in reality the usability state of most OSS is still hovering around when geeks stopped using Windows, and so you see software in the OSS world that resembles 1998-2000 usability from companies like MS and Apple.
The usability and consistency is still the biggest problem in the OSS world. Just as *nix failed in the past with fragmented variants, today not only are we facing fragmented variants with tons of subtle differences, but we are also facing software that runs on the platform itself with no consistency.
Truly, look at some of the top OSS software, the UIs of the applications look like a 15yr old designed them in VB back in 1998. I know this is not an area geeks often even notice, but when it comes to 'consistency' and polish, we have a long long way to go.
So instead of laughing at this dork, maybe you should step back and look at your particular development project and see where you are failing by appealing to only to geeks and not keeping up with modern UI designs and usability. I mean MS spends a lot of money on this crap, at least copy what they do get right on modern versions of the stuff and not keep copying Win98 when everyone ditched Windows.
that running a desktop in hardware accelerated 3d mode all the time also means more power consumption
Ya, that was all the speculation and theory; however, it doesn't hold water in reality.
There have been several reviews from Tom's to TweakVista that show that Vista on a laptop does not increase battery drain, and the Aero Glass only consumed 1 watt of power over having it turned off, and this is offset by the other power saving features of Vista.
I know this is SlashDot where facts don't matter, but do we have to become the Fox News of the Internet?
See here is the problem, people that study OS engineering and OS theory, even from the user functionality standpoint would argue that these are NOT major OS upgrades. Sure Apple tweaks stuff, adds in a few new features, but mainly updates the user client applications/functionality, which are not core OS issues.
So sure iPhoto gets new features, and you get desktop search, and you get time machine that was in Windows 2003, but as you note, MS releases updates to their versions of these products as well as the SAME scale of OS tweaks and adjustments over the course years, and then rolls them into a SP all for free.
For Microsot 4.0 to 5.0 on NT was a MAJOR upgrade, as the core of the OS we completely gone through. Additionally, XP especially consider SP2 and Windows 2003 were again Major OS upgrades, as they changes many aspects of the OS underlying technology, and as you note with the XP SP2, it was free update even though it incorporated many of the security and features from the Windows 2003 fork.
Vista again is Major OS update, even though the user interface is the LEAST changed aspect of the OS. The core OS of Vista has a massive change in new ways of working with regard to core level features like memory management, caching, etc. And this doesn't even touch on the complete new Network, Video, Audio systems and even the new programming API models introduced that transcend development in the Win32/64 world.
So I am not trying to be mean, nor a troll to Apple, but if you take the two product lines and features for price, Apple does bleed their customers for fairly minor OS updates that fall more in the category of what MS gives away for free. There are also economic reasons for this, Apple doesn't have the money Microsoft does for development, so MS can afford to supply these updates and OS application updates for free, where Apple needs to keep a more steady revenue stream based on the vast discrepancy in the market share of each product.
Click here [microsoft.com]. He talks about a lot of things, including these "protected processes", and even says that the purpose is for DRM
Ok, either you haven't really watched this video, or what he is talking about is out of your level of understanding, my comments stand.
DRM and protected processes and the changes in the Vista process creation have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
This is another old story of where people can't seem to separate out the Win32 Kernel in their heads from the NT kernel or the NT kernel interface. In a really bad analogy it would be like me arguing that the OSX video subsystem framework contains DRM therefore all BSD to Mach kernel interfaces include DRM, which is insane.
Well the DRM FUD is a fun 'myth/rumor' to consider for the changes, but in reality, DRM has nothing to do with the process changes in Vista.
The real reasons actually go like this. 1) Security 2) Performance 3) Reliability
I like your DRM theory, but you could also go for the Vista has added a new audio stack for DRM, or a new video subsystem for DRM, or new caching technology for DRM. When in fact, NONE of them have ANY DRM relations WHAT SO EVER, just like the Process startup changes.
You sound reasonable, but you are trolling based on something you know just enough about to maybe get away with your con...
WTF is it with the free press on this software? My company has offered a product that does just this for YEARS, like since 1993.
Windows supports extensive keyboard hooks and applications have tapped into them for years to do everything from macroing to auto-correct abilities like MS word.
This is crap that is sounds like news, especially since Windows is one of the best OSes for complete keyboard control, with macroing, scripting, and keyboard hooks for realtime features like this product pretends is 'new'.
#1) It is a good thing MS is taking updates seriously and scheduling them on a faster scale, it will also help to offset any found vulnerbilities in Vista RTM.
#2) If MS said they were releasing one in 2 years, everyone here would be complaing that MS is slow, doesn't care about users or software quality. Catch 22 Slashdot issue uh?
#3) At least MS won't be CHARGING for this as they have never done with previous service packs, that have in the past offered many updates and new features to the OS. This is something the Apple fans cannot claim, as Apple trickles out only security updates, and then charges for a real service pack update. This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers? Also don't scream about all the new OSX features in each release, most are fixes or updates to the software included, or the famous spotlight, which MS also offers their desktop search for free to XP users.
So SP1 in the first year, good for MS for once, actually giving customers attention instead of internal infighting...
MS doesn't give the installer the permissions to install anything at that level
Well, technically it has nothing to do with what permissions the installer get. It is about the ability to replace or hook into areas of the NT kernel they have no business doing so, and even on XP, norton had to trick the OS into allowing this to happen.
Norton has a gross history of replacing key Windows components that are more troublesome than they ever protect the user. For example in WindowsXP SP2, MS introduced a new security center concept, and for Norton to fully install, it completely dismantles the SP2 security center, and rather poorly, leaving users with numerous error messages and even system performance and functionality problems.
Also when Norton takes this level of control like over things like the Network Stack (which is different in Vista, meaning Norton's XP version wouldn't work anyway), it is a problem when the Norton replacement for filters goes down, leaving users with mail jammed in their outbox and often no ability to even browse the web until the service or computer is restarted.
MS went to great lengths to provide a full API for anti-virus and spyware in Vista, so that vendors WOULD NOT have the need to replace portions of the OS for tight monitoring, and yet Norton and McAfee have screamed loud about these restrictions, and got what they wanted. So once Vista hits, expect to see Norton again replace core OS portions that bypass Vista's inherent functions and tools, and without the testing and quality control or understaing of Vista start taking on roles that should be ONLY handled by the OS itself.
People forget that Vista and XP are NT core OSes, and the OS people use is Win32 that sits on the NT core as a subsystem. This means that applications should never drop below the Win32 Kernel for functionality, and yet Norton does this without any regard to the quality of the product or the true impact their software has on users or the OS.
You will also notice beyond Norton and McAfee other anti-virus companies have generally welcomed the changes in Vista, as they can modify their software to tap the Vista APIs instead of having to do the work themselves, so it not only ensures their software won't screw up the computer but is a lot less coding for them as well. Yes it will take revised versions to properly work on Vista, but many companies are already providing them even before release.
Another note of FUD to dispell, MS's own OneCare uses the same APIs in Vista that other anti-virus/spyware companies are expected to utilized from the OS, they have NO advantage.
Actually nowhere in Windows is networking called a service
Technically yes, but go in and disable the networking services and see how well the network works...
There are several services dedicated to the networking aspect of Windows, from IPv6 support, to DHCP and DNS, to UPnP to RAS and basic Workstation/Server SERVICES.
No the stack is not a service, but the supporting pieces are, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER OS...
'Carmack then said that he's quite satisfied with Windows XP, going as far to say that Microsoft is artificially forcing gamers to move to Windows Vista for DX10
This is such FUD... There are REAL reasons that DX10 requires Vista. For example the WDDM model in Vista is needed for DX10 to do what it needs with the RAM usage and multi-tasking features of the GPU introduced in DX10.
These are NOT things that can be done on XP unless MS completely redesigned the Video Subsystem in WindowsXP, which would be a long process, and utterly insane.
People please do your own research and not buy into the ranting of a fool that thinks he has all the facts. DX10 has a lot of new features pushing the envelope on gaming graphics with larger textures and other pipeline optimization techniques, but many of the DX10 features would FAIL on XP or any other OS that did not have the WDDM driver model introduced in Vista, as no other OS can multi-task GPU operations or selectively share large portions of system RAM with the GPU RAM with no performance loss.
For further reading, go check out NVidia or ATI's site for information on DX10, or even be as bold to check on MS's site on DX10 and why the WDDM driver model in Vista is EXPECTED to be there and IS USED by the DX10 framework to provide the many of the new features of DX10.
I would be highly interested in knowing what useless processes are in Vista that i can safely turn off.
There are a few in Vista, just as there are some in OSX and other OSes, but nothing as bad as XP.
They tend to be personally subjective in Vista, rather than what people saw as non-sense in XP. UPnP was big one people that was goofy in XP, and for the timeframe it was, but now that most routers and home networking devices utilize it, it is no longer something you would want to turn off, since using UPnP applications can easily access router for applications like bittorrent.
If you don't need defender, you can kill it (but don't recommend for novice users) as it is the final defense against spyware if the user is stupid enought to fully click through to allow a bad application to run.
You can also kill the TS server if you don't ever have more than one person logged in or plan on remote log in, but again, this is a feature most families and geeks use.
There is also stuff like the DNS cache like in XP, but this means it has to grab the DNS from your server each time, and also considering it is about 16K of space used in System RAM, it is not a big service. (Many of even the 'extra' XP services were quite lite that many people would go around turning off, all less than 128K combined.)
You could also kill the Search system, but since it has almost no utilization on the system once the system is indexed, it would be a waste to lose its functionality.
Of course you can turn off the themes manager or DWM, however by turning off DWM and AERO, you actually lose a lot of performance on application screen redrawing, and even if you are using Vista Basic the DWM uses DirectX7 Video card to accelerate GDI and WPF application drawing that you lose with this turned off.
There are a few other services that people will tell you can live without, as they are supporting new specifications and new technologies that are NOT widely used, however when you do start using these technologies on your computer or network, you will want to get them turned back on, and again, they are under 512K in total RAM usage and sit dormate until used.
Vista has more 'sense' to the services installed and turned on than XP, but again this is really subjective. For example XP installed a disabled Telnet Server and active client, and people complained, yet in Vista this is not installed by default, and guess what, people are complaining...
I find it highly crazy that people think Windows is the only OS with lots of underlying process/services when that is what makes up all OSes, whether they are apparently visible or not...
I agree, but the Apple fans reviewing Vista do the same things.
If you really want to compared the OSes, it should start from the architectual level and go up from there.
Starting with the Mach/BSD interface in OSX and comparing that to the NT client/server kernel. They both have strong points, but a real debate could be make just from that basic level of understanding.
For example, OSX, although uses a few tricks, is more monolithic, where NT is less monolithic and employs a unique kernel design that abstracts the core NT architecture from the subsystem OSes that run on it, hence the client/server concept of the architecture. This is also why NT can natively run a BSD subystem along side the Win32 and Win64 subsystems, as each subsystem is their on OS running on a unified architecture.
Or the debate could be with the UI and the graphical utilization of GPU hardware. OSX merely does a form of double buffering, where Vista actually brings the GPU into a functional accelerator of even non 3D applications, speeding up basic Window drawing and virtualizing RAM as well as setting a model for multi-tasking of the GPU for multiple 3D applications to share system RAM and run side by side. (So WoW and Halo2 and Half-Life could all be running at the same time on Vista in a 3D window with virtually no loss in FPS(gaming performance.)
Also it is worth noting that Vista is far more of a technical and architectual change in the Windows OS than just the UI changes that many reviewers focus on and try to compare to OSX. Applications on Vista load increadibly fast, using the GPU as Vista does, applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop process and display images 10x faster than WindowsXP or OSX even. These are important changes that the end user will notice but are not something that is obvious to the casual reviewer.
Even the new audio subsystem in Vista brings computer fidelity to a new level, and playing old Mp3s or any music has a new level of richness due to these changes. Vista can even monitor a microphone to self tune itself to the enviroment the computer is in, and even self configure 7.1 speakers based on the room acoustics, but again, most common reviewers wouldn't even think to check things like this out.
Vista does have some 'technical' edges that no other OS, even OSX is has even approached in providing, but if all people do is compare the search system in Vista to Spotlight, they are going to miss the important things under the hood.
PS I am a Mac user as well, I just studied OS theory and engineering for too many years to let the non-visible aspects of an OS go un-noticed when they are just as important.
The fact is that NTFS is actually the same age development-wise as many better FS's available in *nix OS's. Considering NTFS was last updated in approximately 2002, your age argument rings false. FYI, NTFS is currently in version 3.x with another upgrade coming with Vista.
This statement alone proves you are talking out your ass. If your knowledge is based just on the data figures from Wiki then no wonder you have NO FREAKING clue what you are you even spouting...
Yes NTFS was updated over the years, but what where the updates? Oh, they added compression, and then they added encryption.
Oh and BTW the Vista NTFS version HAS NOT CHANGED, symoblic links were in NTFS since Win2K, Vista just added the native commands to use them...
Um, you might want to look at Windows 2003 Server and Vista. Versioning does happen at the FS level and is completely NT subsystem agnostic.
In any case, I don't think you realize what FUSE is if you compare it to a filesystem
I actually do know what it was, that was not the question I asked or the reason I asked the question I did. There are several good reasons for FUSE technology, but I think there are also a lot of people that go goo-goo based on what it is, and many on't realize that some of what it is doing is already in OSes, hence the baited question.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info, I will check into the alternatives you mentioned. I always have friends that want out of the iTunes world.
Here's a screenshot of my computer running Beryl and Call of Duty. By the way, this is with an NVIDIA card on Linux.
l ofdutyuu5.jpg
http://img372.imageshack.us/my.php?image=berylcal
I just don't understand where you're coming from. Are you just a plant, or do you seriously believe what you're saying? Your post basically degrades into an advertisement for Vista.
I've been using Beryl/Compiz since September. Why do people still say Vista is "new" and "impressive"? There is nothing new. There is nothing impressive. People like you just don't know any better.
You don't get what I am talking about, and I apologize for the miscommunication here.
I used an example of how well Vista scales GPU operations because of the changes in the multi-tasking and RAM sharing features added to the WDDM (Driver Model).
Sure your screen looks impressive, but that was not the point.
Imagine your screen with 2 other games running at the same time, that each max out the onboard GPU RAM available, and then view them in your version of Flip3D while they run at the same time and also run without dropping but a couple FPS.
Vista is doing this, and Vista already not only knows how to virtualize GPU RAM, but also multi-task and scale to GPUs so that several applicaitons can utilize the GPU, and vice versa, where Vista will scale one application across multiple GPUs, without having to resort to separate rendering concepts like Crossfire or SLI.
Truly take a minute and check out what MS is doing right with Vista in regards to Video and GPU usage and how it will change how a GPU plays a roll, but also advances gaming.
Check out some true technical articles on Vista and WDDM and its relation to DirectX10. People that know gaming and 3D, are going 'holy crap' because the way Vista is handling Video is new in several ways.
I truly don't want to push back and seem rude, but Beryl Compiz is just an OpenGL 3D bitmap based composer, and yes it goes beyond the simplistic UI concepts like the GPU double buffering you find in OSX, but it is FAR FROM what the WDDM in Vista is doing.
One other quick example of difference, Vista is a Vector/Bitmap based composer, so that applications written for Vista or WPF don't send bitmap Window information to the composer, they update the vector information and the composer manages the repainting and rendering, this offers speed because the composer is on top of what the applications need to repaint and the also makes programming easier on the developer.
It also uses less GPU RAM than a Bitmap only composer like Beryl Compiz because for newer applications it only has to hold the Vector data and not a bitmap; it also knows how to virtualize the GPU RAM for textures in a way that doesn't degrade the performance of high speed 3D games.
By Vista being a Vector/Bitmap composer there are also other side effects, like Vista even enables vector and 3D on a RDP connection (Remote Desktop/TS).
You can run Flip3D and Glass and a WPF 3D animated application on a computer you are remoting into over a ISDN level connection 12,000 miles away.
I know MS didn't add as much eye candy to Vista with regard to wiggly windows, or spacial positioning, but that was a choice of the UI and usability department, not because of limitations in the Vista Video Subsystem.
Some of the animation effects from projects like Beryl are fun and pretty cool, I will definately give it up to them for that. The base animations and Glass and Flip3D in Vista are very sterile in comparison.
Were you going for "troll" or "funny"? You mean it's different than ANY OTHER MICROSOFT OS. Unless you're talking about the new kinds of bluescreens - that's almost certainly Vista-only.
No idea what type of response you are even trying to get here, but you should maybe look up what I was talking about, you might surprise yourself in what you find.
Also when you see NVidia and ATI dropping multi-core GPU based cards and Vista automatically scaling games across all GPUs, you might want to encourage your OSS development friends to also take note.
Vista will essentially kill off the concept of something like SLI, where the hardware has to manage rendering the screens independantly and shoving them back together.
distinctly remember that the linux opensource nouveau driver [sf.net] has code to support all these features, that the code indicates that the hardware supports this since something like TNT cards, and that if nouveau does it the proprietary linux drivers probably do it since years.
Also the things "brand new" in Vista and "in no other OS" like running your game in a 3D window are sooo 2005 on linux (ever tried beryl [beryl-project.org] or compiz as your window manager ?).
Actually there are vast technical differences, you really should read up on what MS has done with the WDDM in Vista, and how ATI and NVidia both are very impressed with the technology. MS not only pulled what they learned from the co-development of the XBox 360 video, but also have introduced a new way of managing the GPU in a computer. It is as much of a change from a 286 try to multi-task to a 386 doing pre-emptive multi-tasking. Only now MS is bringing this concept to the Video/GPU.
The Vista WDDM and DirectX10 also has new features that allow applications to utilize the GPU for non-graphical calculations inherently for physics, etc, as well as also manage and multi-task these calls to single or multi-core GPUs. MS has set the stage so that computer's GPU will be more like the main processor in that you can have do multi-processing and even have multiple GPU Cores and the software will scale to use the power.
There is a lot to MS's WDDM and there are also a lot of new concepts of doing things with the video card introduced in Vista.
As for running a Game in a Window, actually that is more so like NT 3.1 back in 1992 (Wolfenstein 3D), or if you are talking about 3D GPU accelerated games, more like Win95, which had 3D accelerated games than ran in a Window or FullScreen.
Please note, running in a Window, was NOT the point of my post nor something new, it is very common for gamers to run a game in a Window and not full screen in the Windows world as well.
Please re-read that part...
Take Care.
Audible stuff now fails
;)
An FYI, Audible has their own software, so you don't have to use iTunes, and they also have a plugin for Windows Media Player. Audible is far older than iTunes, and works quite well with WMP or their own software and any MP3 player that doesn't have an Apple Logo on it. You can even stream your books from Audible directly from the internet via WMP and your Browser.
Also doing an OS upgrade kills your activations with Audible, so you have to reactivate if when you upgrade your OS. This has been a thing going all the way back to when I was in the WinXP beta and would forget to deactivate my player between beta build updates.
However, if you have exceeded your 3 activations, just go to their support page, and email them, telling them you upgraded your OS, lost your HD, your dog ate your homework, anything actually, and they will reset them.
They have reset my activations numerous times over the years, and I have even emailed them at 1 am, and got a real person email response with my activations reset within a few minutes.
Audible is a top notch company, even though they have to heavily use DRM to control the audio book content. (And no, I have nothing to do with Audible, nor any investment; I just like their service, with almost 200 books in my Audible library.)
Needless to say Audible's software and their WMP plugin work flawlessly with Vista; you won't be able to load your iPod, but you can at least listen to them or load them on another MP3 player. I recommend a Creative Zen, nice little units and you can buy songs from companies other than Apple.
Of course, apparently Audible noticed that Vista was being released Jan 07, like every other company in the world in the long delay for Vista, which is unlike Apple that still can't get iTunes to work properly on a product people have been waiting on for 6 years.
Maybe MS should have given Apple a 10 year notice about Vista, so Apple would of had time to make a software product that worked properly. Wait, even their OSX version sucks, let alone the buggy XP version.
But I guess it helps Apple to say, aw, our crap software doesn't work on Vista, so don't buy Vista.
(I would buy an iPod, but then I would have to use iTunes, and sadly I like the choice of software players and choice of music stores. I guess I'm just old fashioned in not going for the Orwell 1984 concept of who controls my songs and what I listen to them on and where I buy them.)
Good luck with your books...
I'm trying to think of any other product where you can buy it at time X, it suits your purpose and you're happy, then at time X+1 something changes, it no longer suits your purpose and that is somehow the manufacturer's fault. Honestly, if you bought your card to use with XP and it now doesn't work with Vista, don't you solely have the option of not using Vista? Or buying a new card?
Ok, I really don't agree with the people's arguments or the lawsuit, as for the most part, NVidia has delivered Vista drivers that are better than the XP drivers at this point.
However, the reason your argument is wrong, is when NVidia came out with the 7800 and other 7xxx series Geforce cards, their advertising SPECIFICALLY said that this generation of card was already Vista Ready and had Vista WDDM called LDDM drivers availble for them. However, as many people in the beta of Vista would know, NVidia DID NOT have Vista drivers even at that time period, and they didn't even start dropping stable non-debug drivers until this month, which is a long time from June of 2005 when they advertised their cards were ALREADY Vista Ready.
As for the whole lawsuit, I disagree with it completely, yes NVidia was late, but they DID get good drivers out by the time Vista released.
As for people on here discounting NVidia or Vista, please remember that Vista has a Video driver model that is different than is used in ANY OTHER OS. It supports things like GPU multi-tasking and system RAM smart-realtime sharing with GPU RAM, as well as the driver is no longer a kernel level driver and runs in User mode, in addition to several very technical differences.
The other problem with the argument of this lawsuit is the pure fact, that WindowsXP drivers work on Vista, just as they worked on WindowsXP. They will not get AERO/Glass or the features I mentioned above that are new to the WDDM in Vista, but they will perform EXACTLY like they did in XP.
This is not like NVidia has screwed over users in any way, although during the beta process I could have smacked the marketing deptment of NVidia for advertising WDDM Vista Ready for the 7xxx series of cards when this was simply not even close to being true. And in fact, ATI had the first and most stable drivers during the entire Vista Beta, even though ATI didn't release OpenGL support until this month as well for their drivers.
A month ago, our techs would have told gamers to skip Vista for a while, but with the drivers released this month from both ATI and NVidia at the 11th hour for the Vista release, things have dramatically changed.
Both companies have a few glitches with a few games, but for the most part the drivers are solid, and deliver better FPS on Vista even when running with Glass still on and even in a Window. You can also run with higher quality textures than you could in XP since the WDDM shares system RAM with the GPU intelligently, so turn up the High Quality Textures that your Video card couldn't handle before and enjoy the view.
Another thing to notice is that in Vista you can run multiple games at the same time without worry about running out of GPU RAM, and even with multiple games running do the Glass Flip 3D with all the games and applicaitons. And even in Flip 3D the games FPS only drops maybe 2-5fps, even though it and other games are running at the same time on the screen in flip 3D. This is impressive and shows that Vista can squeeze a lot of performance out of the hardware and games beyond what any other OS, including XP has been able to acheive.
Now most people won't be running multiple games, but if you want to run WoW or Oblivion or CoH in a Glassy Window while you have Vent or TeamSpeak open and your messenger and a movie playing, you can, and without losing framerates like you would have in XP or any other OS, because of how Vista handles the Memory and GPU multi-tasking with the WDDM in Vista.
So everyone out there ha-ha-ing Vista's Video, instead of laughing at things you don't understand, you should be taking notes on what MS has done right with Vista technically, some of it is impressive architectually, especially if you are an OS theorist/engineer.
If you computer starts spitting out voice commands, just create another sound that will interupt it.
And oddly Win98 was one of the first commerical OSes to have realtime Audio mixing even between applications with a single sound processor.
Has anyone here even seen a Windows computer since it was DOS based and Clinton was president?
I might be wrong
And this is the only thing about your post that is correct, you are wrong...
Make fun of this twit all you want, but the bottom line is this is the majority of the people out there, and most of them can barely type their freaking name correctly.
So at the end of the day, the extra polish MS puts on Windows to just make their desktop and servers a little bit easier to use and this is what you get, they win.
I know this is a crazy story, but in reality the usability state of most OSS is still hovering around when geeks stopped using Windows, and so you see software in the OSS world that resembles 1998-2000 usability from companies like MS and Apple.
The usability and consistency is still the biggest problem in the OSS world. Just as *nix failed in the past with fragmented variants, today not only are we facing fragmented variants with tons of subtle differences, but we are also facing software that runs on the platform itself with no consistency.
Truly, look at some of the top OSS software, the UIs of the applications look like a 15yr old designed them in VB back in 1998. I know this is not an area geeks often even notice, but when it comes to 'consistency' and polish, we have a long long way to go.
So instead of laughing at this dork, maybe you should step back and look at your particular development project and see where you are failing by appealing to only to geeks and not keeping up with modern UI designs and usability. I mean MS spends a lot of money on this crap, at least copy what they do get right on modern versions of the stuff and not keep copying Win98 when everyone ditched Windows.
that running a desktop in hardware accelerated 3d mode all the time also means more power consumption
Ya, that was all the speculation and theory; however, it doesn't hold water in reality.
There have been several reviews from Tom's to TweakVista that show that Vista on a laptop does not increase battery drain, and the Aero Glass only consumed 1 watt of power over having it turned off, and this is offset by the other power saving features of Vista.
I know this is SlashDot where facts don't matter, but do we have to become the Fox News of the Internet?
!0.5 is a major OS upgrade
See here is the problem, people that study OS engineering and OS theory, even from the user functionality standpoint would argue that these are NOT major OS upgrades. Sure Apple tweaks stuff, adds in a few new features, but mainly updates the user client applications/functionality, which are not core OS issues.
So sure iPhoto gets new features, and you get desktop search, and you get time machine that was in Windows 2003, but as you note, MS releases updates to their versions of these products as well as the SAME scale of OS tweaks and adjustments over the course years, and then rolls them into a SP all for free.
For Microsot 4.0 to 5.0 on NT was a MAJOR upgrade, as the core of the OS we completely gone through. Additionally, XP especially consider SP2 and Windows 2003 were again Major OS upgrades, as they changes many aspects of the OS underlying technology, and as you note with the XP SP2, it was free update even though it incorporated many of the security and features from the Windows 2003 fork.
Vista again is Major OS update, even though the user interface is the LEAST changed aspect of the OS. The core OS of Vista has a massive change in new ways of working with regard to core level features like memory management, caching, etc. And this doesn't even touch on the complete new Network, Video, Audio systems and even the new programming API models introduced that transcend development in the Win32/64 world.
So I am not trying to be mean, nor a troll to Apple, but if you take the two product lines and features for price, Apple does bleed their customers for fairly minor OS updates that fall more in the category of what MS gives away for free. There are also economic reasons for this, Apple doesn't have the money Microsoft does for development, so MS can afford to supply these updates and OS application updates for free, where Apple needs to keep a more steady revenue stream based on the vast discrepancy in the market share of each product.
Click here [microsoft.com]. He talks about a lot of things, including these "protected processes", and even says that the purpose is for DRM
Ok, either you haven't really watched this video, or what he is talking about is out of your level of understanding, my comments stand.
DRM and protected processes and the changes in the Vista process creation have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
This is another old story of where people can't seem to separate out the Win32 Kernel in their heads from the NT kernel or the NT kernel interface. In a really bad analogy it would be like me arguing that the OSX video subsystem framework contains DRM therefore all BSD to Mach kernel interfaces include DRM, which is insane.
Well the DRM FUD is a fun 'myth/rumor' to consider for the changes, but in reality, DRM has nothing to do with the process changes in Vista.
The real reasons actually go like this.
1) Security
2) Performance
3) Reliability
I like your DRM theory, but you could also go for the Vista has added a new audio stack for DRM, or a new video subsystem for DRM, or new caching technology for DRM. When in fact, NONE of them have ANY DRM relations WHAT SO EVER, just like the Process startup changes.
You sound reasonable, but you are trolling based on something you know just enough about to maybe get away with your con...
WTF is it with the free press on this software? My company has offered a product that does just this for YEARS, like since 1993.
Windows supports extensive keyboard hooks and applications have tapped into them for years to do everything from macroing to auto-correct abilities like MS word.
This is crap that is sounds like news, especially since Windows is one of the best OSes for complete keyboard control, with macroing, scripting, and keyboard hooks for realtime features like this product pretends is 'new'.
Geesh...
#1) It is a good thing MS is taking updates seriously and scheduling them on a faster scale, it will also help to offset any found vulnerbilities in Vista RTM.
#2) If MS said they were releasing one in 2 years, everyone here would be complaing that MS is slow, doesn't care about users or software quality. Catch 22 Slashdot issue uh?
#3) At least MS won't be CHARGING for this as they have never done with previous service packs, that have in the past offered many updates and new features to the OS. This is something the Apple fans cannot claim, as Apple trickles out only security updates, and then charges for a real service pack update. This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers? Also don't scream about all the new OSX features in each release, most are fixes or updates to the software included, or the famous spotlight, which MS also offers their desktop search for free to XP users.
So SP1 in the first year, good for MS for once, actually giving customers attention instead of internal infighting...
MS doesn't give the installer the permissions to install anything at that level
Well, technically it has nothing to do with what permissions the installer get. It is about the ability to replace or hook into areas of the NT kernel they have no business doing so, and even on XP, norton had to trick the OS into allowing this to happen.
Norton has a gross history of replacing key Windows components that are more troublesome than they ever protect the user. For example in WindowsXP SP2, MS introduced a new security center concept, and for Norton to fully install, it completely dismantles the SP2 security center, and rather poorly, leaving users with numerous error messages and even system performance and functionality problems.
Also when Norton takes this level of control like over things like the Network Stack (which is different in Vista, meaning Norton's XP version wouldn't work anyway), it is a problem when the Norton replacement for filters goes down, leaving users with mail jammed in their outbox and often no ability to even browse the web until the service or computer is restarted.
MS went to great lengths to provide a full API for anti-virus and spyware in Vista, so that vendors WOULD NOT have the need to replace portions of the OS for tight monitoring, and yet Norton and McAfee have screamed loud about these restrictions, and got what they wanted. So once Vista hits, expect to see Norton again replace core OS portions that bypass Vista's inherent functions and tools, and without the testing and quality control or understaing of Vista start taking on roles that should be ONLY handled by the OS itself.
People forget that Vista and XP are NT core OSes, and the OS people use is Win32 that sits on the NT core as a subsystem. This means that applications should never drop below the Win32 Kernel for functionality, and yet Norton does this without any regard to the quality of the product or the true impact their software has on users or the OS.
You will also notice beyond Norton and McAfee other anti-virus companies have generally welcomed the changes in Vista, as they can modify their software to tap the Vista APIs instead of having to do the work themselves, so it not only ensures their software won't screw up the computer but is a lot less coding for them as well. Yes it will take revised versions to properly work on Vista, but many companies are already providing them even before release.
Another note of FUD to dispell, MS's own OneCare uses the same APIs in Vista that other anti-virus/spyware companies are expected to utilized from the OS, they have NO advantage.
So MS wants wikipedia information to be correct? This has to be a good thing for Wikipedia, and is one of the final corporate stamps of approval.
Wow, this is very progressive, considering the money MS makes off Encarta.
Microsoft has *always* been better than Linux.
:)
:)
Linux is a company now? Wow...
I guess you are right, especially in the early 80s.
Actually nowhere in Windows is networking called a service
Technically yes, but go in and disable the networking services and see how well the network works...
There are several services dedicated to the networking aspect of Windows, from IPv6 support, to DHCP and DNS, to UPnP to RAS and basic Workstation/Server SERVICES.
No the stack is not a service, but the supporting pieces are, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER OS...
'Carmack then said that he's quite satisfied with Windows XP, going as far to say that Microsoft is artificially forcing gamers to move to Windows Vista for DX10
This is such FUD... There are REAL reasons that DX10 requires Vista. For example the WDDM model in Vista is needed for DX10 to do what it needs with the RAM usage and multi-tasking features of the GPU introduced in DX10.
These are NOT things that can be done on XP unless MS completely redesigned the Video Subsystem in WindowsXP, which would be a long process, and utterly insane.
People please do your own research and not buy into the ranting of a fool that thinks he has all the facts. DX10 has a lot of new features pushing the envelope on gaming graphics with larger textures and other pipeline optimization techniques, but many of the DX10 features would FAIL on XP or any other OS that did not have the WDDM driver model introduced in Vista, as no other OS can multi-task GPU operations or selectively share large portions of system RAM with the GPU RAM with no performance loss.
For further reading, go check out NVidia or ATI's site for information on DX10, or even be as bold to check on MS's site on DX10 and why the WDDM driver model in Vista is EXPECTED to be there and IS USED by the DX10 framework to provide the many of the new features of DX10.
Geesh...
I would be highly interested in knowing what useless processes are in Vista that i can safely turn off.
There are a few in Vista, just as there are some in OSX and other OSes, but nothing as bad as XP.
They tend to be personally subjective in Vista, rather than what people saw as non-sense in XP. UPnP was big one people that was goofy in XP, and for the timeframe it was, but now that most routers and home networking devices utilize it, it is no longer something you would want to turn off, since using UPnP applications can easily access router for applications like bittorrent.
If you don't need defender, you can kill it (but don't recommend for novice users) as it is the final defense against spyware if the user is stupid enought to fully click through to allow a bad application to run.
You can also kill the TS server if you don't ever have more than one person logged in or plan on remote log in, but again, this is a feature most families and geeks use.
There is also stuff like the DNS cache like in XP, but this means it has to grab the DNS from your server each time, and also considering it is about 16K of space used in System RAM, it is not a big service. (Many of even the 'extra' XP services were quite lite that many people would go around turning off, all less than 128K combined.)
You could also kill the Search system, but since it has almost no utilization on the system once the system is indexed, it would be a waste to lose its functionality.
Of course you can turn off the themes manager or DWM, however by turning off DWM and AERO, you actually lose a lot of performance on application screen redrawing, and even if you are using Vista Basic the DWM uses DirectX7 Video card to accelerate GDI and WPF application drawing that you lose with this turned off.
There are a few other services that people will tell you can live without, as they are supporting new specifications and new technologies that are NOT widely used, however when you do start using these technologies on your computer or network, you will want to get them turned back on, and again, they are under 512K in total RAM usage and sit dormate until used.
Vista has more 'sense' to the services installed and turned on than XP, but again this is really subjective. For example XP installed a disabled Telnet Server and active client, and people complained, yet in Vista this is not installed by default, and guess what, people are complaining...
I find it highly crazy that people think Windows is the only OS with lots of underlying process/services when that is what makes up all OSes, whether they are apparently visible or not...
I agree, but the Apple fans reviewing Vista do the same things.
If you really want to compared the OSes, it should start from the architectual level and go up from there.
Starting with the Mach/BSD interface in OSX and comparing that to the NT client/server kernel. They both have strong points, but a real debate could be make just from that basic level of understanding.
For example, OSX, although uses a few tricks, is more monolithic, where NT is less monolithic and employs a unique kernel design that abstracts the core NT architecture from the subsystem OSes that run on it, hence the client/server concept of the architecture. This is also why NT can natively run a BSD subystem along side the Win32 and Win64 subsystems, as each subsystem is their on OS running on a unified architecture.
Or the debate could be with the UI and the graphical utilization of GPU hardware. OSX merely does a form of double buffering, where Vista actually brings the GPU into a functional accelerator of even non 3D applications, speeding up basic Window drawing and virtualizing RAM as well as setting a model for multi-tasking of the GPU for multiple 3D applications to share system RAM and run side by side. (So WoW and Halo2 and Half-Life could all be running at the same time on Vista in a 3D window with virtually no loss in FPS(gaming performance.)
Also it is worth noting that Vista is far more of a technical and architectual change in the Windows OS than just the UI changes that many reviewers focus on and try to compare to OSX. Applications on Vista load increadibly fast, using the GPU as Vista does, applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop process and display images 10x faster than WindowsXP or OSX even. These are important changes that the end user will notice but are not something that is obvious to the casual reviewer.
Even the new audio subsystem in Vista brings computer fidelity to a new level, and playing old Mp3s or any music has a new level of richness due to these changes. Vista can even monitor a microphone to self tune itself to the enviroment the computer is in, and even self configure 7.1 speakers based on the room acoustics, but again, most common reviewers wouldn't even think to check things like this out.
Vista does have some 'technical' edges that no other OS, even OSX is has even approached in providing, but if all people do is compare the search system in Vista to Spotlight, they are going to miss the important things under the hood.
PS I am a Mac user as well, I just studied OS theory and engineering for too many years to let the non-visible aspects of an OS go un-noticed when they are just as important.
running a load of services I may or may not use
No offense, but just because you don't see a list of services, does not mean OSX is not running a ton of system processes under the hood.
If you are using the internet, that is a networking 'service', you are using the Apple GUI, that is a 'service'...
These are the same things, just different terms, and OSX is filled with them just as much as Vista or any other OS out there...
The fact is that NTFS is actually the same age development-wise as many better FS's available in *nix OS's. Considering NTFS was last updated in approximately 2002, your age argument rings false. FYI, NTFS is currently in version 3.x with another upgrade coming with Vista.
This statement alone proves you are talking out your ass. If your knowledge is based just on the data figures from Wiki then no wonder you have NO FREAKING clue what you are you even spouting...
Yes NTFS was updated over the years, but what where the updates? Oh, they added compression, and then they added encryption.
Oh and BTW the Vista NTFS version HAS NOT CHANGED, symoblic links were in NTFS since Win2K, Vista just added the native commands to use them...
Here you do some freaking research and stop trolling on crap you have no idea about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs
I am pretty sure NTFS does not support versioning
Um, you might want to look at Windows 2003 Server and Vista. Versioning does happen at the FS level and is completely NT subsystem agnostic.
In any case, I don't think you realize what FUSE is if you compare it to a filesystem
I actually do know what it was, that was not the question I asked or the reason I asked the question I did. There are several good reasons for FUSE technology, but I think there are also a lot of people that go goo-goo based on what it is, and many on't realize that some of what it is doing is already in OSes, hence the baited question.