There has been a lot of work in the latest years to modernize the Linux graphics stack
Exactly, but this is really late in the game, and should have been a priority 5 or more years ago. When people like me were screaming for people to look behind the curtain at MS, the response in the OSS world was M$ $ucks, we don't care, we don't need pretty crap, etc etc...
The GEM work in Linux is a 'start' but years behind Vista's WDDM technologies; WDDM and the Video architecture in Vista is a result of joint work of the Research, DirectX, and XBox 360 engineers at MS that goes back to the late 90s.
Even MS is catching up to itself, as the XBox 360's video subsystem is still doing things that Vista can't do, but Windows7 will be doing. These are part of the DirectX11 and WDDM 1.1 features - and will make development between the XBox 360 and the PC once again a virtual recompile if DirectX11 for Vista or Win7 is targeted.
Chipset Shared GPU RAM management from the GEM project is truly a drop in the bucket in comparison to Vista's ability to share dedicated VRAM across GPU MFRs and GPU pre-emptive multi-tasking. Even SLI and Crossfire are old, and if ATI or NVidia targeted Vista ONLY, they could use multi-GPU/multi-core technology inherently at the OS level without a dual rendering system like SLI and Crossfire provide.
This is some really big and low level technology support that Vista is already designed to do and MS will only improve it.
OS X and Linux is getting left behind, with Apple focusing on OpenCL and also shoving processing through CPU/SSE and leaving the 3D GPU as a glorified texture/surface composer still rendering display postscript level APIs. Apple has some good ideas, but they don't make it to the developers, look at Quartz technologies, what was promised, what was delivered and what has been abandoned. Their latest announcement is a version of Quartz that rides on OpenGL, that is a sad copy of WPF and the programming model around WPF in Vista.
OpenCL has some cool things, don't get me wrong, but if you work with, or even look up the specifications of OpenCL, they read like DirectX10 and its mathematical and physics processing, and is almost a full generation behind DirectX11's extension of these technologies that have been running on the XBox 360 since 2005.
And with GEM and OpenCL, if it wasn't for a helping hand from Intel, neither would ever exist.
On the other hand, MS is defining the GPU designs and GPU market, not following what is provided to them like Linux and OS X do. Start from the unified shader technologies that MS introduced (again in the 360) to even hardware level rendering consistency that DirectX10 and DirectX11 requires from ATI and NVidia.
And like I said above, if NVidia or ATI makes a Vista ONLY GPU/Video card, it will do things the other OSes can't use for a long long time. (Just like the dual integrated/dedicated NVidia GPUs that OS X is using, and have had to create a band-aid solution just to switch the GPU contexts - where Vista the technology to flip between the GPUs on the fly was designed into the WDDM years ago. (XP can't even use these features like Vista can.)
take a look at the amount of development and improvements in performance and reliability
Instead of looking at the duct tape Apple has been slapping on for 8 years, why don't we look at the architectural changes instead.
When you do, you will see my point explain itself.
Show me where Apple redesigned the audio system, driver mechanism, memory manager, introduced a new scheduler, replaced the network stack with newer technology, attached a new video driver model.
Heck even show me where Apple built a true '64bit' version of OS X, instead of a 32bit kernel architecture that allows applications to flag for 64bit memory addressing? (Ask Adobe how the 64bit migration path they were promised is working out for them, since the only 64bit versions of their commercial software only runs on Vista x64 - a real 64bit OS.
Polishing the OS X 'apple' is what MS calls SPs, and Apple calls new OSes and changes $99 for...
And if you really want to get into this, we can start with Darwin, Apple's driver model, and work our way up to the STILL USED display postscript of the GUI that technically lags behind GDI+ of XP.
I love how people look at the stability updates and 'refining' of OS X as progress, and the new version of iTunes or a couple of features in the Dock as OS progress, while Apple is racing to keep the duct tape on the architecture while trying to strap on some new features.
Have you actually played with Snow Leopard - the first semi-64bit attempt of OS X? Seamless integration is not a word that comes to mind. It is more duct tape and some really scary failures in usability based on how Apple is trying to frankenstein the OS together. When a legacy 32bit applet requires the control panel application to restart in 32bit mode, there is a serious architectural design flaw in the OS itself.
Being someone that actually worked with Darwin code and spent time with the Apple driver model (that had potential) and has seen Apple stop any real OS advancements and instead keep running around and putting duct tape on the 'aged' BSD/MACH concepts, I am embarrassed for Apple...
If they didn't have brilliant marketing and users that don't give a crap about future features, they would already be choking. For example look at the NVidia dual-GPUs they released earlier this year. OS X is not architecturally capable of on the fly switching video devices/modes, and requires the user to log out so OS X can reboot the GUI. If the OS X architecture was just a bit more advanced, it wouldn't force users to do this, nor would it have to keep dual drivers active for the GUI switch. In contrast, on Vista, it is automatic and seamless to the user because the Vista video architecture is designed with newer concepts like this in mind - yes something MS did right.
Like I have said before, there is a reason the creator of MACH works for MS, even he knew the MACH limitations and like other OS engineers is dumbfounded that Apple is still trying to put band-aids on a very old design to try to make it functional on today's advancing hardware. His interview about MACH on the iPhone is borderline sad.
Just the work alone that Apple has put into reducing the multi-processing traps of the BSD/MACH interface and trying to layer off the kernel in an additional hybrid abstraction just to avoid message queue congestion is sad in and of itself. It is also why OS X at its core will never be as fast as Linux or NT.
I truly get tired of the fanboi's view of OSes... Vista is wonderful, OS X is wonderful, Linux is wonderful... Gag...
Why can't the OSes just be what they are 'human-made' and get rid of the blind religious crap.
So what if Apple sometimes sucks at things, deal with it and move on. It doesn't mean you have to give up OS X and move to Linux or Vista. It also doesn't mean you have to love Linux or Vista. But it should give you the freedom to not be scared and actually look at your OS without the rose colored glasses - and when you do this, you gain power, as you are t
That sounds like what gets changed every 3-6 months in a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora
Really? And they are fixing the hard coded locking mechanism when again? They are abandoning the frame buffer video when?
At this point, the Linux releases are more duct tape than 'change', and I am a fan of Linux.
MS rips apart a complex OS that spans many layers, not just a kernel, and rebuilds it, and the Linux community stands around and goes, oh, they made the buttons prettier. WTF?
And the OS X community goes, MS's buttons aren't as pretty as ours. WTF?
Let Apple rip OS X apart and put in a new video driver model (Hell even good Graphical APIs that actually work beyond the 1999 Display Postscript crap.)
Let Linux actually go back and 'fix' many of the things even Linus knows needs to be updated or changed, but would break too many things or is so nested throughout the spaghetti code, it would take a lot of work just to get it fixed and back to a stability state it now enjoys. (The scheduler and hard lock issues alone speak volumes for this.)
MS creates a new scheduler - removes locks layer by layer, adds in a new memory management system, recreates the driver kernel relationsihp and implements new Video and Audio technologies, and keeps the 'client subsystems' running as normal and happy. And people still make fun of them?
Wow, talk about religious computing... I know we are supposed to hate MS, but when they do things right and leapfrog the OSS OS world, people should stop looking at the Glass and buttons and going 'pretty' and instead be looking at the advances that can cripple other OSes.
Vista right now can do pre-emptive GPU operations with an OS level GPU scheduler, GPU virtualization and GPU RAM Virtualization. THESE ARE NOT TINY THINGS.
Vista also has an intelligent memory management system that extends from memory priority flags to a OS level tracking system that it can gather data from to make things like Superfetch pay off in terms of knowing what to cache and even what time of the day to cache it.
These are not 'baby' concepts and gives Windows 7 an architectural framework to bury other OS technologies, and yet here we are again, going oh, the 'buttons are pretty' and not giving a crap what is under the hood that makes Linux looks old with spaghetti code and OS X even older with a basic 32bit kernel structure that has changed VERY LITTLE since 10.0.
I don't care if you hate MS and hate Windows7, but pull your heads out of the sand, go read some of the technical papers (low level kernel architecture even) and stop riding on the coattails of expecting MS to continuing to screw up. They are starting to get some 'advanced' OS theory stuff right and implemented right.
Ironically MS is being played as the 'technical' underdog by the OSS community itself, while MS is shoving technical advances that make key foundations of Linux and even *nix itself obsolete.
Stop watching the pretty buttons, and pay attention to what MS is actually doing for once... (They hire really smart people, with backgrounds in OSS and *nix, hell the creator of MACH works for Microsoft - Do you really think the MS Engineers are stupid or don't get it?)
I don't see why this is surprising. This is just Windows Vista service pack 3 after all. Naturally the beta is going to be more stable than the initial Vista beta.
Although you are right that part of Windows7 success is the fact it is building on Vista technology with mature drivers that Vista RTM didn't have, it is a little silly to call it SP3.
Building on the previous architectural shift is not going to be as dramatic, but there are enough 'technical' changes and 'technical' features in the OS to make it far more than a SP.
There is still more difference between Windows7 and Vista than there is between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5 - yet I don't see people running around here calling OS X 10.x releases service packs.
Windows 7 has new CPU scheduling, a revised WDDM, a revised DWM, I/O and kernel level locks removed, a new event based Service model (reducing RAM footprint), new low latency push/pull sound processing, and then starts adding end user features and upper level OS integration of features.
This is like the Apple 300 list for leopard, Windows 7 has already about 3000 features over Vista, and this isn't even counting famous things in Apple's 300 features like 'New Airport Menu'...
Excuse me for being cynical but I will take this review with a pinch of salt as other reports show that, at least benchmark wise, there is absolutely no difference between Vista and Windows 7.
This isn't being cynical, it is sticking your head in the sand and being stupid.
The sites saying Win7 is good are the same sites, as you mention, that blasted Vista on performance when it was released. When Video drivers on Vista caught up to XP and surpassed them, the sites also reported this as well.
Both are true...
The biggest bitches about Vista have been performance and gaming performance and the breaking of drivers. Vista stability has always been better than XP, and Vista security is significantly ahead of XP as well. (Heck just look at MS's own security releases, Vista required far fewer than XP, and both of them had a factor of 20x less than Leopard. Firefox had more security updates than the entire Vista OS.)
When performance of drivers matured (ATI and NVidia started from scratch because of the WDDM) and people got use to 1GB of RAM as baseline, Vista does exactly what was promised.
Windows7 has features that give it a lighter footprint, less locks, and better scheduling - so it isn't going backwards compared to Vista, and of course it is going to look good with the maturity of the Vista drivers it is using that Vista RTM didn't get the luxury of having.
So even knowing this, you find the reviews misleading because you want Windows7 to suck or are justing sticking your head in the sand and still hoping it will suck?
If MS Updates were as dangerous as Apple updates, then they would need to ask for user permission before bricking their machine.
Instead MS seamlessly updates their OS on an infinite combination of hardware configurations and infinite amount of software configurations, and never has anyone needed an 'external monitor and keyboard' to unbrick their computer.
So you are saying the Apple making user's responsible for harm the Apple updates do to their system is a feature or a good thing? (Put the kool-aid cup down - NOW...)
to switch to Direct3D rather than to rewrite the application using.NET and WPF
You don't have to rewrite to access WPF or.NET. There are tons of easy ways to tap the features of WPF from a classic GDI or WinForms project, with less work than recreating a blit operation in DirectX like you are doing.
I'd love to scrap the Direct3D code I have to use now on Vista in order to get decent blitting performance.
Why are you even hitting into DirectX, you should be shoving it through.NET 3.5 and WPF, as this is even accelerated on XP via 3D acceleration.
The whole WPF API set is there specifically so you don't have to drop to DirectX unless you are trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of a high end game. You should even be able to obtain a Windows 'texture/image' and use it as a brush via WPF, getting the performance you might be needing that GDI just can't do.
If I am reading your post correctly, you might want to consider tapping into the DWM API as well. From there you can request and process 'thumbnails' of running application windows. And they can be any size from tiny to original to even enlarged version of the source Window Bitmap, and they are also fully live previews, so when you tap the DWM 'thumbnail' of another application you can get as well as directly render the Window to your own form/window at the DWM level. (3rd party applications like the expose' clone use this to scatter the Windows like on OS X with the contents still being live and responding as if they were the original application Window.
There are a few aspects of WDDM that are not API accessible at least in Vista, and hopefully this changes with Windows7 and its WDDM API updates to expose the DWM and in between operations. WPF also has some abilities in this area, but it is still young.
Since you are using MS Office documents, best place to start is Microsoft as you aren't the first person to have a request like this... Search their site.
Other things I know to look at other than what has been suggested are:
-Office Live (Cloud Stuff, but does tracking)
-Sharepoint (You can internally host it on an Intranet and make it available via Internet and it also provides checking in and out of documents and tracking and can be extended to do extra things you might need, but it is a quick out of the box solution that is free if you have a Windows Server.
-Do you own ASP.NET/PHP based web site to host the documents and do your own tracking, not as simple as the Sharepoint solution, but can be as effective and as easy.
For the last two if accessibility to the documents is an issue, you can use WebDAV or other mediums that give you OS level folder integration, so the users don't even have to access or see the documents via a browser.
GDI graphics are not hardware accelerated on windows vista (WDDM 1.0), you can read this everywhere on the internet
As I responded above, this is a misconception... Yes the GDI is no longer 2D GPU assisted, but that doesn't mean that NONE of the GDI/GDI+ functions are shoved through the 3D GPU.
Look up font rendering, DIB/Bitmap functions, GDI+ calls that do anti-aliasing all the way to layered and transparent Windows that are all processed using the 3D side of the GPU.
However you are also correct that WDDM 1.1 revisits the GDI/GDI+ functions and add more to the mix that will be 3D GPU assisted, but again not EVERYTHING will get an equivalent replacement as there are times it is just faster to process the GDI function on the CPU.
So WDDM 1.0 is 'some' and WDDM 1.1. is 'more' GDI 3D acceleration.
BTW If I just threw up my hands and said, yes you are 100% correct, you are still proving the point I was making that Apple is light years BEHIND Windows in this regard and has no plans to bring acceleration to legacy GUI drawing function on OS X.
In Vista, the DWM prevents GDI commands from being accelerated, which represents a regression relative to XP. The compositing does mean that moving windows can be smoother, but when the contents of the window change, Vista is liable to be slower (in addition to using twice as much memory for that window due to a pixel format mismatch between DirectX and GDI). Thus, legacy applications are not likely to be able to draw any faster on Vista than on XP.
I know there have been discussions on this before, but it isn't a complete either or...
Some GDI functions are not shoved through the 3D GPU nor the 2D side of the GPU (assuming there is one), and yes you are correct that these are CPU processed.
However, there are a lot of GDI functions that are shoved through the 3D GPU more than compensating for any CPU rendered GDI functions.
For example we could go through a list, and there are some line drawing, bitmap/DIB drawing, and scattered GDI and especially GDI+ functions that are rendered on the 3D GPU. (Font rendering is 3D assisted as well, no matter if WPF or GDI calls the functions.)
Also when you get into GDI+ level functions like transparency/layered windows, these are very much shoved through the 3D GPU for rendering.
And again, these are actually GDI routines being hosted/processed by the 3D GPU, not just the end result of the 3D Composer as you suggest I am conflating.
Why, every time Vista puts up a UAC requests, does the whole screen go black for a couple of seconds, as if the screen mode has been changed?
Yes it is a security thing.
Some Video drivers - especially older ones, do the blank and screen switch less elegantly than others.
Since SP1 it is something you can turn off, you will still get the UAC, but it doesn't block the screen or switch to a new desktop context for the UAC prompt.
(It is a little less security, but worth the trade off for some people, especially with crazy video drivers that flash their eyeballs on an analog monitor.)
The setting is in the group policies under - Control Panel\Administrative Tools
The independent desktop for UAC is true, and it would require a driver to interact with it. (And yes a big red driver prompt, warning, etc)
Also the UAC 'desktop' runs at TrustedInstaller or System level security, so it takes a system level driver to respond to it. (It is not impossible, but it would be pretty hard for a driver exploit to get past this, as the driver would have no way to 'see' what was on the screen to know where to click, etc.)
A side note, Vista supports multiple desktops (and even varied security) launched in a single user login, even though there is no UI for this feature (One can be downloaded from Sysinternals).
I'm not sure how useful this is, but as the Sysinternal's utility allows, it creates 'virtualized' desktop without the virtualizing, as the desktops are independent full desktop contexts.
So each desktop can run a separate version of Explorer, etc - within the same user login. (The term 'desktop' here is used loosely as it pertains to GUI process context in Windows.)
This is not a revolutionary feature, just something kind of interesting, as it is separate desktop contexts within a user login within a multiple user environment.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your assertion, but hasn't MacOS X had universal GPU RAM management for many years? I don't think MS has any monopoly on this... it was my impression that it was just Linux that was on Microsoft's heels playing catch-up.
Yes you are misunderstanding, and NO the Mac has not...
OS X uses the 3D GPU as a bitmap composer for the display, and that is it.
OS X's composer is years behind most Linux desktop composers as well as Vista's DWM/Aero. Vista's DWM for example is Vector/Bitmap based, and works with the WDDM of Vista that gives it a lot of power. (WDDM is the new driver model in Vista)
Here are some of the things Apple needs to add to catch up to even Vista.
- GPU RAM Virtualization/sharing (something kind of like what they are trying do with the Intel chipsets and Linux in this article - except Vista does this over the AGP/PCI bus with any Video card and works with or without dedicated GPU VRAM.
- GPU Scheduler - In Vista, the OS, not the applications controls the GPU, and Vista brings pre-emptive multi-tasking to the GPU. (And no this is not like OpenGL applicaiton yielding/cooperative multitasking, as DirectX also does what OpenGL does. This is an OS level management system that opens up a new way of thinking beyond one 3D application on screen at a time concepts that don't depend on applications yielding the GPU. Kind of like the move to the 32bit era where the Intel CPUs offered a pre-emptive scheduler.
(Example: several games on screen at once in Vista, set transparent with a HD video waterfall playing in the background and losing very few FPS in each game and Aero also using the 3D GPU to do its things, like compose the Game Windows with a transparent waterfall behind them and do a shared texture combine write to the video card.) - This is not something you want to try on a Geforce 5200, but it will work, and on newer video cards, even the 7900 series from Geforce, you can do some really amazing things when running multiple games 'viewable' on the screen at once.
- Legacy application 3D acceleration. Apple tried to get this going with 10.4 as an optional switch, but it was too buggy and scrapped as a feature for 10.5. This means that OS X still renders content using good old fashion legacy 2D GPU features or SSE Intel extensions. On Vista, even Windows 3.1 applications get a performance boost as GDI drawing, Font Rendering, and even internal bitmap APIs are shoved through the 3D GPU because it is significantly faster than older 2D GPU rendering methods.
- Vector composer. On Vista when it is running newer WPF applications, instead of the DWM getting a bitmap that is composed to the final render of the screen, the WPF applications tell the DWM/Aero what changes are made, usually vector based (XAML), and the Vista composer makes the changes at the composer level instead of the application having to redraw the application and send a new bitmap of the Window to the composer to assemble. (This is also why RDP (Remote Desktop) on Vista is faster and more featured than XP, as it works at the DWM level and a lot of the operations sent over the network to render the screen are vector based and lightweight, leaving the client to do the heavy rendering instead of passing bitmaps all the time. This is why you can do Aero Glass and WPF 3D over a slow RDP connection remotely.
---- Ok, I am going to stop here, as I am writing this off the top of my head and it would better if you would just visit technet at www.microsoft.com and lookup the Vista WDDM and DWM and WPF technologies.
The whole driver and video changes in Vista were dramatic and borrowed ideas from the XBox 360 development team and do some really impressive things, even though MS didn't put much into the 'cute' uses of it in the UI like they are doing with Windows7.
---
Linux/*nix also has some good composer technologies that make OS X's composer pretty sad in comparison.
With Linux there are still some major driver and kernel level hurdles
Not quite Vista's WDDM abilities in dealing with GPU RAM, but a nice start that people other than MS are actually taking GPU RAM allocation seriously beyond simple context swtiching.
One thing is clear, this guy lives in a bubble if he thinks this is the definition of 'high end' gaming.
If you take the average gamer's high end, there is nothing that with $200 worth of GPU hardware and 2-4GB of RAM and a cheap multi-core CPU that can't be rendered at 60fps.(Yes even Crysis)
Even in my 'bubble' high end gamers are playing their PC and console games on front project 1080p DLP units in their theater room with a 12' high wall/screen.
1920x1080 even with 8x AA or FSAA is not hard to do with the biggest games out there.
If HD moves beyond 1920x1080p (or 1920x1200), then we might need the hardware this fool is talking about, but until then it is all about the displays. PERIOD.
Gamers are moving into big screens and the HD televisions are the target resolutions unless they are going to drop $15,000 for a TV that is beyond 1080p.
So the question here isn't about PC Gaming hardware, but the displays they are used on, and until displays shove past 1080p, anything past Dual SLI GPU systems are insane and unnecessary.
Sure the economy doesn't help, but right now in the computing world, getting to 60fps at 1080p is something even budgeted people can get to if they save for the $100-200 last year video card. There are even 8800 cards (non-GS) for around $80, and they can shove some serious pixels.
This reminds me of gaming in previous generations. 320x240, 1024x768, and now HD displays 1920x1200 or (1920x1080p) are the target and the lock point for gamers. And these gaming 'goals' were/are ALL based on display technology and became overkill based on the display limitations.
Yes there are gamers that multi-screen, but even a large chunk of them would rather use the 50" TV and give up a few pixels. Heck even 720p is a limiting factor for some gamers, especially when you can buy a 720p DLP front projector for under $700 and have a 12'(diag) screen gaming experience in the living room.
I think this is a good move for iPhone users and Citrix...
However do people realize you can already do this on a Windows Mobile(PocketPC) phone?
Not only are there are ton of applications for Windows Mobile, but you can use the RDP features available since before 2004 to remote into your desktop computer or a server and run applications or access your entire desktop - on a 3G, 4G, or even a 2G connection.
I hope this doesn't turn into another 'innovation' iPhone brought to users after people were using it for 4 years.
PS There are a couple of real GPS applications now available for the iPhone, so it now catches up free/cheap phones that have had these features with Verizon and Alltel for over 4 years as well. - And NO Google Maps is not a GPS application on the iPhone.
Way to go Apple and iPhone, two 4 year old technologies being added to your Phone that everyone else has been using for years.
I truly am starting to feel sorry for iPhone fans getting the Apple marketing hook...
we choose to save anything outside of our home directory.
Or you use external drives or have a home network with other systems holding documents, or are in a business environment where you have vast network shares of documents dating back decades.
I have a couple external 500gb drives and a lot of network shares locally and remotely, and searching a few million documents in a couple of seconds is quite nice, especially when the servers or peer clients do the heavy lifting and you are just querying their search database...
Just my personal external drive has close to 750,000 documents indexed, with emails and documents going back to the 80s.
Needless to say on my OS X machine, when you get Spotlight into +200,000 documents, the results are neither instant nor is the performance of moving or changing indexed items very impressive. I can't even imagine doing a few million documents on OS X...
Because it causes the users to lose whatever they've been working on for the last twenty minutes and haven't saved yet. (Technically the "rebooting in N seconds" warning *should* give them time to save their work, but some of the users where I work don't know how to save partway through a task, find it again, and finish later. The line-of-business software that we use doesn't make this any easier either.)
Have you ever used Windows? It says a reboot is required and then disappears to the taskbar, quietly on Vista, not as quiet on XP. But it doesn't force people to reboot at that moment.
Also if you active unsaved documents open, the OS won't force the applications to close, this has been true since even the Win98 days.
It even lets users apply the updates on restart or log off if you look at the Shutdown options, there is a shield to apply the updates after the user is done using the system. (Both XP and Vista)
The computers are turned off when they're not being used, especially at night, so that wouldn't work.
Ok, home users, if the computer is shut off at night, then when they start up, they will see the updates, and can apply them before they start doing anything.(If you a power home user, schedule the machine to wake up and check for them.)
If this is a business environment, then using the scheduler, the machines should be waking up to check for updates and shutting back down after applying them. (This is all automated easy stuff with both XP and Vista, all it takes is an ACPI enabled system, which is virtually all machines still in use, short of a few APM 1998 systems still running around.)
The MS update methods are NOT perfect, but considering the scale of users that MS tries to please, they do a pretty good job of doing the right thing for 99% of the people out there.
And if the updates don't work like you want, modify how they work, there are settings, local policies, and even scripts or other tools you can use, just like if you were using a good Linux distribution.
I think that people sometimes forget how automated Windows can be and via several types of scripting, scripting languages inherent in the OS, you can do what you normally do on your *nix box and usually even more because of the cohesive integration of scripting with the GUI as well as the NT kernel level objects that don't even exist in most *nixes.
Script nerds should love Windows, especially if you throw in Powershell or utilize any.NET scripting language. Heck even install the freaking BSD subsystem and script from there...
As for updates, it always could be worse, talk to some of the 10.5.6 OS X users, and this was again a fairly major update flaw provided by Apple; and if MS let an update out like that, people would have pitchforks out and headed to Redmond.
I probably have the only up-to-date computer on site. I also have admin access on my network account,
Then on this scale if you have this much workload, just set a Policy and turn on Automatic Updates on the Clients. This even a policy you can flip on and off centrally.
Your environment is one of the best arguments for using Windows in a business environment. MS knows and provides tools for business and automation better than anyone at this point in history.
Even with 1000s of clients, keeping your systems and software updated is something that should even one IT person should be able to handle a hour or two a week at the most. On smaller scale environments like yours, you should be spending less than a 1/2hr a week on updates.
Maybe you should spend a bit of time learning about Windows and what Windows Server can be DOING FOR YOU, it sounds like you have a lot of power at your fingertips that you don't realize if you took a few minutes to learn how to use it.
We are not even talking about hours of learning or a course, just spend 1hr and learn how to use active directory and schedule updates and effective policies. A few hours invested will save your time considerably.
In today's level of scripting and automation, updates are nothing, especially in a Windows environment where you can just tell the server to send them out and not even need a person with root/admin level access at each client to apply anything.
If that's not true, why does it tell you to reboot after an update ?
Often even the core security updates from MS don't require an update, let alone an update to IE.
This patch specifically even states that if files are in use a reboot will be required, so if they are in use, a reboot notice is given, and if the OS can easily replace them because no active process is using them, it isn't.
This is just like if a 3rd party application is using the Firefox engine and the files are in use, it will need the system to be rebooted as well.
One thing you are getting confused over here is that on Vista especially, IE and IE DLLs are NOT used by Explorer, unlike Win2K, where folders were even sometimes rendered using the IE HTML engine.
You act like this is Win98 and the year 1999...
And no I am not going to create a 'video' for you, VM a freaking copy of Vista or XP from a torrent and try it yourself. You would be freaking amazed at the number of updates that don't require a reboot, especially on Vista.
PS... On a side note, why is a 20sec reboot really this horrible? Explain this, especially if the updates are applied at night while the computer is not being used or at via an Administrators scheduled update?
Yeah, cause Active Directory scales great over the internet, and EVERYONE has a 100Mb connection or better at their place of business.
Please explain, WTF this has to do with the OP, other than you expressing a hard on for Active Directory?
If you think updates across sites must have Active Directory running over the WAN is required, you don't know crap about Active Directory.
Side Note: If you are having trouble using Active Directory on even a 56K Frame Relay, your network design is really messed up. Handing out a security credential token and policy is a few freaking KB.
Talk about failing real life experience... Holy Fek...
Firefox updates upon the point of relaunch. There is no need to restart windows. Also it remembers the context of every session in every tab, so you can continue where you left off.
And why would you assume a Windows restart is needed for an IE update?
IE7 & IE8 can also save the tab and session state. IE8 can even have a flash control lockup a page, and kill just that tab without restarting the entire browser.
Why do people assume IE or Windows are more stupid than other applications, do you really think MS hires stupid people with all the money they have?
I don't get the ignorance around the update concepts MS uses and why in the end businesses prefer MS products for their focus on working in an IT environment easily. For the majority of the business world, it is far better to have Automatic updates and a CENTRALIZED administrated update process.
In contrast, if you have 1000 machines, you have to remote/run around to each of them and update Firefox or give users ADMIN level permissions to do so. In contrast IE, is something you can test and let the update propagate to all 1000 computers at your command or during the middle of the night.
And people wonder why OSS software keeps failing to make inroads into key markets...
Slashdot Mirror
Your answer:
There has been a lot of work in the latest years to modernize the Linux graphics stack
Exactly, but this is really late in the game, and should have been a priority 5 or more years ago. When people like me were screaming for people to look behind the curtain at MS, the response in the OSS world was M$ $ucks, we don't care, we don't need pretty crap, etc etc...
The GEM work in Linux is a 'start' but years behind Vista's WDDM technologies; WDDM and the Video architecture in Vista is a result of joint work of the Research, DirectX, and XBox 360 engineers at MS that goes back to the late 90s.
Even MS is catching up to itself, as the XBox 360's video subsystem is still doing things that Vista can't do, but Windows7 will be doing. These are part of the DirectX11 and WDDM 1.1 features - and will make development between the XBox 360 and the PC once again a virtual recompile if DirectX11 for Vista or Win7 is targeted.
Chipset Shared GPU RAM management from the GEM project is truly a drop in the bucket in comparison to Vista's ability to share dedicated VRAM across GPU MFRs and GPU pre-emptive multi-tasking. Even SLI and Crossfire are old, and if ATI or NVidia targeted Vista ONLY, they could use multi-GPU/multi-core technology inherently at the OS level without a dual rendering system like SLI and Crossfire provide.
This is some really big and low level technology support that Vista is already designed to do and MS will only improve it.
OS X and Linux is getting left behind, with Apple focusing on OpenCL and also shoving processing through CPU/SSE and leaving the 3D GPU as a glorified texture/surface composer still rendering display postscript level APIs. Apple has some good ideas, but they don't make it to the developers, look at Quartz technologies, what was promised, what was delivered and what has been abandoned. Their latest announcement is a version of Quartz that rides on OpenGL, that is a sad copy of WPF and the programming model around WPF in Vista.
OpenCL has some cool things, don't get me wrong, but if you work with, or even look up the specifications of OpenCL, they read like DirectX10 and its mathematical and physics processing, and is almost a full generation behind DirectX11's extension of these technologies that have been running on the XBox 360 since 2005.
And with GEM and OpenCL, if it wasn't for a helping hand from Intel, neither would ever exist.
On the other hand, MS is defining the GPU designs and GPU market, not following what is provided to them like Linux and OS X do. Start from the unified shader technologies that MS introduced (again in the 360) to even hardware level rendering consistency that DirectX10 and DirectX11 requires from ATI and NVidia.
And like I said above, if NVidia or ATI makes a Vista ONLY GPU/Video card, it will do things the other OSes can't use for a long long time. (Just like the dual integrated/dedicated NVidia GPUs that OS X is using, and have had to create a band-aid solution just to switch the GPU contexts - where Vista the technology to flip between the GPUs on the fly was designed into the WDDM years ago. (XP can't even use these features like Vista can.)
take a look at the amount of development and improvements in performance and reliability
Instead of looking at the duct tape Apple has been slapping on for 8 years, why don't we look at the architectural changes instead.
When you do, you will see my point explain itself.
Show me where Apple redesigned the audio system, driver mechanism, memory manager, introduced a new scheduler, replaced the network stack with newer technology, attached a new video driver model.
Heck even show me where Apple built a true '64bit' version of OS X, instead of a 32bit kernel architecture that allows applications to flag for 64bit memory addressing? (Ask Adobe how the 64bit migration path they were promised is working out for them, since the only 64bit versions of their commercial software only runs on Vista x64 - a real 64bit OS.
Polishing the OS X 'apple' is what MS calls SPs, and Apple calls new OSes and changes $99 for...
And if you really want to get into this, we can start with Darwin, Apple's driver model, and work our way up to the STILL USED display postscript of the GUI that technically lags behind GDI+ of XP.
I love how people look at the stability updates and 'refining' of OS X as progress, and the new version of iTunes or a couple of features in the Dock as OS progress, while Apple is racing to keep the duct tape on the architecture while trying to strap on some new features.
Have you actually played with Snow Leopard - the first semi-64bit attempt of OS X? Seamless integration is not a word that comes to mind. It is more duct tape and some really scary failures in usability based on how Apple is trying to frankenstein the OS together. When a legacy 32bit applet requires the control panel application to restart in 32bit mode, there is a serious architectural design flaw in the OS itself.
Being someone that actually worked with Darwin code and spent time with the Apple driver model (that had potential) and has seen Apple stop any real OS advancements and instead keep running around and putting duct tape on the 'aged' BSD/MACH concepts, I am embarrassed for Apple...
If they didn't have brilliant marketing and users that don't give a crap about future features, they would already be choking. For example look at the NVidia dual-GPUs they released earlier this year. OS X is not architecturally capable of on the fly switching video devices/modes, and requires the user to log out so OS X can reboot the GUI. If the OS X architecture was just a bit more advanced, it wouldn't force users to do this, nor would it have to keep dual drivers active for the GUI switch. In contrast, on Vista, it is automatic and seamless to the user because the Vista video architecture is designed with newer concepts like this in mind - yes something MS did right.
Like I have said before, there is a reason the creator of MACH works for MS, even he knew the MACH limitations and like other OS engineers is dumbfounded that Apple is still trying to put band-aids on a very old design to try to make it functional on today's advancing hardware. His interview about MACH on the iPhone is borderline sad.
Just the work alone that Apple has put into reducing the multi-processing traps of the BSD/MACH interface and trying to layer off the kernel in an additional hybrid abstraction just to avoid message queue congestion is sad in and of itself. It is also why OS X at its core will never be as fast as Linux or NT.
I truly get tired of the fanboi's view of OSes... Vista is wonderful, OS X is wonderful, Linux is wonderful... Gag...
Why can't the OSes just be what they are 'human-made' and get rid of the blind religious crap.
So what if Apple sometimes sucks at things, deal with it and move on. It doesn't mean you have to give up OS X and move to Linux or Vista. It also doesn't mean you have to love Linux or Vista. But it should give you the freedom to not be scared and actually look at your OS without the rose colored glasses - and when you do this, you gain power, as you are t
That sounds like what gets changed every 3-6 months in a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora
Really? And they are fixing the hard coded locking mechanism when again? They are abandoning the frame buffer video when?
At this point, the Linux releases are more duct tape than 'change', and I am a fan of Linux.
MS rips apart a complex OS that spans many layers, not just a kernel, and rebuilds it, and the Linux community stands around and goes, oh, they made the buttons prettier. WTF?
And the OS X community goes, MS's buttons aren't as pretty as ours. WTF?
Let Apple rip OS X apart and put in a new video driver model (Hell even good Graphical APIs that actually work beyond the 1999 Display Postscript crap.)
Let Linux actually go back and 'fix' many of the things even Linus knows needs to be updated or changed, but would break too many things or is so nested throughout the spaghetti code, it would take a lot of work just to get it fixed and back to a stability state it now enjoys. (The scheduler and hard lock issues alone speak volumes for this.)
MS creates a new scheduler - removes locks layer by layer, adds in a new memory management system, recreates the driver kernel relationsihp and implements new Video and Audio technologies, and keeps the 'client subsystems' running as normal and happy. And people still make fun of them?
Wow, talk about religious computing... I know we are supposed to hate MS, but when they do things right and leapfrog the OSS OS world, people should stop looking at the Glass and buttons and going 'pretty' and instead be looking at the advances that can cripple other OSes.
Vista right now can do pre-emptive GPU operations with an OS level GPU scheduler, GPU virtualization and GPU RAM Virtualization. THESE ARE NOT TINY THINGS.
Vista also has an intelligent memory management system that extends from memory priority flags to a OS level tracking system that it can gather data from to make things like Superfetch pay off in terms of knowing what to cache and even what time of the day to cache it.
These are not 'baby' concepts and gives Windows 7 an architectural framework to bury other OS technologies, and yet here we are again, going oh, the 'buttons are pretty' and not giving a crap what is under the hood that makes Linux looks old with spaghetti code and OS X even older with a basic 32bit kernel structure that has changed VERY LITTLE since 10.0.
I don't care if you hate MS and hate Windows7, but pull your heads out of the sand, go read some of the technical papers (low level kernel architecture even) and stop riding on the coattails of expecting MS to continuing to screw up. They are starting to get some 'advanced' OS theory stuff right and implemented right.
Ironically MS is being played as the 'technical' underdog by the OSS community itself, while MS is shoving technical advances that make key foundations of Linux and even *nix itself obsolete.
Stop watching the pretty buttons, and pay attention to what MS is actually doing for once... (They hire really smart people, with backgrounds in OSS and *nix, hell the creator of MACH works for Microsoft - Do you really think the MS Engineers are stupid or don't get it?)
Vista SP2 is in beta, and is not Windows7.
I don't get paid by MS nor even give a crap about Windows or whether you buy it or not.
I was questioning the OP's dismissal of news sites for reporting something they didn't want to see or believe. PERIOD.
Move along...
I don't see why this is surprising. This is just Windows Vista service pack 3 after all. Naturally the beta is going to be more stable than the initial Vista beta.
Although you are right that part of Windows7 success is the fact it is building on Vista technology with mature drivers that Vista RTM didn't have, it is a little silly to call it SP3.
Building on the previous architectural shift is not going to be as dramatic, but there are enough 'technical' changes and 'technical' features in the OS to make it far more than a SP.
There is still more difference between Windows7 and Vista than there is between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5 - yet I don't see people running around here calling OS X 10.x releases service packs.
Windows 7 has new CPU scheduling, a revised WDDM, a revised DWM, I/O and kernel level locks removed, a new event based Service model (reducing RAM footprint), new low latency push/pull sound processing, and then starts adding end user features and upper level OS integration of features.
This is like the Apple 300 list for leopard, Windows 7 has already about 3000 features over Vista, and this isn't even counting famous things in Apple's 300 features like 'New Airport Menu'...
Excuse me for being cynical but I will take this review with a pinch of salt as other reports show that, at least benchmark wise, there is absolutely no difference between Vista and Windows 7.
This isn't being cynical, it is sticking your head in the sand and being stupid.
The sites saying Win7 is good are the same sites, as you mention, that blasted Vista on performance when it was released. When Video drivers on Vista caught up to XP and surpassed them, the sites also reported this as well.
Both are true...
The biggest bitches about Vista have been performance and gaming performance and the breaking of drivers. Vista stability has always been better than XP, and Vista security is significantly ahead of XP as well. (Heck just look at MS's own security releases, Vista required far fewer than XP, and both of them had a factor of 20x less than Leopard. Firefox had more security updates than the entire Vista OS.)
When performance of drivers matured (ATI and NVidia started from scratch because of the WDDM) and people got use to 1GB of RAM as baseline, Vista does exactly what was promised.
Windows7 has features that give it a lighter footprint, less locks, and better scheduling - so it isn't going backwards compared to Vista, and of course it is going to look good with the maturity of the Vista drivers it is using that Vista RTM didn't get the luxury of having.
So even knowing this, you find the reviews misleading because you want Windows7 to suck or are justing sticking your head in the sand and still hoping it will suck?
If MS Updates were as dangerous as Apple updates, then they would need to ask for user permission before bricking their machine.
Instead MS seamlessly updates their OS on an infinite combination of hardware configurations and infinite amount of software configurations, and never has anyone needed an 'external monitor and keyboard' to unbrick their computer.
So you are saying the Apple making user's responsible for harm the Apple updates do to their system is a feature or a good thing? (Put the kool-aid cup down - NOW...)
to switch to Direct3D rather than to rewrite the application using .NET and WPF
You don't have to rewrite to access WPF or .NET. There are tons of easy ways to tap the features of WPF from a classic GDI or WinForms project, with less work than recreating a blit operation in DirectX like you are doing.
Additionally, have you looked at Direct2D?
http://blogs.technet.com/thomasolsen/archive/2008/10/29/introducing-the-microsoft-direct2d-api.aspx
Good Luck...
I'd love to scrap the Direct3D code I have to use now on Vista in order to get decent blitting performance.
Why are you even hitting into DirectX, you should be shoving it through .NET 3.5 and WPF, as this is even accelerated on XP via 3D acceleration.
The whole WPF API set is there specifically so you don't have to drop to DirectX unless you are trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of a high end game. You should even be able to obtain a Windows 'texture/image' and use it as a brush via WPF, getting the performance you might be needing that GDI just can't do.
If I am reading your post correctly, you might want to consider tapping into the DWM API as well. From there you can request and process 'thumbnails' of running application windows. And they can be any size from tiny to original to even enlarged version of the source Window Bitmap, and they are also fully live previews, so when you tap the DWM 'thumbnail' of another application you can get as well as directly render the Window to your own form/window at the DWM level. (3rd party applications like the expose' clone use this to scatter the Windows like on OS X with the contents still being live and responding as if they were the original application Window.
There are a few aspects of WDDM that are not API accessible at least in Vista, and hopefully this changes with Windows7 and its WDDM API updates to expose the DWM and in between operations. WPF also has some abilities in this area, but it is still young.
Good luck...
Since you are using MS Office documents, best place to start is Microsoft as you aren't the first person to have a request like this... Search their site.
Other things I know to look at other than what has been suggested are:
-Office Live (Cloud Stuff, but does tracking)
-Sharepoint (You can internally host it on an Intranet and make it available via Internet and it also provides checking in and out of documents and tracking and can be extended to do extra things you might need, but it is a quick out of the box solution that is free if you have a Windows Server.
-Do you own ASP.NET/PHP based web site to host the documents and do your own tracking, not as simple as the Sharepoint solution, but can be as effective and as easy.
For the last two if accessibility to the documents is an issue, you can use WebDAV or other mediums that give you OS level folder integration, so the users don't even have to access or see the documents via a browser.
GDI graphics are not hardware accelerated on windows vista (WDDM 1.0), you can read this everywhere on the internet
As I responded above, this is a misconception... Yes the GDI is no longer 2D GPU assisted, but that doesn't mean that NONE of the GDI/GDI+ functions are shoved through the 3D GPU.
Look up font rendering, DIB/Bitmap functions, GDI+ calls that do anti-aliasing all the way to layered and transparent Windows that are all processed using the 3D side of the GPU.
However you are also correct that WDDM 1.1 revisits the GDI/GDI+ functions and add more to the mix that will be 3D GPU assisted, but again not EVERYTHING will get an equivalent replacement as there are times it is just faster to process the GDI function on the CPU.
So WDDM 1.0 is 'some' and WDDM 1.1. is 'more' GDI 3D acceleration.
BTW If I just threw up my hands and said, yes you are 100% correct, you are still proving the point I was making that Apple is light years BEHIND Windows in this regard and has no plans to bring acceleration to legacy GUI drawing function on OS X.
In Vista, the DWM prevents GDI commands from being accelerated, which represents a regression relative to XP. The compositing does mean that moving windows can be smoother, but when the contents of the window change, Vista is liable to be slower (in addition to using twice as much memory for that window due to a pixel format mismatch between DirectX and GDI). Thus, legacy applications are not likely to be able to draw any faster on Vista than on XP.
I know there have been discussions on this before, but it isn't a complete either or...
Some GDI functions are not shoved through the 3D GPU nor the 2D side of the GPU (assuming there is one), and yes you are correct that these are CPU processed.
However, there are a lot of GDI functions that are shoved through the 3D GPU more than compensating for any CPU rendered GDI functions.
For example we could go through a list, and there are some line drawing, bitmap/DIB drawing, and scattered GDI and especially GDI+ functions that are rendered on the 3D GPU. (Font rendering is 3D assisted as well, no matter if WPF or GDI calls the functions.)
Also when you get into GDI+ level functions like transparency/layered windows, these are very much shoved through the 3D GPU for rendering.
And again, these are actually GDI routines being hosted/processed by the 3D GPU, not just the end result of the 3D Composer as you suggest I am conflating.
Why, every time Vista puts up a UAC requests, does the whole screen go black for a couple of seconds, as if the screen mode has been changed?
Yes it is a security thing.
Some Video drivers - especially older ones, do the blank and screen switch less elegantly than others.
Since SP1 it is something you can turn off, you will still get the UAC, but it doesn't block the screen or switch to a new desktop context for the UAC prompt.
(It is a little less security, but worth the trade off for some people, especially with crazy video drivers that flash their eyeballs on an analog monitor.)
The setting is in the group policies under - Control Panel\Administrative Tools
The independent desktop for UAC is true, and it would require a driver to interact with it. (And yes a big red driver prompt, warning, etc)
Also the UAC 'desktop' runs at TrustedInstaller or System level security, so it takes a system level driver to respond to it. (It is not impossible, but it would be pretty hard for a driver exploit to get past this, as the driver would have no way to 'see' what was on the screen to know where to click, etc.)
A side note, Vista supports multiple desktops (and even varied security) launched in a single user login, even though there is no UI for this feature (One can be downloaded from Sysinternals).
I'm not sure how useful this is, but as the Sysinternal's utility allows, it creates 'virtualized' desktop without the virtualizing, as the desktops are independent full desktop contexts.
So each desktop can run a separate version of Explorer, etc - within the same user login.
(The term 'desktop' here is used loosely as it pertains to GUI process context in Windows.)
This is not a revolutionary feature, just something kind of interesting, as it is separate desktop contexts within a user login within a multiple user environment.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your assertion, but hasn't MacOS X had universal GPU RAM management for many years? I don't think MS has any monopoly on this... it was my impression that it was just Linux that was on Microsoft's heels playing catch-up.
Yes you are misunderstanding, and NO the Mac has not...
OS X uses the 3D GPU as a bitmap composer for the display, and that is it.
OS X's composer is years behind most Linux desktop composers as well as Vista's DWM/Aero. Vista's DWM for example is Vector/Bitmap based, and works with the WDDM of Vista that gives it a lot of power. (WDDM is the new driver model in Vista)
Here are some of the things Apple needs to add to catch up to even Vista.
- GPU RAM Virtualization/sharing (something kind of like what they are trying do with the Intel chipsets and Linux in this article - except Vista does this over the AGP/PCI bus with any Video card and works with or without dedicated GPU VRAM.
- GPU Scheduler - In Vista, the OS, not the applications controls the GPU, and Vista brings pre-emptive multi-tasking to the GPU. (And no this is not like OpenGL applicaiton yielding/cooperative multitasking, as DirectX also does what OpenGL does. This is an OS level management system that opens up a new way of thinking beyond one 3D application on screen at a time concepts that don't depend on applications yielding the GPU. Kind of like the move to the 32bit era where the Intel CPUs offered a pre-emptive scheduler.
(Example: several games on screen at once in Vista, set transparent with a HD video waterfall playing in the background and losing very few FPS in each game and Aero also using the 3D GPU to do its things, like compose the Game Windows with a transparent waterfall behind them and do a shared texture combine write to the video card.) - This is not something you want to try on a Geforce 5200, but it will work, and on newer video cards, even the 7900 series from Geforce, you can do some really amazing things when running multiple games 'viewable' on the screen at once.
- Legacy application 3D acceleration. Apple tried to get this going with 10.4 as an optional switch, but it was too buggy and scrapped as a feature for 10.5. This means that OS X still renders content using good old fashion legacy 2D GPU features or SSE Intel extensions. On Vista, even Windows 3.1 applications get a performance boost as GDI drawing, Font Rendering, and even internal bitmap APIs are shoved through the 3D GPU because it is significantly faster than older 2D GPU rendering methods.
- Vector composer. On Vista when it is running newer WPF applications, instead of the DWM getting a bitmap that is composed to the final render of the screen, the WPF applications tell the DWM/Aero what changes are made, usually vector based (XAML), and the Vista composer makes the changes at the composer level instead of the application having to redraw the application and send a new bitmap of the Window to the composer to assemble. (This is also why RDP (Remote Desktop) on Vista is faster and more featured than XP, as it works at the DWM level and a lot of the operations sent over the network to render the screen are vector based and lightweight, leaving the client to do the heavy rendering instead of passing bitmaps all the time. This is why you can do Aero Glass and WPF 3D over a slow RDP connection remotely.
----
Ok, I am going to stop here, as I am writing this off the top of my head and it would better if you would just visit technet at www.microsoft.com and lookup the Vista WDDM and DWM and WPF technologies.
The whole driver and video changes in Vista were dramatic and borrowed ideas from the XBox 360 development team and do some really impressive things, even though MS didn't put much into the 'cute' uses of it in the UI like they are doing with Windows7.
---
Linux/*nix also has some good composer technologies that make OS X's composer pretty sad in comparison.
With Linux there are still some major driver and kernel level hurdles
Not quite Vista's WDDM abilities in dealing with GPU RAM, but a nice start that people other than MS are actually taking GPU RAM allocation seriously beyond simple context swtiching.
One thing is clear, this guy lives in a bubble if he thinks this is the definition of 'high end' gaming.
If you take the average gamer's high end, there is nothing that with $200 worth of GPU hardware and 2-4GB of RAM and a cheap multi-core CPU that can't be rendered at 60fps.(Yes even Crysis)
Even in my 'bubble' high end gamers are playing their PC and console games on front project 1080p DLP units in their theater room with a 12' high wall/screen.
1920x1080 even with 8x AA or FSAA is not hard to do with the biggest games out there.
If HD moves beyond 1920x1080p (or 1920x1200), then we might need the hardware this fool is talking about, but until then it is all about the displays. PERIOD.
Gamers are moving into big screens and the HD televisions are the target resolutions unless they are going to drop $15,000 for a TV that is beyond 1080p.
So the question here isn't about PC Gaming hardware, but the displays they are used on, and until displays shove past 1080p, anything past Dual SLI GPU systems are insane and unnecessary.
Sure the economy doesn't help, but right now in the computing world, getting to 60fps at 1080p is something even budgeted people can get to if they save for the $100-200 last year video card. There are even 8800 cards (non-GS) for around $80, and they can shove some serious pixels.
This reminds me of gaming in previous generations. 320x240, 1024x768, and now HD displays 1920x1200 or (1920x1080p) are the target and the lock point for gamers. And these gaming 'goals' were/are ALL based on display technology and became overkill based on the display limitations.
Yes there are gamers that multi-screen, but even a large chunk of them would rather use the 50" TV and give up a few pixels. Heck even 720p is a limiting factor for some gamers, especially when you can buy a 720p DLP front projector for under $700 and have a 12'(diag) screen gaming experience in the living room.
I think this is a good move for iPhone users and Citrix...
However do people realize you can already do this on a Windows Mobile(PocketPC) phone?
Not only are there are ton of applications for Windows Mobile, but you can use the RDP features available since before 2004 to remote into your desktop computer or a server and run applications or access your entire desktop - on a 3G, 4G, or even a 2G connection.
I hope this doesn't turn into another 'innovation' iPhone brought to users after people were using it for 4 years.
PS There are a couple of real GPS applications now available for the iPhone, so it now catches up free/cheap phones that have had these features with Verizon and Alltel for over 4 years as well. - And NO Google Maps is not a GPS application on the iPhone.
Way to go Apple and iPhone, two 4 year old technologies being added to your Phone that everyone else has been using for years.
I truly am starting to feel sorry for iPhone fans getting the Apple marketing hook...
we choose to save anything outside of our home directory.
Or you use external drives or have a home network with other systems holding documents, or are in a business environment where you have vast network shares of documents dating back decades.
I have a couple external 500gb drives and a lot of network shares locally and remotely, and searching a few million documents in a couple of seconds is quite nice, especially when the servers or peer clients do the heavy lifting and you are just querying their search database...
Just my personal external drive has close to 750,000 documents indexed, with emails and documents going back to the 80s.
Needless to say on my OS X machine, when you get Spotlight into +200,000 documents, the results are neither instant nor is the performance of moving or changing indexed items very impressive. I can't even imagine doing a few million documents on OS X...
Because it causes the users to lose whatever they've been working on for the last twenty minutes and haven't saved yet. (Technically the "rebooting in N seconds" warning *should* give them time to save their work, but some of the users where I work don't know how to save partway through a task, find it again, and finish later. The line-of-business software that we use doesn't make this any easier either.)
Have you ever used Windows? It says a reboot is required and then disappears to the taskbar, quietly on Vista, not as quiet on XP. But it doesn't force people to reboot at that moment.
Also if you active unsaved documents open, the OS won't force the applications to close, this has been true since even the Win98 days.
It even lets users apply the updates on restart or log off if you look at the Shutdown options, there is a shield to apply the updates after the user is done using the system. (Both XP and Vista)
The computers are turned off when they're not being used, especially at night, so that wouldn't work.
Ok, home users, if the computer is shut off at night, then when they start up, they will see the updates, and can apply them before they start doing anything.(If you a power home user, schedule the machine to wake up and check for them.)
If this is a business environment, then using the scheduler, the machines should be waking up to check for updates and shutting back down after applying them. (This is all automated easy stuff with both XP and Vista, all it takes is an ACPI enabled system, which is virtually all machines still in use, short of a few APM 1998 systems still running around.)
The MS update methods are NOT perfect, but considering the scale of users that MS tries to please, they do a pretty good job of doing the right thing for 99% of the people out there.
And if the updates don't work like you want, modify how they work, there are settings, local policies, and even scripts or other tools you can use, just like if you were using a good Linux distribution.
I think that people sometimes forget how automated Windows can be and via several types of scripting, scripting languages inherent in the OS, you can do what you normally do on your *nix box and usually even more because of the cohesive integration of scripting with the GUI as well as the NT kernel level objects that don't even exist in most *nixes.
Script nerds should love Windows, especially if you throw in Powershell or utilize any .NET scripting language. Heck even install the freaking BSD subsystem and script from there...
As for updates, it always could be worse, talk to some of the 10.5.6 OS X users, and this was again a fairly major update flaw provided by Apple; and if MS let an update out like that, people would have pitchforks out and headed to Redmond.
I probably have the only up-to-date computer on site. I also have admin access on my network account,
Then on this scale if you have this much workload, just set a Policy and turn on Automatic Updates on the Clients. This even a policy you can flip on and off centrally.
Your environment is one of the best arguments for using Windows in a business environment. MS knows and provides tools for business and automation better than anyone at this point in history.
Even with 1000s of clients, keeping your systems and software updated is something that should even one IT person should be able to handle a hour or two a week at the most. On smaller scale environments like yours, you should be spending less than a 1/2hr a week on updates.
Maybe you should spend a bit of time learning about Windows and what Windows Server can be DOING FOR YOU, it sounds like you have a lot of power at your fingertips that you don't realize if you took a few minutes to learn how to use it.
We are not even talking about hours of learning or a course, just spend 1hr and learn how to use active directory and schedule updates and effective policies. A few hours invested will save your time considerably.
In today's level of scripting and automation, updates are nothing, especially in a Windows environment where you can just tell the server to send them out and not even need a person with root/admin level access at each client to apply anything.
If that's not true, why does it tell you to reboot after an update ?
Often even the core security updates from MS don't require an update, let alone an update to IE.
This patch specifically even states that if files are in use a reboot will be required, so if they are in use, a reboot notice is given, and if the OS can easily replace them because no active process is using them, it isn't.
This is just like if a 3rd party application is using the Firefox engine and the files are in use, it will need the system to be rebooted as well.
One thing you are getting confused over here is that on Vista especially, IE and IE DLLs are NOT used by Explorer, unlike Win2K, where folders were even sometimes rendered using the IE HTML engine.
You act like this is Win98 and the year 1999...
And no I am not going to create a 'video' for you, VM a freaking copy of Vista or XP from a torrent and try it yourself. You would be freaking amazed at the number of updates that don't require a reboot, especially on Vista.
PS...
On a side note, why is a 20sec reboot really this horrible? Explain this, especially if the updates are applied at night while the computer is not being used or at via an Administrators scheduled update?
Yeah, cause Active Directory scales great over the internet, and EVERYONE has a 100Mb connection or better at their place of business.
Please explain, WTF this has to do with the OP, other than you expressing a hard on for Active Directory?
If you think updates across sites must have Active Directory running over the WAN is required, you don't know crap about Active Directory.
Side Note: If you are having trouble using Active Directory on even a 56K Frame Relay, your network design is really messed up. Handing out a security credential token and policy is a few freaking KB.
Talk about failing real life experience... Holy Fek...
Firefox updates upon the point of relaunch. There is no need to restart windows. Also it remembers the context of every session in every tab, so you can continue where you left off.
And why would you assume a Windows restart is needed for an IE update?
IE7 & IE8 can also save the tab and session state. IE8 can even have a flash control lockup a page, and kill just that tab without restarting the entire browser.
Why do people assume IE or Windows are more stupid than other applications, do you really think MS hires stupid people with all the money they have?
I don't get the ignorance around the update concepts MS uses and why in the end businesses prefer MS products for their focus on working in an IT environment easily. For the majority of the business world, it is far better to have Automatic updates and a CENTRALIZED administrated update process.
In contrast, if you have 1000 machines, you have to remote/run around to each of them and update Firefox or give users ADMIN level permissions to do so. In contrast IE, is something you can test and let the update propagate to all 1000 computers at your command or during the middle of the night.
And people wonder why OSS software keeps failing to make inroads into key markets...
A black matte CD label sounds like something that would leave ink/toner/whatever on your rollers, not necessarily clean them.
Ya it might, that is a typo, should read *blank* not *black*...
Thanks for catching that.