OSNews

Vista will bring a lot of new technology to the Windows market. However, much of what Vista offers (after having many promised features removed) is already available or in development elsewhere. Many of the points raised on that blog post are being done to some degree by people today.

I am looking forward to Vista because the bar is being raised with its release. I don't necessarily care about the eye candy type of stuff. The overall approach is simply better. I'm just happy that with Vista I'll be able to do some of the things that I can already do with other systems.

And, I'm glad that some new things will be brought to the table simply because competition helps everyone involved.

Neither is Vista's.

Of course, head-to-head, XGL comes out a bit more robust(plugins to extend out functionality); there's also a wider array of hardware that can use XGL as opposed to Vista.

I have several systems that can run XGL just fine.

None of those same systems can run Vista "effectively".

Oh, and I'm sure Thom would be pleased to yet again reiterate the fact that his low-end Radeon runs Vista perfectly.

I'm busy telling a floortile to flip. My guess is I'll have more luck at that, you see.

Google will help you out with that misconception.

I appreciate the advice; however the condescension is not necessary.

From Google:

Vista Supported Cards

ATI-10
Nvidia-11
Intel-1

XGL Supported Cards

ATI-18
Nvidia-20
Intel-2

Oh, and I'm sure Thom would be pleased to yet again reiterate the fact that his low-end Radeon runs Vista perfectly.

If you have issues with Thom, then direct those at him.
My comments should not be used as a backhanded way of insulting Thom.

If you have issues with Thom, then direct those at him.
My comments should not be used as a backhanded way of insulting Thom.

He's not insulting me, he is asking me to AGAIN reiterate that ANY graphics card can run Aero Glass. Microsoft has set an artificial minimum specification of 'DirectX 9 compatible'. However, that barrier isn't a hardware barrier, it's a software barrier. By applying some registry hacks in Windows Vista, you can disable the DirectX 9 compatible check that Vista performs (if this check fails, Aero Glass cannot be used).

However, when that check has been turned off, any card can basically run Aero Glass. My own Ati Radeon 9000 128 MBRAM ran Aero Glass just fine, even though this is by far NOT a DirectX 9 card. I even have the proof:

http://www.denux.org/thom/Stuff/vista/

In there you'll find a video and a screenshot which proves my point.

Just because Vaughin Nichols squeals something about Aero Glass only being able too be ran on supa-dupa videocards does not mean it is actually true. Instead of regurgitating other's (Linux-zealots') unfounded opinions, why doesn't everyone stick to the damn facts when it comes to Aero Glass? I'm no MS fanboy (I hate Exploerer's UI and as such don't use Windows), but that does not mean I lose touch with reality.

This has been going on long enough.

Thom,

I have no issues with you. Or in dropping this. (So after this, consider it dropped for me; I don't like to argue

However, your card is on the HCL list for Vista.

My count for Vista in the earlier post was based on the HCL.

So yes, with registry changes, Aero Glass will work with your card.

Provided your card is on the HCL. Many systems I have here to work with are not on the HCL list, and will never see the benefit of Vista's compositing.

My point was that XGL had more cards listed as compatible than Vista did. All of my systems I have are on XGL's list.

As for the other comment, the tone came off to me as snide and rude. If I misinterpreted it, my mistake.

However, your card is on the HCL list for Vista.

Yes, and so is a Ati Rage II. I'm not talking about the HCL for Vista, I'm talking about the HCL for Aero Glass. That's a huge difference. We were discussing Aero Glass, NOT Vista in general.

Provided your card is on the HCL.

It's really simple, there is no need for a HCL for Aero Glass: any DirectX 9 card will run Aero Glass without the user having to do anything. If your card is pre-DX9, like my Radeon 9000, you will not get Aero Glass automatically. You'll need to disable the DX9 check.

What I'm really, really, really tired of is that mumbo-jumbo that you'll need a supa-dupa top-of-the-line videocard to run Aero Glass. That is just a complete and utter LIE, and my videos are full and complete proof of that.

At this point, MS has set 'DirectX9 compatible' as the minimum spec for Aero Glass. But my video, and other people's experiences (have fun Googling), have shown that this is an artifically created barrier, so it might as well be that the RTM of Vista will have that artificial barrier set lower, i.e. DirectX8 compatible card.

My point was that XGL had more cards listed as compatible than Vista did. All of my systems I have are on XGL's list.

All nice, but Xgl will be a bitch to work with, as most distributions cannot or refuse to install Ati's or nVidia's proprietary drivers. And setting up those drivers on Linux is quite often quite a pain in the ass.

Oh, and the post wasnt really directed towards you directly; I was more speaking generally to everyone here.

I appreciate the advice; however the condescension is not necessary.
From Google:
Vista Supported Cards
ATI-10
Nvidia-11
Intel-1
XGL Supported Cards
ATI-18
Nvidia-20
Intel-2

ATI, NVIDIA, and Intel, while the 3 major manufactures, aren't the only ones with Glass-capable hardware and available drivers (some OOTB). Also your numbers are off. Just counting the number of supported cards on ATI's site shows this:

http://www.ati.com/technology/windowsvista/index.html

XGL is also implemented properly.

From everything I've seen, it *seems* as though a linux system with an XGL 3d desktop would get faster(read: need less CPU horsepower) provided you have the proper video card.

Simply because XGL is doing what it should be doing. Passing off that task to the GPU. You have a 3d desktop. you have a 3d chip. There's little reason to keep the CPU doing this task. Pass it off.

Contrast this with Vista. From everything I've seen, it *seems* as though the windows 3d desktop requires *MORE* CPU horsepower than the 2d equivalent. This tells me that either it's implemented horribly, or is just not passing it off to the GPU.

As it should be.

Enough with the forced upgrades already. Hopefully MS will get this right by launch.

And if I'm wrong on this, please PLEASE *PLEASE* prove me wrong.

Even Apple's interface AFAIK passes off to the GPU. Why can't MS get it right?

Contrast this with Vista. From everything I've seen, it *seems* as though the windows 3d desktop requires *MORE* CPU horsepower than the 2d equivalent. This tells me that either it's implemented horribly, or is just not passing it off to the GPU.

What you are seeing is likely alpha-quality display drivers. Vista uses the GPU for all composition and drawing as long as the GPU has WDDM drivers, and depending on the GPU's level of driver support, it can take advantage of virtual memory, more advanced scheduling, and other optimizations in the system to offload more work and/or further accelerate the current workload.

Enough with the forced upgrades already. Hopefully MS will get this right by launch. And if I'm wrong on this, please PLEASE *PLEASE* prove me wrong.

MS is not forcing you to upgrade any more than Apple or other vendors are. RE: Performance -- About the only way to prove this to you other than with technical docs on MS' site is to give you a demo. In a few months, you should be able to acquire a build and see for yourself. For an accurate picture, benchmarks should be reserved for RTM code however.

Even Apple's interface AFAIK passes off to the GPU. Why can't MS get it right?

MS passes off more to the GPU than Apple does. Without Quartz 2D Extreme, Apple only accelerates composition, not drawing.

Edited 2006-03-14 22:39

----------What you are seeing is likely alpha-quality display drivers.---------

I could agree to that. Vista is after all very different in alot of ways.

---------------MS passes off more to the GPU than Apple does. Without Quartz 2D Extreme, Apple only accelerates composition, not drawing.-------------

From what I've seen, that isn't saying much. Or in the case of Apple's setup, it is saying alot. But being in alpha quality, it may still need to be implemented properly.

Leave it to a member of the linux camp to get it right first.

I am fed up with all this "How cool Vista would be articles". Take a break guys.


Suggestion: Don't read them. Problem solved.

I don't

Then don't post in these threads if you have nothing constructive to say.

Well stealing XP is getting harder and harder to do. I expect no less of vista.

Of course the reason i am not going to buy it as it doesn't support EFI. I was looking forward to a dual booting an Intel Mac Mini with OS X and Vista but now can not. Oh well that's MSFT's loss not mine.

What does that remind you of...?

Of Windows Vista. Those were there before Novell/GNOME/others were going to include, or want to include, those into their respective Linux distros.

Of Spotlight in MacOSX. Vista will have many new features for MS people, like Limited user account. Wow Linux had this since always? Restart manager, cool now this will save my document when I will have to restart. WinFS, no It has been cancelled. Avalon, bad Aqua copy. I am not seeing anything new in Vista, which weren't in MacOs or/and linux. Ups I forgot viruses and spyware.

Two things:

First of all, get a spell checker. Mac OS comes with one built into it, which I think should be the norm for operating systems.

Back on topic...
Do you remember what any of those things are?

Restart Manager:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1895276,00.asp

Allows for components to be updated without actually restarting the computer. Nothing about saving documents there.

Avalon:
Avalon is a presentation system, comparable to Quartz Extreme on a Mac. Aqua's the theme.

And finally...
Macs could get viruses too, if anyone actually bothered to make them. As a mac user myself, I can see too easily how overconfidence influenced certain aspects of the software, such as the way files are automatically opened after downloading in Safari, etc.

And I've seen a marked decrease in spyware since SP2.

WinFS has not been cancelled, it will be in beta form when Vista is released (which is why it's not shipping with Vista).

Whoever modded you down is either really uninformed or afraid of people having the facts.

Doesn't suprise me at all on this site

Uh, winfs has not been cancelled, just delayed to after Vista has launched, avalon is not a copy of aqua, it is a programming interface and replacement for GDI and GDI+ which are very old, if you don't really know what you are talking about, maybe you should do research before you post

WinFS will be in Vista? Since when? Maybe in Vista SP 2

It will come in SP1 so that means you'll need Vista to use it. As in "it will be in Vista".

What code are you talking about? Are you talking about the Least User privileges model where you need admin credentials to mod your system? Are you talking about the win32 api? Which has now been changed to WinFX? Are you talking about .NET platform? Are you talking about the rewritten from scratch networking and audio stack? Are you talking about the all new driver implementation model which will result in better drivers and better system stability (that remains to be seen granted). Are you talking about better multithreading support? Are you talking about better memory management and support for more cores? Are you talking about the need for better printing options for your small business? Surely you have heard of the XPS document system. Are you talking about a better colorspace with builtin support for digital photography? Are you talking about encryption for your files because that is provided as well. I dont know what you are talking about the old infrastructure and code for Vista...has Apple changed the entire infrastructure since the advent of Mac OS X? Have you even used Win 2k3 Server OSes? I am not getting you wrong but I would like to know what you are on about. And dont harp on WinFS because honestly WinFS is the least cause of troubles. What we need is a non fragmenting FS which MS has not implemented and if you are talking about that...then I do agree with you.

The new interface looks impressive. The security I'm still questioning. I'd like to see what applications take advantage of it.
However there's still some overlying issues on why I won't get to Vista immediately. I'm still not convinced that the security issues will be eliminated. Windows by itself is still too buggy and easily hacked.

All applications capable of running on Vista can take advantage of its security enhancements. It's largely about policy enforcement, not some new API that needs to be coded for. The bugginess and hackability of Windows, like other OSes, depends on what applications you run and under what rights you operate while using the OS. In a business environment, most users should be running as standard users with policy enforced on the domain (if there is one). If you do this, Windows is no more hackable than any other OS.

I'm still concerned about hardware. We're a small business with limited funding. When I saw the system requirements for Vista I almost fainted. Plus we will have to look at which version for our business plus the server version? That can be very expensive. Not to mention we still run Win2K on older PIII and P4 hardware and don't have the hardware budget in place for the new hardware for Vista.

Based on the number of times I've seen non-MS hardware requirements posted for Vista online, I'd have to ask where you saw the requirements? Vista is capable of running on P-IIIs and P4s, and running on such systems with Glass provided you have a SM2.0 GPU with WDDM drivers. ACPI support and system memory are the main factors in whether Vista will run.

Another issue is compatibility. I have software over five years old which I use on my W2k And XP platforms. If I understand this right, some of that software won't run on Vista without an upgrade.

About the only software that will run on 2k/XP but may not run on Vista are applications like antivirus software, possibly some disk defragmenters, and other applications that deal with low-level system structures. I say "may not run" because there are examples of such software that does work. You should not have a problem with most user mode applications.

XP driver model compatibility has also been maintained for most subsystems as well, so most XP drivers should also work.

The biggest reason of all why I won't be a part of Vista right now is the code. I was under the impression that the old Win32 code and old infrastructure of Windows has been eliminated. I didn't see that in XP and I have my doubts about Vista. My personal view is that they should have taken the time to rewrite Windows for new hardware and using new technologies. Not just patch old code or rewriting interfaces on top of old code.

Eliminating Win32 would do little more than unnecessarily break applications like the 5 year old ones you're worried about having compatibility. With that said, Win32 is now somewhat of a secondary subsystem in Windows Vista much like Win16, POSIX and OS/2 were in NT. I don't want to deminish the inportance of Win32 in Windows Vista as it is still a major API that will be used for development and gain new interfaces in and after Vista, but the new set of API you seek is called WinFX. It is the successor to Win32 and provides new APIs for graphics (WPF), communications (WCF), workflow (WF) and more.

In Vista, MS is providing several rewritten systems including all new networking, audio, and graphics stacks. There's also kernel enhancements, and new kernel mode services for logging and atomic transactions, which an updated version of NTFS takes advantage of, and which applications can also use. There's support for I/O cancellation, new power management, plug and play, application and device installation, and other services. Then there's a new, object-oriented command interface (Microsoft Command Shell/MSH) and, currently in Beta, WinFS, which will be released as an update to Vista after the initial RTM release. And there's more than what I've detailed here.

The biggest reason of all why I won't be a part of Vista right now is the code. I was under the impression that the old Win32 code and old infrastructure of Windows has been eliminated. I didn't see that in XP and I have my doubts about Vista. My personal view is that they should have taken the time to rewrite Windows for new hardware and using new technologies. Not just patch old code or rewriting interfaces on top of old code.

You're kidding, right? Nearly all Windows apps (except games, which use DX/D3D) use the Win32 APIs. It's going to take time to migrate devs from Win32 to another API. I just think it's utterly unrealistic to think that MS would rip out the Win32 APIs and thereby alienate the overwhelming majority of its dev community and install base.

"Remember when Windows XP finally arrived in November 2001? Stores were quite busy with people buying both the Pro and Home editions."

Actually, I remember XP being something of a sleeper. As I remember, it took over three years for XP to overtake Win98 as the most popular desktop.

I wish we could buy a Dell or watever branch PC without any OS as an option.

What possible incentive would Dell have to give you a PC without an OS? They make money on the OS -- and they have to support the hardware, anyway. There's no way that they're going to support you when you install Linux on a blank machine. Hence, it ain't gonna happen. There just aren't enough customers asking for such things.

They won't have too. You get it wether you want or not with almost every (new) PC/laptop you buy.

If you look at prior initial sales figures, the boxed versions of WinXP Pro & Home sold extremely well due to the exposure & hype that MS put out.

I wish we could buy a Dell or watever branch PC without any OS as an option.

Companies such as Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc., no longer make the majority of their profits from 'hardware.' The mark-up is quite small and has been for quite some time.

They make their money on (1) packaging an OS such as Windows to help market & sell the system, (2) services, additional software sales, peripherals, and (3) 'extended service contracts.

These companies push 'ease & comfort' to the user to entice them to purchase their particular products & services.

Not too long ago a coworker made a call to purchase a high-end system, but he didn't want an OS on it. He was surprised to learn that they 'wouldn't' sell him a system w/o Windows pre-installed on it. After several minutes he became pretty flustered and ended the call. He called back a day or so later, talked to a different person and the exact same thing happened.

Why should I pay good money to "upgrade" to Vista? My upgrade path doesn't travel through Redmond. It travels through South Africa and the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro.

Then why are you bothering to respond? You wouldn't ever consider buying Vista.

locate shows you results as you type and is instant hm?

It could be done if someone wanted to write a graphical frontend. There might be a one second delay though.

The part that takes a long time is running updatedb, some people set a daemon for that but it could be replaced with a live-update system if someone wanted to write one. When locate was first written that functionality wasn't available in the kernel IIRC but it is now.

If you want to know what Locate's real weakness is though, it's that it only works based on filename. Beagle and Finder can also search by what's in a file and it's metadata.

Exactly. Locate does the same thing, but it's way too basic for most people. It does do it's job well though, it's just an old tool and doesn't adapt well to modern needs.

//Exactly. Locate does the same thing, but it's way too basic for most people. It does do it's job well though, it's just an old tool and doesn't adapt well to modern needs.//

Locate?

My goodness but you are behind the times.

http://beaglewiki.org/Main_Page

Um... I was replying to the guy that was talking about locate.

Can you read?

1. Why have the "quick search" in the Start Menu? Apple has it in a convenient location that is always available and you don't have to open a menu to get to it. BTW, will this "quick search" be available in applications, a la OS X's Smart Folders and email searching?

Um, actually you need to either click the search thing to pop it up, or hit a key combination -- same as Vista. With Vista, you click the start button and start typing -OR- you can hit the windows key and start typing. Both will put focus to the search field right away. The only different here is that the start menu is attached to it as well, but I don't see the big deal, as the results are shown in the start menu anyway.

3. So they have a better way to Alt-Tab through your apps. Where are the virtual desktops? That is more useful than having to Alt-Tab in the first place. Virtual desktops let you keep everything open, in related screens, and it's faster than scrolling through a dozen pictures of documents that all look the same.

They'll probably have it available as an add-in in a powertoys pack, as they did for XP.

However, I moved to OS X and Linux two years ago so I don't play the MS shell game anymore. I only use Windows for video games now, and I'd rather have to buy a more powerful video card to play bad-ass games rather than have to buy one just so I can see translucent menus.

A) You can get a videocard that can support and power Vista for under $50
B) You can turn off the special effects if you want.
C) If you're playing games, you have a powerful video card anyway, so it doesn't matter for you.

I'm just saying that the search dialog is hidden from sight by default. Having helped users and done tech support for over 13 years, I can say (with some confidence) that average and new users won't think about it. IME, with these type of users, if it's out of sight it's out of mind. There's enough other crap on the Taskbar by default (quick launch, the program tray, et al.) that having the search box, even a small icon for it, would be better than hiding it under the Start Menu, IMO.

W/ the video card, I shouldn't have to buy a new card just to get the full effect of Vista, especially when it doesn't help me work or play better. Why should I have to waste cycles on a GUI that adds nothing to the experience besides eye candy? Sure, I can buy a card that will support the eye candy because it supports the latest games. But if the three year old card I have is sufficient for the games I play most often, I feel it's stupid that MS states I need a better card just to get the full "eXPerience" (as they like to say). Yes, I can turn off the effects but then I defeat the biggest point everyone is making about upgrading.

It also doesn't address the fact that people won't be able to recycle their monitors because they don't support encrypted video feeds. And I'm sure a new video card will be needed for that too (can't be having unencrypted video on an analog VGA port, can we?).

Everytime MS comes out w/ a new OS, they always say, "This is the best OS we've made and it will do everything you need." But they've yet to include a decent word processor (just include MS Works, if it still exists), a text editor that can realistically be used for programming (highlighting, bracket matching, auto-indenting, etc.), a programming language or at least compiler, a decent picture viewer and editor, etc.

Competing OSes offer these as part of a base install, meaning that out of the box they are a better buy. Sure Windows has more apps, but many of them are for features that Windows should have by default.

And that doesn't even include Windows' infamous security problems. When MS bought that AV company, they pretty much admitted that they don't care about making a secure OS and now they want consumers to pay more for the basic level of security they should already be getting.

The search is also in the explorer window and in other MS apps.

You don't NEED a video card, and any decent card from the past 2 years or so will be more than enough. I got mine 2 years ago and it more than meets requirements. But you can disable Aero Glass if you want and still play your games.

About the monitors... you don't need a new monitor unless you're watching HD video that was specifically encrypted a certain way. Consider there are barely, if any, monitors out there now that have what is needed, I don't forsee it being a problem anytime soon.

"When MS bought that AV company, they pretty much admitted that they don't care about making a secure OS and now they want consumers to pay more for the basic level of security they should already be getting"

Oh, and all the security enhancements in Vista mean nothing? They've brought the whole OS up to similar standards as other OS's, with least priveleged accounts, unneeded services turned off by default, and moving various subsystems into userland. Doesn't seem like your assertion is correct in the least

Yeah, we'll see how well they did when it actually comes to market. Until then, my assertion is just as valid as yours is. Going on past history, I'm not expecting great things from Vista on the security end, regardless of what MS's PR people put out. Right now, their security enhancements mean nothing because it hasn't been tested.

"Oh, and all the security enhancements in Vista mean nothing?"

Talk is cheap. Until we actually see how it fares in the wild this is rather moot.