Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 19:51 UTC, submitted by Tyr.
Windows Computerworld's Scot Finnie details 20 things you won't like in Windows Vista, with a visual tour to prove it. He says that MS has favored security over end-user productivity, making the user feel like a rat caught in a maze with all the protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature. "Business and home users will be nonplussed by the blizzard of protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature, for example." Update: Apparantly, Vista Beta 2 sucks up battery juice much faster than XP does.
Thread beginning with comment 130302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: 20 ways to flame Vista
by rayiner on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 15:37 UTC in reply to "20 ways to flame Vista"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, OS X does its GPU thing perfectly fine on a GMA950 chipset, which is several times slower than even an X300 card. If Vista can't run well on what is really a decent GPU (1.2 gigapixels, pixel and vertex shaders, 6.4 GB/sec memory bus), then that indicates a problem with the system. A lot of people use integrated graphics (Intel is actually the GPU vendor with the largest market share), and an X300 is right about the performance level where integrated chips will be in the next couple of years.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by sappyvcv on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 17:34 in reply to "RE: 20 ways to flame Vista"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Quartz3d doesn't do all the same stuff as WPF, so it's not a fair comparison. We'll with with Leopard if they match it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by rayiner on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 18:05 in reply to "RE[2]: 20 ways to flame Vista"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

There isn't really anything WPF can do that OS X's stack cannot. Both expose a PDF-like imaging model, both expose pixel shaders to 2D graphics, etc. The major difference between the two, aside from the API is that WPF renders vector graphics on the GPU, while Quartz does it on the CPU. On the other hand, Quartz 2D (as of Tiger), runs perfectly acceptably on a 1.67 GHz G4, and there is absolutely no reason an X300 should bog down with WPF.

The biggest issue here is likely optimization. Quartz 2D has been optimized over four or five years. It's implementation in Tiger is really fast, and approaches to speed of much more primitive APIs like QuickDraw. WPF is brand new, and hasn't seen the same sort of optimization. Of course, that's on of the advantages of OS X --- they've got a half-decade head start on the process.

Reply Parent Score: 1