Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 17th Dec 2005 16:33 UTC, submitted by mono
Windows "TechWorld is reporting that Microsoft plans to move graphics outside of the Windows Vista kernel by pulling the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF, formerly codenamed 'Avalon') out of the Vista kernel. MSWatch asked Microsoft for clarification. Here's the official statement: "Because WPF is largely written in managed code on the common language runtime, it never ran in kernel mode."
Thread beginning with comment 74974
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: ho, nice
by makfu on Sun 18th Dec 2005 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ho, nice"
makfu
Member since:
2005-12-18

"its a nice way of Microsoft to implicitly state, "the driver manufacturers can't get their shit together, so we're going to take on a large portion of the work involved". "

They did it for that reason, and because they needed to implement a controlled gfx pipeline, video memory management and device virtualization. The new directX kernel mode subsystem is a very sophisticated (I highly recommend reading some of the published documentation, it's really cool stuff) and, well, the old model just wasn't going to cut it going forward.

-Mak

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: ho, nice
by kaiwai on Sun 18th Dec 2005 06:27 in reply to "RE[6]: ho, nice"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

RE: makfu

Yes, but what I am saying is this, does it actually *REALLY* fix the inherient flaws that exist within the Windows driver framework or is it simply a matter of moving the chairs on the deck?

Yes, its all very nice to have sexy, sophisticated technologies, but if the underlying structured is completely buggered, is it really smart to all that based on a rotting copse?

Microsoft needs to have a good long hard look at the MacOS X driver kit, and same goes for the way they've done their 3d and 2d accelerated framework - and its not about copying copying something, but accepting that if someone works, then why not research it.

The only thing that actually helps Microsoft from its NIH syndrome is the massive R&D - if it weren't for all the cash they have on hand, the ability for them to unjustifiably re-invent the wheel each release would difficult; what Microsoft needs is some hardship, the $50billion taken off them, then maybe they would finally take pragmatic approaches to fixing problems using existing technologies rather than reinventing the world for the sake of it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: ho, nice
by makfu on Sun 18th Dec 2005 08:59 in reply to "RE[7]: ho, nice"
makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"Microsoft needs to have a good long hard look at the MacOS X driver kit, and same goes for the way they've done their 3d and 2d accelerated framework -"

Whatever.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: ho, nice
by n4cer on Sun 18th Dec 2005 09:05 in reply to "RE[7]: ho, nice"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

The only thing that actually helps Microsoft from its NIH syndrome is the massive R&D - if it weren't for all the cash they have on hand, the ability for them to unjustifiably re-invent the wheel each release would difficult; what Microsoft needs is some hardship, the $50billion taken off them, then maybe they would finally take pragmatic approaches to fixing problems using existing technologies rather than reinventing the world for the sake of it.

The is the first time the wheel is being reinvented in around 10 years. The $50 billion has nothing to do with it as MS teams don't have unlimited resources and often have tighter controls than many smaller companies.

MacOS is currently trailing MS in graphics architecture and they have a different set of requirements. Until recently, Apple only pushed composition out to the GPU and didn't worry about accelerated drawing or resolution independence until after "Longhorn" development was well under way. MS' driver model has been complete for months now while Apple's is still in development.

I don't understand the whole pragmatic comment. How is it not pragmatic to enhance the current architecture and technologies while maintaining compatibility for your customer base? If they weren't being pragmatic, they'd have just started from scratch, broke all compatibility, and based everything on new concepts just for the heck of it. There's a difference between taking pragmatic approaches to pushing technology forward, and just using the same technology everyone else is and staying in the same place.

Reply Parent Score: 1