It seems that it is not just Apple, via Quartz Extreme, using the 3D capabilities of a graphics card to render a 2D desktop. Stardock has already released WindowFX 2, as part of their ObjectDesktop product, which is very equivelant to QE. As you can see from the screenshots, their preference panel for WindowFX contains a number of adjustments that you can do to the system and allows for very special effects to your modified Windows desktop with ease and speed.
Stardock Readies 3D Composition System for Windows
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I only see Windows FX 1.91a!!!
Are you sure it’s already released?
i dont think it is like QE because qe is intagrated in the os. and it is designed to make the os faster not slower by running a program in the background.
just when I decided to switch to Linux… :/
Open Source is fine…. but sometimes eh… :/
I WANT THAT TOO!
Please
>i dont think it is like QE because qe is intagrated in the os.
why do you think that this is not? It is using DirectX and it is using all the available ways to do it. This is why things like DirectX exist. So you can take advantage of them and create such things.
>and it is designed to make the os faster not slower by running a program in the background.
What makes you think that WindowFX is slower than the Windows GDI? Have you actually tried the product? Would they have put it there if it was so slower? (sure, it requires a 3D graphics accelerator, it does not run on Tseng cards
)
How can he try it. It’s not even downloadable!
> How can he try it. It’s not even downloadable!
Then, do not judge it.
Beta testers do have it in their hands I think.
Nevermind. The version is 1.91a!
>why do you think that this is not? It is using DirectX and
> it is using all the available ways to do it. This is why
> things like DirectX exist. So you can take advantage of
> them and create such things.
The reason it is not the same is because it uses DirectX. The QE stuff on MacOS is integrated into thier core UI rendering system (DisplayPDF) and it then picks the proper pipeline to do the actual on-screen rendering (depending on your video card). The “idea” is the same with what StarDock is doing, but the beauty of the architecutre and the system-wide seemless use of the 3d pipelines is missing.
Just as with everything else that SD makes (for OS/2 and now for Windows) it is a hack. Really wicked hacks, but hacks none the less.
the only thing that is equal is that it uses a 3D API to draw the desktop. Quartz Extreme is as, its name says, a version of Apples Quartz Engine (= display postscript/pdf desktop composing) which also uses a 3D API to display its content. The MAIN difference is that WindowsFX don’t use display postscript to render the desktop. It “simply” captures the bitmap-buffer of the application windows and (re)displays them via 3D. To do with Windows what Quartz does in OS X require a major change of windows. As a add on to the current Windows versions it is simply impossible to do something like Quartz Extreme. That makes the difference.
Ralf.
>the only thing that is equal is that it uses a 3D API to draw the desktop.
Which is exactly what I was interesting in and what I meant in the article. I was talking about the technology of using 3D to render a 2D desktop. I am not interesting in postscript or PDFs.
Eugenia you got something wrong here. I agreed that the OUTPUT of the two systems, the way they display their content to the screen, is equal. But this is NOT what the Quartz engine mainly is for. Quartz is about composing the desktop content using the same technique postscript or PDF uses to render documents. Quart does this to the application windows. Where Windows uses bitmap graphics and filled rectangles to draw the app-windows content, Quartz uses bezier curves etc.. And that is the main task of the Quartz engine. Therefor it is not comparable to WindowsFX. That is exactly what I was interesting in and what I meant in my last post. 😉
Ralf.
>Eugenia you got something wrong here.
I do not think I do anything wrong here. I never said that WindowFX uses Quartz, neither that is uses the Apple display technology. ALL I said is that both are using the 3D capabilities of a 3D accelerator to render a 2D space. Which is something that no one else did before. Just Apple and Stardock. I meant nothing more and nothing less.
“Which is something that no one else did before”
Not exactly. If you are talking about desktop systems, yes. However, in our embedded game systems, we have been using this same technique for the last 3 years.
Did anyone talk about embedded systems and game consoles? Of course and we are talking about the desktop!
I fail to see the point of animating and spinning the windows around to make everything “look nice”. The windows desktop, I still find, is very poorly organized. It does nothing to solve that problem. All you get for buying the program is a bunch of spinning, transparent windows. I fail to see the point, and I’ll save my money.
They’d have to have made some really wonderful changes to the fundamental program design to make it speed up enough for me to even want to boot Windows to test it. Last time I used WindowFX 1.x it was, to say the least, a horror story. I can make my KDE transparent anyday and not have the humongous slowdown.
BTW – This program might be nice for those real high-end systems that can waste the resources that XP doesn’t demand, but for low-end users like me who want pretties and speed/stability, I don’t see any reason not to use something like Enlightenment. Litestep is good for Windows, too, as it has transparency that doesn’t kill my system.
This isn’t meant to be a troll if anyone takes it as such, all I’m saying is… why? The program is rather expensive, too.
This might be a bit off topic but it is StarDock related. Does anyone know if StarDock is working on the “Favorites” menu? See, I have tried WindowBlinds 3.0 and there was still not change in that version. When you apply a skin, the “Favorites” menu is simply not skinned, it looks plain oldish, which makes it not consistent with the rest of the UI elements and prevents me from using WindowBlinds. It’s been like this since version 1.0, I tried 3.0 and still the same story. So, I was wondering whether they are working on it.
This isn’t meant to be a troll if anyone takes it as such, all I’m saying is… why? The program is rather expensive, too.
14.95 is expensive? And for 50$ you get them all together. Heck I remember in the good old days buying Borland Dashboard. Man that was a cool app. Pretty sure it can run under XP also.
Hey this is a Aqua/Liquid wannabee!
What makes you think that WindowFX is slower than the Windows GDI? Have you actually tried the product? Would they have put it there if it was so slower? (sure, it requires a 3D graphics accelerator, it does not run on Tseng cards
)
I have tried Stardock’s products in the past. They are very cool looking, but they tend to slow the machine down and make it less stable. Their new version may have solved these issues.
http://www.enlightenment.org
get evas and evas2 just to have a glimpse of that is under developement..
or get all e17 from cvs (take a look at the forums since there are some caveats in compiling it)
Eugenia please try it and tell =)
I did try to tell.
I tried to build it on my Gentoo. It had a zillion problems to build, I overcomed them, and now, it gets “general protection fault” every time I am trying to load it.
So, I did tried it. It just doesn’t work on my Gentoo.
As a former Stardock/Object Desktop user I can tell you the following:
WindowFX, and all of the other Stardock apps are not the same an integrated solution such as QE.
Don’t get me wrong… You can do some very cool things with Stardock’s desktop suite (there’s a ton of little “helper apps” that they offer when you buy a subscription to them), but the speed and response is definately not that of an integrated OS feature.
Examples…When you’re running a fairly heavy load on your PC, the redraw’s directly impacted, which makes it painfully apparent you’re running an “overlay” for the actual Windows GUI. It’s not a showstopper or anything, buy it’s can give itself away as being simply an application running under Windows.
Similarly, window and menu animations differ from their embedded counterparts.
On occassion I also have had various features of the original XP GUI “pop” through the Stardock apps on occassion (For example, the Windows XO toolbar show through a Windowblind skin, taking precedence over that of Stardocks).
All minor quibbles, but these are definately not the same as having these features built into the GUI.
Another good example is when the Stardock apps crash. They don’t regularly go down, but they do crash much more often than Windows Explorer (The GUI for Windows, not the file manager), and then suddenly you’re no longer in your cool, custom environment. It’s a annoying reminder of how “un-cool”, but stable the Windows GUI is when your sparkling new desktop crumbles down around you.
There’s also the fact that Windowblinds, along with several of the other Stardock apps, can cause conflicts with other programs. A native Windows feature would likely not do so since the Windows API would ensure that vital processes didn’t cross.
I used to use a SPAM management program. I think it was Spamweasel… Anyway, no matter what I did, it would pop up it’s registration box every time Windows booted. When I emailed them for help, the first thing they asked me was whether I was running Windowblinds. It appears there are similar conflicts with a number of other apps also.
And there is a speed cost when running these. This is highly dependant on the app, features, and skin you’re using, but there is much more of a performance hit than there would be for a native service.
And above all, it’s important to remember that Stardock isn’t the only option. I’d reccomend a Stardock subscription for those wanting quick and easy eye candy. But for others who are looking for a high performance, but cool looking GUI, here’s some suggestions after trying a number of different solutions to this problem):
Pick and choose your GUI customization software. Stardock offers many cool little apps, but there is often a better performing solution to be found elsewhere. Similarly, some of Stardocks apps are a little bloated when compared to their similarly performing counterparts.
I personally don’t use Windowblinds any longer. The performance difference in Windows XP was just too noticable for me (I’m rather anal about such things. My OS needs to look cool, but be ultra snappy as well). Besides, the main features I liked about Windowblinds was the fact that you could customize Windows behaviors, such as rolling up a window based on a custome mouse click.
There’s a former shareware program Windowshade which allows you to tweak the Windows GUI equally (more or less). And best of all, it’s now freeware. Look for it. Use it. 8)=
I also run a 2 monitor system, and have had a helluva time finding a virtual desktop manager for windows which will support both monitors in a meaningful way. Stardocks managers (yes, there’s various versions, and various of their apps handle them in different manners), like many, don’t see anything that’s running on the 2nd monitor.
For such uses, I’d reccomend X-Desk (shareware) or Alt-Desk (also shareware). X-Desk also offers some amazing transparency options (much faster that Stardocks IMHO).
I am using Windows FX again (just reinstalled it recently), but that’s only until I can find a replacement (Glass2k is a contender! And it’s free). My problem with this app is that when I roll up a Window, the shadow affects created by Windows FX remains.
Other useful software to check out:
Logon Loader & BootXP: Mods the windows bootup splash screens
Windows XP Powertoys (Free on-again, off-again Windows addon from MS. Find it and save a copy. It’ll do a lot of things that these 3rd party apps charge money for).
Hydravision & Multimonitor are two similar multi-monitor assist apps. You should own at least one of these. They’re hard to live without!
Cursor XP is a free (there is a more powerful pay version though) cursor modder. Very neat, but a bit of a performance hit onthe GUI.
ATNotes: You should have this free app. Power “sticky notes” app for Windows.
XP Stylebuilder: A very fast Windows skinner. Not as many options as Windowblinds, but much quicker “integrated feeling” response.
AlphaDim SS: Way cool & free “dimming” screen saver. Nice affect that provides a very professional look.
You also should learn to use Windows built in features. Many of these apps just open up features which are buried down in Windows.
On the issue of cost.
and everytime someone mentions DirectX my mind flies to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s words:
“…Microsoft pressured the major OEMs to not install NSP software on their PCs until the software ceased to expose APIs. NSP software could not find its way onto PCs without the cooperation of the OEMs, so Intel realized that it had no choice but to surrender the pace of software innovation to Microsoft. By the end of July 1995, Intel had agreed to stop promoting its NSP software. Microsoft subsequently incorporated some of NSP’s components into its operating- system products. Even as late as the end of 1998, though, Microsoft still had not implemented key capabilities that Intel had been poised to offer consumers in 1995.”
“This is why things like DirectX exist.” Yes, bringing us ‘the very latest multimedia…’ I concede that some of those effects on the desktop could be cool. Problem is that I once tried objectdesktop and the GUI result was grotesque, unfinished. But hey, maybe it has improved, and this is a beta.
>I am using Windows FX again (just reinstalled it recently
WHICH WindowsFX are you using? The Version 2 that uses 3D composition is only available to testers.
Are you sure you are critisizing the correct version here?
I managed to get it working
the basic issues are about intl&po (remove they from the Makefile.am before performing autogeneration)
and binutils (make sure to have the latest one)
Ah, just another thing
get from cvs setting the HEAD branch with 20020724 date.
that should work quite well, I’m missing the themes and the toolbar is a bit hard to set the first time but you can find everything on the e17 forum.
>I am using Windows FX again (just reinstalled it recently
>WHICH WindowsFX are you using? The Version 2 that uses >3D .composition is only available to testers.
>Are you sure you are critisizing the correct version here?
I am critiquing the Stardock software in general, not just the WindowFX app.
In this case, Stardock markets an entire collection of software packages for one subscription price. Yes, it’s available seperately, but you get a nice price break by purchasing all with a sub.
Also, if you’re looking for the features of a WindowsFX, you’re also probably interested in what other cool tweaking toys the company offers.
I truly don’t understand the fascination with clarifying to everyone that this is a “new” app, and that they shouldn’t based comments on older versions. Stardock sells a suite of desktop enhancing software. Not just the one app that’s being advertised here (yes, I’m beginning to feel that this thread’s more an ad for the new version of WindowsFX, than it is a valid discussion on what else you’re getting or not, when you buy said product).
People should be informed and allowed to make their own decisions based on an overview, not simply the marketing hype of “This is totally new and will make your Windows version the eye-candy equivelant of Apples QE”. It won’t, plain and simple.
There’s new features, yes, but that doesn’t change ones experience with thar Stardock software suite in general, nor of their reputation and quality.
As for my comments and the version, as I indicated, I’m a former user, thus my version is not the unreleased test version.
I was thinking about getting into Stardock’s stuff for some time now, but your accurate-sounding little synopsis (plus other things I have heard) has just turned me off the idea. My tastes are similar to yours and I am actually pretty happy with the WinXP ‘silver’ theme with a cool-looking wallpaper and some nicer desktop icons from one of those art-geek-designer/skinner websites – all the eye candy I need, really.
I guess I’ll have to check out LiteStep or WinStep ( http://www.winstep.net/ ) instead if I want to experiment with a different shell replacement (I don’t know much about them yet).
Where can I find Windowshade? Google shows over 6000 pages – mostly about a Mac OS app with the same name. Download.com dosn’t list it. BetaNews only lists a BeOS app with the same name.
http://www.bluecarpet.com/winshade/index.html
Gil: While I haven’t checked out Litestep in a long time, if you’re looking for an entire desktop replacement, Stardock’s DesktopX is an interesting attempt at one.
While it was relegated to the “resource hog” pile once I switched to XP, I did use it for awhile under Win2k. It offered some nice features, but it’s not very easy to setup custom items. Or perhaps more the better description is that it’s not very intuitive to setup custom objects, actions and such.
Aston is another replacement desktop worth checking out. They also make the aforementioned Alt-Desk. I thought it a little more intuitive to use, but ended up choosing a heavily tweaked WinXP desktop optimized for speed over adding a 3rd party GUI replacement Aston’s also a little less resource hungry that DesktopX, in my opinion.
In the end though (for now at least), I’ve chosen to go with modified Windows shells, rather than replace them, because let’s be honest: All Windows GUI replacements are more or less just overlays to the default Windows shell and thus will never be quite as efficient as a built in feature.
The Windows GUI has to exist in some form for many applications to run, so although you might have a totally customized desktop, it’s not like you’ve removed the original components entirely. They’re simply not visible to you.
Software evolves over time. Desktop enhancements in particular.
With regards to WindowFX 2, much depends on the video card. If ou have an ATI Radeon or a Matrox card (for example) then you get full hardware acceleration because their drivers support the interface APIs to Direct3D. That means no slow down whatsoever. It’s all done on the hard.
WindowFX 1.x was purely done in software since no drivers handle it.
But the performance really will depend on the video card drivers more than anything else.
My advice would be to check out the Stardock News groups (news://news.stardock.com). The comments by beta testers pretty much speak for themselves (with posts like “OMG this is incredible!”).
Are spinning windows and shadows useful? Not really. But aesthetics do matter when you’re having to stare at it all day. The challenge is to provide those aesthetics without any drawbacks (in performance, reliability, resources).
With regards to WindowBlinds — Microsoft’s visual style engine is based on the WindowBlinds 2.x design. Any performance difference one sees between running a WindowBlinds visual style and say “XP Silver” would be due to the way the skin was made and differences in the visual style formats.
Put another way, WindowBlinds is just as “native” as Microsoft’s visual style engine. Just instead of wblind.dll you’re using uxtheme.dll. (in fact, when you’re running a visual style, uxtheme.dll gets attached to every process you’re running because it uses a system hook).
I have not deleted my Stardock bookmark just yet, despite what I said earlier. When it comes time to for me to add shell extensions I’ll take a look at their latest offerings. When you look at the number of products that Stardock makes you can see that they are nothing if not ambitious.
I don’t really care how purely ‘native’ their solution is as long as it runs reasonably fast (and being based on the GPU, it certainly should) and has rock-solid stability – I won’t tolerate a shell that likes to crash on me from time to time.
Maybe by the time I make up my mind, Longhorn will be out anyway and we can see what Microsoft’s hardware-accelerated ‘GDI++’ updated GUI looks like.
Hey this is a Aqua/Liquid wannabee!
Puhlease, Liquid is a piece of crap! Who needs psuedo transparancy?! The whole point of transparancy is that you see through it! Liquid is just useless eye candy. But then again, so is this Stardock gimmick.
-fooks
>>Puhlease, Liquid is a piece of crap! Who needs psuedo transparancy?! The whole point of transparancy is that you see through it! Liquid is just useless eye candy. But then again, so is this Stardock gimmick.<<
mees agrees 🙂
qe: i dont think it is like QE because qe is intagrated in the os. and it is designed to make the os faster not slower by running a program in the background.
If you know how to use the Terminal, removing QE is a snap. It wouldn’t break the OS. You can use Quartz (which is technically very different), you can use X11. It is just Apple doesn’t provide a nice graphical way to do so.
Besides, how do you know this is slower? Have you tried it? (Besides, from the website, it uses DirectX)
Eugenia: ALL I said is that both are using the 3D capabilities of a 3D accelerator to render a 2D space. Which is something that no one else did before.
IIRC, 3Dwm did this before. Also, Fresco did this with SDL way before QE was reported outside rumour sites.
Miles Robinson: I can make my KDE transparent anyday and not have the humongous slowdown.
Can you have drop shadows on windows? No. Do we have the effects of WindowsFX? None of which – heck, the icon magnification on the kicker is the only thing we got. The window transperancy in KDE is a hack, your probably have a lot of pure memory, cause it takes up a lot of space.
Miles Robinson: Litestep is good for Windows, too, as it has transparency that doesn’t kill my system.
Litestep uses the alpha blending support provided by Windows’ framebuffer. But like KDE, it doesn’t have all the nice effects of WindowsFX. If you are planing to conserve resources, I don’t think WindowsFX is a good idea. It is a good idea for really bored people.
CattBeMac: Hey this is a Aqua/Liquid wannabee!
Just a Windows Blinds theme.
Don’t udnerstand why, but some people like the buttons that way. But notice the window/taskbar background aren’t the godforsaken strips…
WindowFX, and all of the other Stardock apps are not the same an integrated solution such as QE.
Your first few points were about the UI, Aqua, not how QE[/b[ is technically different from WindowsFX. The rest of your points is about the stablity of WindowsFX – again, not about the technical difference. Then you talk about speed, which again, isn’t the technical difference between the two products, just saying one product is badly written. So…. :-p
m: and everytime someone mentions DirectX my mind flies to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s words: […]
Uhmmm, different case, different case. DirectX succeeded mainly because NVidia succeeded. And because DirectX suceeded, NVidia succeeded. Confused already? Microsoft didn’t need Intel support on DirectX – heck, most, if not all, of their graphics chipsets doesn’t have hardware support for it.
Mr. Cancelled: “This is totally new and will make your Windows version the eye-candy equivelant of Apples QE”. It won’t, plain and simple.
The looks are in the hands of Windows Blinds, not WindowsFX. WindowsFX just makes it possible to do all the redundant effects on Mac OS X.
Gil Bates: My tastes are similar to yours and I am actually pretty happy with the WinXP ‘silver’ theme [..]
I think there are enough people that likes the silver theme to make a petition to force Microsoft to switch from that godforsaken blue theme to the much nicer silver theme.
Mr. Cancelled: Gil: While I haven’t checked out Litestep in a long time, if you’re looking for an entire desktop replacement, Stardock’s DesktopX is an interesting attempt at one.
Litestep lately have been through a lot of problem, and the latest stable release (which is old, BTW), doesn’t work well on NT systems – crashes much faster than a beta Microsoft app.
Plus, the last time I tried it, it changes the UI of Windows, not add effects to it, like WindowFX.
[…]Aston’s also a little less resource hungry that DesktopX, in my opinion.
If there is something more resource hungry than DesktopX…. there is a satan.
Mr. Cancelled: All Windows GUI replacements are more or less just overlays to the default Windows shell and thus will never be quite as efficient as a built in feature.
The shell you use is explorer.exe. Closing it, you loose your entire Shell, and all you see if your windows and the desktop background. Most replacement shells could in fact go straight to the framebuffer in NT.
But most of them also target 9x users… just wait a few more years I guess.
Brad Wardell: With regards to WindowBlinds — Microsoft’s visual style engine is based on the WindowBlinds 2.x design.
This is only for XP onwards. Windows Blinds is still made with 9x users in mind.
fooks: Puhlease, Liquid is a piece of crap!
Oh fooks, I have been waiting for someone to say that. We are two in this KDE world!
CattBeMac: mees agrees 🙂
fooks, make that three.
I am using WindowsFX 2.0 (1.9 is beta for 2.0) right now, no problems with it.
Eye candy? Yep and it sure looks cool on my desktop!
I like Object Desktop.
Actually when you download WindowBlinds, the installer looks at what OS you’re running and installs one of 3 DLLs:
A version optimized for Windows 95,98,ME, a version optimized for Windows NT and 2000, and a version optimized for Windows XP. While the DLL for 95/98/ME would work on XP just fine, the XP version takes advantage of a host of new APIs including hardware acceleration.
Most people today using WindowBlinds are running Windows XP.
The usefullness of the whole 3D desktop rendering has been missed here. By managing videospace using the video hardware mostly (if not only), the CPU has been freed to do other more CPU-ish things. No more windows that won’t get redrawn (or drawn-over). I wouldn’t mind never seeing those frame-trails by a crashed Win98 Explorer or any GUI for that matter. But the fundamental differnece with this gui is that application screwups may be less likely to kill your videoserver (which is 50% of having a desktop). Since this task has been taken over by physical logic, there’s less likely to be a fault along the line.
The other 50% is UI functionality, now it may be just a fancy way to look at the screen, but that’s because most of us here haven’t seen it in action. I would probably become giddy… …but I could come up with a thousand or more uses…
a spherical desktop (like a globe)
fold a window into a paper airplane for email
keep minimized running tasks in a shelf on the wall
more intuitive drag&drop
..course I’d need a mac box for this.
why is it that every discussion here turns into an arguement with eugenia. i appreciate all the involvment here, but maybe the journalists on this site should be a little more unbiased, keep their fingers out of all the pies. this is just absurd, it’s turning osnews into an unpleasent place to be.
Why useless? It pleases the eye. Is that useless?
If it is, so are the paintings of Monet, Vinci, Botticelli, Sisley, etc.
Look lets get to the point. Drawing stuff on your 3d hardware is a STUPID IDEA. Its extrememly rare u find an application that will resize withouth reorganising its internal panels. If it does this ALL BENEFIT IS LOST.
Windows moves windows so fast i can watch media player play visulisations UNDER my transparenty window.. im sorry was this too slow? i didnt realise.
Would someone pls point out what the point is?
I dont believe stupid genie animations have anything to do with an OS .. thats a stupid program your mother pays 50$ for so she can impress dad on a bored sunday.
I love all this Oh quartz is soo much better than windows… if a windows program wants to draw a beizer curve it will and has (and will do many times faster).. i guess your right.. if i have windows on cleartype the subpixel rendering wont work on the software draw beizer…
OH FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DONT CARE I WONT SEE THE DIFFERENCE EXCEPT THAT ITS SLOWER ON OSX.
Actually come to think of it.. every program that uses bizer curves does sub pixel rendering .. like photoshop type programs. Oh well point lost.
OK is there a point to this at all?
Windows is faster than OSX… stardock was licenced by windows and it uses the XP drawing dlls.. so to change it to DX would offer no performance penalty. Any previous 3d speed comparisons are obviously scompletely useless here since we are talking about the move to 3d. Its not a hack as much as running samba and apache on osx is a hack.
Cya so over it,
Glenn
PS i hope osx is better than win 95 .. its about time
doh .. replace
Any previous 3d speed comparisons are obviously scompletely useless here since we are talking about the move to 3d.
with
Any previous 2d stardock speed comparisons are obviously scompletely useless here since we are talking about the move to 3d.