75 replies to this topic 3 votes

[Tilt090]

so its decided win7 is slower eh.. and since people will continue to develop for gdi its a no brainer to move to the faster os ... snicker snicker...

[Aethec]

Joey S, on 11 November 2011 - 17:13, said:

No thanks. I prefer patent unencumbered programming languages like Python, Java, Perl to C#. As far as C++ goes, If I want to use a OO design pattern, again, i'll use Java or Python. I really don't see a use for C++ these days.

Don't tell me you've never read Gosling's explanation about how they had to patent everything at Sun, and how they made contests of who got the most stupid patent?
Fact: If someone tells you his creation is not patent-encumbered, that doesn't mean it isn't. Look at Android and WebM.

Joey S, on 11 November 2011 - 17:44, said:

Really? From what I've read, It hasn't made an impact. This could be attributed to the fact that it's locked down to Windows of course. I prefer to write portable code.

*cough* dotGNU *cough* Mono *cough*
Also, http://www.tiobe.com...tpci/index.html

[Joey S]

Aethec, on 13 November 2011 - 09:29, said:

*cough* dotGNU *cough* Mono *cough*
Also, http://www.tiobe.com...tpci/index.html

Both of which have fallen into disuse and have questionable compatibility with Microsoft's implementation, as evidenced by Canonical's recent decision to exclude Mono from future Ubuntu releases.

[pcunite]

Thanks for this post, I thought I was the only one noticing this.

I use a certain application maximized on my Windows 7 x64 workstation having upgraded from Windows XP. The application shows objects, about 200 of them on screen, and when I go to scroll, it is noticeably slower and somewhat flicky under Windows 7. Since the developer must support XP I doubt I'll see any improvement for a long time. Would be better for MS to fix this.

[The_Decryptor]

There's nothing for MS to fix, it's up to the developer to make their program work properly.

[+Brando212]

@Joey S and @Tilt090

not to sound rude (unlike Tilt sounds from my perspective)

but grow up and stop living in the past. Things change, in the world of technology you need to learn to adapt

[ArialBlue]

So if I get this straight, an application must use D2D/DW or suffer a major performance drop on post-XP era Windows?

[+Brando212]

_Heracles, on 04 January 2012 - 05:39, said:

So if I get this straight, an application must use D2D/DW or suffer a major performance drop on post-XP era Windows?

where are you getting the "major" from? as has been stated, it's a barely noticeable performance drop under most hardware

[The_Decryptor]

The most important GDI operations are hardware accelerated under Windows 7, so the majority of users wouldn't notice any slowdowns.

The main problem with using GDI rendering is that it's pretty crappy, the speed has nothing to do with it.

[PGHammer]

Tilt090, on 13 November 2011 - 06:31, said:

so its decided win7 is slower eh.. and since people will continue to develop for gdi its a no brainer to move to the faster os ... snicker snicker...

And consider how old GDI is.

GDI goes back to 9x/NT4 - and was optimized to GDI+ in ME/2K Professional.

GDI+ is a crapton faster than GDI - and that was merely in ME and Windows 2000 Professional. GDI+ had one major issue (which it still has) - backward-compatibility issues with GDI-only displays.

How many GDI-only applications are there today?

And isn't that reality still the case with those GDI-only applications that exist today? (Backward-compatibility with older versions of Windows.)

The only GDI-only application I even know of is *Opera* - which is designed with WayBack compatibility first and foremost. (Even Mozilla isn't GDI-only, and hasn't been on Windows for a while.)

Not one messaging client is GDI-only. (That includes Facebook Messenger, by the way.)

[The_Decryptor]

GDI+ is a software version of GDI that can do AA (One big difference), it's often quite slower than GDI.

[ArialBlue]

Any 8 vs 7 benchmarks on this topic?

[PGHammer]

The_Decryptor, on 10 January 2012 - 05:55, said:

GDI+ is a software version of GDI that can do AA (One big difference), it's often quite slower than GDI.

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

[HawkMan]

PGHammer, on 16 January 2012 - 14:48, said:

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

Adding software AA to stuff makes it slower on ANY kind of hardware. the difference is wether you hardware is fast enough for you not to notice or not.

[The_Decryptor]

PGHammer, on 16 January 2012 - 14:48, said:

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

The GPU doesn't come into it since GDI+ runs on the CPU, you could have a GTX 570 or a simple framebuffer device, GDI+ will still be slower in most cases (GDI+ might win when it comes to 32bit textures, but only because GDI doesn't support them "well" )