Recommended Posts

Real or not, I like the design and hope Win 7 doesn't end up like a slightly different Vista.

Aero doesn't drag down performance at all if you are running a decent card, if anything it makes it faster and more respnsive and takes load off of the cpu.

Aero is slow compared to OSX's Quartz Extreme and Compiz in Linux. I ran them all on an X850 XT and QE was faster even with a lack of driver support.

Aero doesn't drag down performance at all if you are running a decent card, if anything it makes it faster and more respnsive and takes load off of the cpu.

What kind of pcs do the majority of home users use? Self built performance pcs or cheap OEM models? Sure, it works great on the former, but it needs to be BUILT for the latter.... Otherwise, you get what we hear every day about vista: a bunch of whiny noobs who know **** about computers complaining because they cant watch their porn videos stutter free.... maybe it doesn't "matter" but i have to say, i'm tired of hearing it. Hence an OSes need to perform more than just "average" on OEM systems (Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony mainly) and i gotta say, thats just not always the case. Vista has always run good on the HP laptops i've used..... but not GREAT... thats a problem for most people. In fact, even with the latest build of SP1 beta installed, I just see a lot of performance inconsistency with Vista, and this is no wimpy system. 2gig dual core 64bit Turion proc, 2 gigs ram... At that level, I should have advanced beyond stutters and inconsistent performance levels considering i don't push it very hard, yet I have not. How can a system that nice (at least DOUBLE the minimum requirements for vista) not run a half step below PERFECTION? I sincerely hope MS doesn't consider SP1's release "case closed" with regard to performance/reliability enhancements.

Edited by ispamforfood
Real or not, I like the design and hope Win 7 doesn't end up like a slightly different Vista.

Aero is slow compared to OSX's Quartz Extreme and Compiz in Linux. I ran them all on an X850 XT and QE was faster even with a lack of driver support.

Faster? Faster how?

I'm sorry but it's an obvious fake, as stated by the name 'MSN Messenger', and IE11. Since when does MS skip 4 versions of a program just to put a 'newer version' into an alpha stage OS. They wouldn't. Any Windows 7 M1 out there will probably be running IE7.

-Spenser

yeah, i noticed that after i posted that. you are right.

And even if we wanted to believe, it is possible that someone tricked you.

Whatever, +1 to OSXI build 1337...

Fact is, in an interview a Microsoft developer said himself that design is one of the last things they do, and they even work in Windows Classic mode...

or have everyone forgotten the exciting purple vista start?

You know, though its probly fake, consider this...... Why NOT include the new gui in alpha builds? I mean, look what happened with Vista...... They waited too damn long to integrate the new GUI into beta builds that it ended up being detrimental to the performance of Vista..... Honestly, I think they SHOULD create the gui first...... at least then, they'd have over a year to tweak the gui so its not going to drag down your computer like it has in XP and Vista.

It is very clear that you're not a developer

Real or not, I like the design and hope Win 7 doesn't end up like a slightly different Vista.

Aero is slow compared to OSX's Quartz Extreme and Compiz in Linux. I ran them all on an X850 XT and QE was faster even with a lack of driver support.

Compiz was slow as hell on my 7600GS compared to Aero. Aero was always perfectly smooth, compiz lagged all the time minimizing windows mainly and some of the other simple animations that shouldn't lag. I had tried tweaking it alot, using many different nvidia drivers and many different versions of compiz/beryl and compiz fusion, it never worked as smooth as aero. Compiz always felt incredibly unresponsive compared to aero too. I have NEVER seen aero stutter or lag, especially minimizing damn windows. I haven't been able to try linux on my x1950 pro yet, but it would probably be evern worse due to ati's linux drivers.

LOL?@ mechanical mouse movement in the fake video.

I mean, jesus, those people should try harder. I'm sure that anyone with some basic C# and XAML coding skills and some design ideas that don't look like Fisher Price can hack up an application to create a really funky and "real" looking fake video.

Real or not, I like the design and hope Win 7 doesn't end up like a slightly different Vista.

Aero is slow compared to OSX's Quartz Extreme and Compiz in Linux. I ran them all on an X850 XT and QE was faster even with a lack of driver support.

You shouldn't get any slowdown with Aero on a X850 XT. I'd say an FX5500 is about the minimum for Aero (which is a terribly weak card).

Compiz was slow as hell on my 7600GS compared to Aero. Aero was always perfectly smooth, compiz lagged all the time minimizing windows mainly and some of the other simple animations that shouldn't lag. I had tried tweaking it alot, using many different nvidia drivers and many different versions of compiz/beryl and compiz fusion, it never worked as smooth as aero. Compiz always felt incredibly unresponsive compared to aero too. I have NEVER seen aero stutter or lag, especially minimizing damn windows. I haven't been able to try linux on my x1950 pro yet, but it would probably be evern worse due to ati's linux drivers.

You must have used really crappy drivers. I ran Compiz in Ubuntu off of a live cd on an old P3 with a 9500 Pro and it was smooth as butter, much better than Aero runs on my much faster P4 3.4, X850 XT. Vista is laggy in comparison and I've tried a couple different drivers.

Maybe fast to you is slow to me but I'm telling you, Compiz was really fast the time I played around with it.

You must have used really crappy drivers. I ran Compiz in Ubuntu off of a live cd on an old P3 with a 9500 Pro and it was smooth as butter, much better than Aero runs on my much faster P4 3.4, X850 XT. Vista is laggy in comparison and I've tried a couple different drivers.

Maybe fast to you is slow to me but I'm telling you, Compiz was really fast the time I played around with it.

By "Slow" I meant when I would minimize windows it would drop frames and lag, and unminimizing windows like firefox it would lag and flicker black. I always used the newest nvidia drivers. Certain animations were always perfectly smooth but these were the really fancy more intensive effects like flames n **** which I never use. I have used Aero on an integrated x200 fine, and also no lag on an old ass 9600PRO. so I guess we both have an odd problem maybe related to drivers. There is no way Aero should be slow on your card and compiz slow on mine.

Aero is great. I just wish Microsoft offers more themes. I don't really like Stardock apps and etc...

I doubt that will happen with Windows 7. Microsoft hasn't ever really been one to include a bunch of themes. Look at the 9x series they all used the same taskbar, but you could change the color. XP you only had 3 color choices. Vista is like the 9x series and you have the same taskbar, but you can choose from any color.

Really if you want more themes your going to need a 3rd party program or find a patch to install your own themes.

Faster. You know, as in more responsive, less stuttering and quicker to render. You might want to try the alternatives.

I own two Macs. My laptop is a Macbook (black C2D model) with Leopard on it.

I was simply curious how you measure the performance of the DWM versus QE / XGL. On the same system at the same resolution, I have always found them to be comparable. The DWM does have some extra burden versus Quartz Extreme, since QE doesn't do anything in 3D - and doesn't have to contend with all the legacy support that the DWM does. Further, Apple has much tighter control over the driver situation.

Still, unless you're trying to drive a very high resolution display on a low memory (or terribly slow) video card, composition with the DWM should always be silky smooth. One case where it wasn't was on my old work machine, which was an X300 and and X200 on-board chip driving three monitors. The cards simply weren't up to the task at that resolution, and transitions would sometimes be a little choppy. But the 8600 in my new box drives two 24" beautifully. And as I said, my Macbook runs both the DWM and QE just as smoothly (unless I connect a large external display, at which point they both drop frames now and then).

You must have used really crappy drivers. I ran Compiz in Ubuntu off of a live cd on an old P3 with a 9500 Pro and it was smooth as butter, much better than Aero runs on my much faster P4 3.4, X850 XT. Vista is laggy in comparison and I've tried a couple different drivers.

Maybe fast to you is slow to me but I'm telling you, Compiz was really fast the time I played around with it.

Something must be horribly wrong with your configuration. There is no way Aero would perform anything but perfectly on an X850 XT.

What is your WEI score for Desktop Graphics?

Something must be horribly wrong with your configuration. There is no way Aero would perform anything but perfectly on an X850 XT.

What is your WEI score for Desktop Graphics?

So it's not just me, I have the same problem with AERO, when it's transparent. It lags when minimize.

My GPU is QUADRO M140, it's a thinkpad laptop. I think it's drive, as even laptop from work, which uses Intel X3100 works great.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!