Vista goes Next-Gen


Recommended Posts

Any standard? What does apple using OpenGL have to do with anything? OpenGL and Direct X and rendering technologies.

I've had quite enough. Yes, resizing windows with large amounts of content aren't as fast as windows in regards to frames. Not actually resizing the windows, but the framerate it's displayed at.  Your point? That doesnt make OS X more sluggish. Not to mention it's been drastically improved in Tiger.  Note the OS X UI is based off PDF Technology. Windows is using.. GDI. You take your pros and cons. Time it takes to show menus?

I haven't seen any improvement in Tiger w.r.t. speed but then I am less than a year on Macs anyway. All context menus in Finder in particular and OS X in general are slow!

Not only is some of that FUD, but some of it is rather subjective.

Try dragging a window around a screen. See those tears? Those are hideous. I don't have those in OS X.

Stop the FUD, please.

586265843[/snapback]

yes dragging windows looks bad but the response I get is damn fast and I prefer the speed in such scenario than eye-candy.

This is no FUD, I am typing this on my iBook G4 (1.2 Ghz/768 MB ram/Tiger.2) and I can actually count to 4 when I right click on an icon in my desktop window (with one icon only) which is roughly 1.5 sec.

And this is my experience and I know iBook is not the best Apple system to check on speed but lets say its fair enough to compare with an average Windows box. I always have my XP-box (p3-800/512mb) tweaked to have a sweet spot for looks/performance and it outperforms OSX in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that what he meant was that Microsoft "owns" DirectX. That way, it can modify it for its own needs and it knows the tricks of its own tech and Apple doesn't necessarily "own" the OpenGL standard.

586265878[/snapback]

:) yeah thats what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes dragging windows looks bad but the response I get is damn fast and I prefer the speed in such scenario than eye-candy.

586267008[/snapback]

*sigh* I tried asking this question before but it seems to have been chewed up by the board. I'll try again....

How is window scrolling on OS X nowdays? I saw it got panned on the Anandtech OS X review and I've heard other mention of it being poor when compared to Window's silky-smooth window scrolling. Has it been improved in Tiger?

I am curious because if Vista is moving to a similar buffered interface should we expect a degradation in the quality of window content scrolling. That would be far, far worse than the window "tearing" alot of OS X users seem to complain about which is only really obvious if one holds down the mouse and then proceeds to pretend to have a seizure while moving or adjusting a window. Honestly, outside of an OS p|ssing contest it's not something that particularly bothers me in Windows given (like most Windows users) I work with my windows maximised all the time anyway. I do however understand why it would have more impact in a Mac environment where maximised windows are not the norm.

I'm asking you because your response would seem more honest to me. I played with OS X when I tried to get a Mini, and I walked away from it feeling the interface was anything but as "snappy" as Windows. It didn't bother me (I found other OS X elements more frustrating) but I'm suprised people would try pass it off as that. I guess it just depends on what you are used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess all this article was a bunch of BS/dreaming, because we never found any sources??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:alien:

Windows Vista-Ready PCs

https://partner.microsoft.com/global/40018577

Requirements

The Windows Vista-Ready PC requires a combination of essential PC hardware that will define great overall Windows Vista performance, a triumvirate of CPU plus memory plus graphics. PCs should have a modern CPU, at least 512MB of memory, and a graphics processor that will be ready for the Windows Vista Display Driver.

:yes:

209136.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone. Bill here.

Great find, Press any key. You're absolutely correct. I should know, I published that web page.

Everyone, pay no heed to Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.  Bill here.

Great find, Press any key.  You're absolutely correct.  I should know, I published that web page.

Everyone, pay no heed to Vista.

586269583[/snapback]

LOLLL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any improvement in Tiger w.r.t. speed but then I am less than a year on Macs anyway. All context menus in Finder in particular and OS X in general are slow!

yes dragging windows looks bad but the response I get is damn fast and I prefer the speed in such scenario than eye-candy.

This is no FUD, I am typing this on my iBook G4 (1.2 Ghz/768 MB ram/Tiger.2) and I can actually count to 4 when I right click on an icon in my desktop window (with one icon only) which is roughly 1.5 sec.

And this is my experience and I know iBook is not the best Apple system to check on speed but lets say its fair enough to compare with an average Windows box. I always have my XP-box (p3-800/512mb) tweaked to have a sweet spot for looks/performance and it outperforms OSX in that.

586267008[/snapback]

My Machine(s) aren't much faster than that. I have a Mac Mini (what that was recorded on) and a 12" PB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* I tried asking this question before but it seems to have been chewed up by the board. I'll try again....

How is window scrolling on OS X nowdays? I saw it got panned on the Anandtech OS X review and I've heard other mention of it being poor when compared to Window's silky-smooth window scrolling. Has it been improved in Tiger?

I am curious because if Vista is moving to a similar buffered interface should we expect a degradation in the quality of window content scrolling. That would be far, far worse than the window "tearing" alot of OS X users seem to complain about which is only really obvious if one holds down the mouse and then proceeds to pretend to have a seizure while moving or adjusting a window. Honestly, outside of an OS p|ssing contest it's not something that particularly bothers me in Windows given (like most Windows users) I work with my windows maximised all the time anyway. I do however understand why it would have more impact in a Mac environment where maximised windows are not the norm.

I'm asking you because your response would seem more honest to me. I played with OS X when I tried to get a Mini, and I walked away from it feeling the interface was anything but as "snappy" as Windows. It didn't bother me (I found other OS X elements more frustrating) but I'm suprised people would try pass it off as that. I guess it just depends on what you are used to.

586267383[/snapback]

smooth as silk here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smooth as silk here.

586272190[/snapback]

Bit jumpy here, but i dont really care (xp is worse IMO)

Regarding what some people have said, have you ever used macs?

my mac isn't the best (1.25Ghz eMac), but it's still responsive, menus drop down right away, anything i click on responds right away, etc. only slowdowns i find are in opening applications, and applications that use alot of memory (i only have 256MB, it pages a bit)

Regarding the whole graphical sub system, i find OS X's more optimised, OS X has video acceleration on any graphics card that supports OpenGL and has 32MB of ram, pci or agp, windows will have graphics acceleration (for just the plain UI, no shaders, etc.) with what, a FX5200, 64MB ram on AGP 4X or something? (this is from old technical documentation i was reading, hopefully would be less now)

But, come on people, lets get off OS X, this thread is about vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man, that 2 gig of memory is too much. and a 1 gig vid card? wtf, i just ordered myself a x850xt pt, and from what i am understanding, it won't even run that b1tch the way microsoft intend it to? omfg. what about that 3.6 ghz crap? you gotta be kidding me, how about just optimizing the damn codes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure all that information you gave us is true? From what it sounds like, it will be reallllyy difficult to upgrade from XP to Vista. And the special hardware thing just makes it sound like it is impossible to upgrade from XP to Vista unless you make heavy modifications to your hardware. Do you mean that with the current hardware, nearly all the functions will be there but the performance will be not as good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit jumpy here, but i dont really care (xp is worse IMO)

Regarding what some people have said, have you ever used macs?

586272272[/snapback]

Are you referring to me? Yes I have used a Mac.

I used them at Uni circa Windows 3.1 (showing my age I know): They were painfully slow.

I used my brother's Mac around the same time. It was fantastic, but slow vs 3.1 as well. The fact it was light years ahead of Windows offset this. I loved that machine, but got a PC for the applications.

I used my friends Mini, and store Mac's when I was interested in purchasing a Mini. They felt "sluggish" vs XP, but I was going to get one anyway because I loved the size of the hardware. Only I got stuffed around by the Apple store here so cancelled my order.

I still may get a Mac in future (particularly now they are moving to Intel) but I certainly will be trying at another store when the anger has finally died down from my last attempt. ;)

Regarding the whole graphical sub system, i find OS X's more optimised, OS X has video acceleration on any graphics card that supports OpenGL and has 32MB of ram, pci or agp, windows will have graphics acceleration (for just the plain UI, no shaders, etc.) with what, a FX5200, 64MB ram on AGP 4X or something? (this is from old technical documentation i was reading, hopefully would be less now)

586272272[/snapback]

Sorry, but I've always found this argument to be very odd. You are comparing apples to oranges, and I'm not quite sure what is the point you are trying to make exactly.

Are you suggesting that OS X is more optimised simply because it uses *some* features of a graphics card to do things like double buffering the display and arguably pointless little animations like the genie effect? If so, then bunk'em. It's only more "optimised" than a version of OS X *not* using the graphics card for the same effects. Comparing it to current versions of Windows is absolutley meaningless because Windows doesn't currently peform any of these "effects". Yes we have to put up with "tearing", and less fancy visualisations but it certainly doesn't mean it is any less "optimised" for its' purpose.

It would be like comparing a lower tier graphics mode in Vista to a higher tier one. The lower tier may be every bit as lean-and-mean, if not more so. I have absolutely no reason to believe that throwing hardware at making the interface behave more like a video game necessarily makes it more "optimised" than one displayed using traditional techniques.

You havn't really provided a clear argument (other than opinion) as to why I should. I'm all ears. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what everyone is talking about regarding the slow interface in OS X, but usually people who primarily use macs dont notice it for some reason. And yes, XP has a far quicker interface even on medium spec machines.

The interface in OS X doesnt get any better with a better spec machine, they are mostly the same. I've used emacs and dual 2ghz G5s.

Its probably just a combination of things, slow interface, accelerating mouse cursor, and unresponsive mouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that some people may see this info as BS. Just forget about those requirements. This article originally was made for a school project. I visited a lot of websites and gathered all relevant information about Longhorn and I translated everything into Dutch and re-translated it back to English a month later and posted it on the Guru3D forums.

Here you have some sources:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1791681,00.asp (most of the info I got there)

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/longhorn.html

If you type Longhorn WGF into Google you'll get even more websites with this information.

I didn't make anything up.

REMEMBER: Microsoft has announced that they're trying to get all of these features in Vista before the release in August-November 2006. If there's one software company that can pull this off, it's Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that some people may see this info as BS. Just forget about those requirements. This article originally was made for a school project. I visited a lot of websites and gathered all relevant information about Longhorn and I translated everything into Dutch and re-translated it back to English a month later and posted it on the Guru3D forums.

Here you have some sources:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1791681,00.asp (most of the info I got there)

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/longhorn.html

If you type Longhorn WGF into Google you'll get even more websites with this information.

I didn't make anything up.

REMEMBER: Microsoft has announced that they're trying to get all of these features in Vista before the release in August-November 2006. If there's one software company that can pull this off, it's Microsoft.

586275197[/snapback]

well, this explains a lot:

If you need a new PC now--in 2005--there is absolutely no reason to wait for Windows Vista. Any mainstream PC today is fully capable of running Windows Vista.

from Winsupersite Vista FAQ.

So all the "new hardware" stuff is not really necessary?

Wow, makes me want to skip the Mac Mini and just wait for Longhorn. pinch.gif

you mean Vista?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've updated the article on the first page. Please post here if you don't understand something or have found something that's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How great does the video card have to be? This is the first time i've ever had to check what my video card is and this is what it says:

NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX/MX 400

Video memory: 32 MB

Will this work for the aero glass, etc. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a word 'NO'... I'd suggest a geforceFX series or later. Geforce2 MX is one of the most basic video cards on the planet which accelerates basic video and 2D/3D games like Diablo or perhaps HalfLife1 and the most advanced....

How great does the video card have to be? This is the first time i've ever had to check what my video card is and this is what it says:

NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX/MX 400

Will this work for the aero glass, etc. ?

586295413[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.