FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Slap me if I'm just being dumb, but does anyone else think that the hardware requirements just for a little eyecandy are somewhat extreme? I mean why should it be necessary to spend money on a DX9, and maybe DX10 (for Areo Extreme) capable video card, just to see some pretty windows? From what I've seen on screenshots and various videos, none of the effects seem beyond even DX6 capable cards, so one has to wonder what they're doing with all the extra power? I'm not spouting off any conspiracy theories such as a secret agreement with ATI/nVidia, but come on.... a ?300+ card, just to see some pretty effects? Now, I like eye candy, but there's no way I'm forking out stupid amounts of money on a new video card for desktop use, when my old one (a 5600XT) still manages most games perfectly well... Not to mention that the graphics in my development laptop, the one I'm actually most likely to install Vista on when it's released, is stuck with Intel Extreme Graphics... Poo I know, but more than sufficient for desktop use... EDIT: Corrected some smelling pistakes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AQUaDeX Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Nobody is forcing you to get a new card to get the eyecandies, Windows runs perfectly fine without them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDW-mobile Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 It's just to stimulate the poeple to buy new products. so I think that MS is just going along with those company's like ATI/Nvidia. not to say that the will take REDHAT into the business of paid software..... MS doesn't like the opensource issue so REDHAT was the first one how wanted to get patent on there opensource..... (if I'm right) Vista has some things build in which has been produced by REDHAT.. (MS is +/- 65% stockholder of REDHAT) there we go..... it's all about power and money..... in your case just wait untill the opensource will provide tools to make vista compatible with other older graphiccards.... for sure there will be some wizkids how will find solutions for this... :wacko: is it worth to buy windows Vista just for the graphic part...? don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu121 Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Does Aero Glass etc still run in the background when you launch fullscreen programs such as games? Could be the high specs are there to allow you to use resource-intensive programs while running Aero glass at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Does Aero Glass etc still run in the background when you launch fullscreen programs such as games? Could be the high specs are there to allow you to use resource-intensive programs while running Aero glass at the same time. 586324226[/snapback] Well, according to the feature docs, the desktop is supposed to shutdown when running full screen DX apps, such as games, so I'd guess no... I've no plans to buy Vista just for the eyecandy anyway, my main interest is application development, but really, a ?300+ video card just to see some pretty effects that can be done on a ?30 card? With any luck, some genius will release a wrapper so older cards can show the eyecandy too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondockSaint Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 And remember, Vista won't be out until end of 2006 - you probably will upgrade your video card by then anyway. FWIW, Glass runs very well on my notebook with a Radeon X600... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 And remember, Vista won't be out until end of 2006 - you probably will upgrade your video card by then anyway. 586324242[/snapback] Not if my missus has anything to do with it :( "It's not broken so you can't have a new one!"... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovman Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Does Aero Glass etc still run in the background when you launch fullscreen programs such as games? Could be the high specs are there to allow you to use resource-intensive programs while running Aero glass at the same time. 586324226[/snapback] Remember Vista won't be out till the end of next year, and by that time even the Geforce 7800's will be old news. We still have a lot more effects to come as Aero isn't finished. Not to mention the fact that windows wlil work fine without the eye candy. Now, I like eye candy, but there's no way I'm forking out stupid amounts of money on a new video card for desktop use, when my old one (a 5600XT) still manages most games perfectly well. But that thing won't manage the games of late 2006/early 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoFreX Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 I agree that the specs for Glass are way too high, I can run HL2 at medium settings at a very comfortable framerate, but I can't have partial transparency on some 2d windows?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilgore Trout Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 it may also be a benefit, that all screen drawing will be handled by the GPU, leaving the CPU to run tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Battery Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 I personally think the eye candy in vista is a little pointless, maybe I just need to get used to it but then Ive never been a big fan of skinning apps or anything either because after a while it just gets in the way of what you want to do and takes up memory. I think if I was using vista long term then I would switch a lot of the effects off but right now they are all still on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camsoft Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 I have Aero Glass running perfectly smooth, no delays, all animations are working and I only have a Radeon 9550 Pro 256MB which cost around ?30. That does not seem very high spec to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 I have Aero Glass running perfectly smooth, no delays, all animations are working and I only have a Radeon 9550 Pro 256MB which cost around ?30. That does not seem very high spec to me. 586324335[/snapback] Well, judging by the stated spec, my old 5600XT will run Areo Glass fine too, but not Areo Extreme, but that's not really the point. The point is, it's just a desktop GUI, all they're doing is making some windows transparent and fading things in an out, with maybe a little animation thrown in here and there... Video cards have been capable of this sort of thing for years, so why are MS telling us we need a late generation video card to see all the pretties? It's not exactly HL2 now, is it? (Which incidentally, DOES run on my laptop, with crappy Intel Extreme Graphics... Lowest quality, ****ty framerate, but it runs it, just about playable too! And MS are telling me I can't have a transparent window? Bleh!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkishdelight Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 The point is, it's just a desktop GUI, all they're doing is making some windows transparent and fading things in an out, with maybe a little animation thrown in here and there... Video cards have been capable of this sort of thing for years, so why are MS telling us we need a late generation video card to see all the pretties? It's not exactly HL2 now, is it? (Which incidentally, DOES run on my laptop, with crappy Intel Extreme Graphics... Lowest quality, ****ty framerate, but it runs it, just about playable too! And MS are telling me I can't have a transparent window? Bleh!!) :yes: (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Yes, it's beyond me too why windows transparency and some basic window effects, with possibly some 3D (?) thrown in will require all this. That's one of those things that really don't impress me with Vista. I know it's optional, but I'm not saying "I wish I could deactivate it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camsoft Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Well, judging by the stated spec, my old 5600XT will run Areo Glass fine too, but not Areo Extreme, but that's not really the point.The point is, it's just a desktop GUI, all they're doing is making some windows transparent and fading things in an out, with maybe a little animation thrown in here and there...? Video cards have been capable of this sort of thing for years, so why are MS telling us we need a late generation video card to see all the pretties?? It's not exactly HL2 now, is it?? (Which incidentally, DOES run on my laptop, with crappy Intel Extreme Graphics... Lowest quality, ****ty framerate, but it runs it, just about playable too! And MS are telling me I can't have a transparent window? Bleh!!) 586324370[/snapback] Yeah but the whole UI is now off buffered on the graphics card and processed on the graphics card as aposed to the CPU. So the faster graphics card I guess the faster thr UI will respond. I also heard the Final Vista top-end GUI will use Video, 3D, Pixel Shader 2 and 3 and Vortex Shader and more. Some of which are only found on high end graphics cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Yeah but the whole UI is now off buffered on the graphics card and processed on the graphics card as aposed to the CPU. So the faster graphics card I guess the faster thr UI will respond. I also heard the Final Vista top-end GUI will use Video, 3D, Pixel Shader 2 and 3 and Vortex Shader and more. Some of which are only found on high end graphics cards. 586324454[/snapback] If you can show me ANYTHING that you could want on a desktop, that cannot be quickly and efficiently rendered by even something as old as a Radeon 7500, I'll gladly shush ;) Seeing as none of us have seen what Areo Extreme can do, we can only guess at it's capabilities. But from what I've seen of Aero Glass so far, even my ancient, stuffed in a box somewhere, Matrox G200, wouldn't have any problems rendering it at least as quickly as XP currently renders it's desktop. Look at all the pretties in OSX... The Mac's don't exactly have a butt kicking video card, do they? :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camsoft Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 If you can show me ANYTHING that you could want on a desktop, that cannot be quickly and efficiently rendered by even something as old as a Radeon 7500, I'll gladly shush ;) Seeing as none of us have seen what Areo Extreme can do, we can only guess at it's capabilities. But from what I've seen of Aero Glass so far, even my ancient, stuffed in a box somewhere, Matrox G200, wouldn't have any problems rendering it at least as quickly as XP currently renders it's desktop. Look at all the pretties in OSX... The Mac's don't exactly have a butt kicking video card, do they? :whistle: 586324490[/snapback] I relation to the Mac OSX, my Mac Mini would not do the Water ripple when widgets were droped because be GPU was not good enough. Although not very important but does look nice. I have a feeling the spec may be a little high but by the time Vista comes out all graphics cards will be DirectX 10 compatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Instantly this will begin to appeal to those of you who long for a more... Apple flavoured desktop environment. It's heavy on the graphical effects, and rightly so. For the first time, Windows will take advantage of your 3D accelerator to offer reflective and transparent effects in windows with a negligible load on the OS. How so? In Windows XP currently, applications each redraw the screen individually. If a part of the screen needs updating, whichever application is doing the updating simply draws over the top of it and sends the newly drawn image over to the graphics card for output. Windows has no memory of what was previously on screen before it was redrawn. AERO uses the 3D hardware to layer redraws on top of each other, off-screen (similar to how off-screen render targets are used in 3D). The use of the 3D hardware makes it possible to achieve composition effects that were horrendously slow previously. For example, transparency can be achieved by blending redraw layers in hardware, so that the windows behind it show through. Windows can fade in an out by changing the transparency level. Windows can be manipulated as 3D objects and tiled, moved or rendered in different ways from those we have now. The composition is done in hardware because graphics hardware spends all its time in games compositing scenes in this manner, and so is very fast and efficient at doing so the titlebars are transparent, this is what the "glass" part of aero is all about, transparency. It's not going to suit everyone, but it will be what you all see in a fresh install, and will be the most common desktop visual style. On top of that, there is the new "effects" for minimise and maximise but lets just say...it looks very very cool, and miles better than XP. - Its also worth noting, that all these fancy visual effects are generated solely by your Graphics Card's GPU, no CPU overheads at all, leaving you with a much faster navigation experience All of the Effects in Vista requier DX9 hardware of sorts with pixle shader 2.0 in no way could a DX6 card do trnasparncy effects and or blur effects and relfection effects to do them you need programmable DX9 shaders. http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/08/03/windows_vista/1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+primortal Subscriber² Posted August 4, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted August 4, 2005 You also have to figure in that this isn't the final look of the GUI. So what we are seeing today isn't what we are going to see when vista is released. My laptop with ATI 9600 is running fine with it. A little slow, but thats to be expected with betas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 All of the Effects in Vista requier DX9 hardware of sorts with pixle shader 2.0 in no way could a DX6 card do trnasparncy effects and or blur effects and relfection effects to do them you need programmable DX9 shaders.http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/08/03/windows_vista/1.html 586324558[/snapback] Well, that's funny... Cause all of those effects were used in the G200's tech demo's, and that sure ain't no DX9 card! ;) What they're actually saying is, they're using programming interfaces built in to DirectX 9's API to access these effects, not that non-DX9 complaint cards can't do them. In fact, earlier version of DirectX can leverage these kinds of effects to, they just look better in DX9 is all... I can understand them wanting to use their latest technologies to leverage the effects, but not the cutting out people with lesser cards from experiencing something which their cards CAN render. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 If you can show me ANYTHING that you could want on a desktop, that cannot be quickly and efficiently rendered by even something as old as a Radeon 7500, I'll gladly shush ;) Seeing as none of us have seen what Areo Extreme can do, we can only guess at it's capabilities. But from what I've seen of Aero Glass so far, even my ancient, stuffed in a box somewhere, Matrox G200, wouldn't have any problems rendering it at least as quickly as XP currently renders it's desktop. Look at all the pretties in OSX... The Mac's don't exactly have a butt kicking video card, do they? :whistle: 586324490[/snapback] and to that statment you made a Mac can havea GeForce 6-6800ultra and the lowest isa ATI 9550 now from what i heard and that is fully Directx 9 capable card and to use Apples Core image Fx and stuff you need minimal a DX8 card witch would need to be supported but those effects are not near as advanced as in Vista currently and will be in beta 2 and Finale Vista Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Does Vista have the option of setting the UI to "Classic" mode like Windows XP does? Just in case you want it to look like Windows 2000 instead of OS X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+primortal Subscriber² Posted August 4, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted August 4, 2005 yep, its got classic mode.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Well, that's funny... Cause all of those effects were used in the G200's tech demo's, and that sure ain't no DX9 card! ;) What they're actually saying is, they're using programming interfaces built in to DirectX 9's API to access these effects, not that non-DX9 complaint cards can't do them. In fact, earlier version of DirectX can leverage these kinds of effects to, they just look better in DX9 is all... I can understand them wanting to use their latest technologies to leverage the effects, but not the cutting out people with lesser cards from experiencing something which their cards CAN render. 586324710[/snapback] [/quotewell ok Try and run Halife 2 on your DX7 card and see if you can run the DX9 effects. the G200 was not running them demos it was all doen by the CPU not the vidoe card and the G200 was a Directx 6 based card and canot do the complex shader effects of todays modern DX9 GPUs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts