Vista and OpenGL

Yeah, but the difference is usually relatively small currently. And running in windowed mode can really be fantastic for certain types of games, like MMORPG's, where there may be a lot of downtime, and you'd like to, say, watch TV in another window, look up some online resources describing a quest you're working on, or chat with friends that aren't currently in the game. So it could be pretty bad to have a really dramatic performance drop in windowed mode.

 

3DSMax is Win only. The Max system requirements list DirectX as mandatory, OpenGL optional. AutoCAD is also Win only.

Maya is Win/Mac/Linux.

Lightwave is Win/Mac, as is ZBrush.

XSI is Win/Linux.

Personally, I use Wings3D

 

Umm, sales?

 

Agree, and it would be like looking at a women with no make-up for a OS with unattractive GUI .

 

My wife has never used make up ever and it looks mighty fine and taste even better.

I vista gui was suppose to make it so ATi and nvidia cards played exactly the same with no optimisations.

I also see vista areo as being just plain on another level and turning it off would be appling make up .

Now I see who's writeng all those game cheats. Which as I see is hacking . Laws have got to be made.

 

I agree some women don't need make up to look good , but the rest of your post just confuses the hell out of me

 

Sorry to dig up such an old post, but I didn't see this anywhere else (ok, I didnt look that hard).

Some new info:
http://blogs.msdn.com/kamvedbrat/archive/2006/02/22/537624.aspx

 

It seems they actually listened to people

 

well I'm currently running vista build 5308. I was expecting disabling the desktop compositing engine to be quite a 'omg what just did I just do' sort of thing, but all that happens is the transparent windows become solid, and take a slightly different look. (and everything becomes slower).

Overall, I have to say though I am *extremly* impressed with this build so far. Just a few minutes ago, seeing my app rendering in the alt-tab menu was halarious. But yeah seriously it's one kick arse OS.
Possibly the only thing that will dissapoint people is the lack of GDI/GDI+ hardware acceleration when using VDDMs, so legacy apps arn't going to run all that fast. O well can't please everyone That said avalon apps are so very spangly. It's great, solitair never looked so flash.

 

The lack of GDI acceleration is a real problem for legacy apps in my opinion and while overall performance has been improving over time, it is still vastly slower than a similar PC running XP.

 

Really? So you're not at all worried that six months before the "supposed" RTM date performance is downright horrible taking upwards of 2 mins from boot to finishing loading Notepad, it eats ram like it's going out of fashion and that the GPU accelerated desktop actually uses more CPU cycles than XP when moving windows around (and jerkier too)?

Note that I'm testing it on a 3.2Ghz HT, 2gb ram and a X850XT PE, which is no slouch and I've actually disabled some services and "useless" startup programs like the reporting debugger and windows defender. All this pain for what seems like xp with a new skin?

The only thing that impressed me was that playing back HDWMV was silky smooth, even while dragging the WMP window around, which is ironic considering it's much more complex than dragging an explorer window and the later is very laggy. But I guess that's what the kernel guys mentioned in that Channel 9 interview as "raising WMP priority way up". Tip for windows programmers: raise the explorer windows' priority, right now it's slower than running XP inside Virtual PC.

 

You'd really do well not to judge the final OS performance based on something that is still not quite beta-2

Performance on my system, 3.06ghz + 1gb RAM + Radeon 9800, is lower than running under XP - but not by a huge amount. I've dont no tweaking, nor have I disabled stuff. Windows moving around are perfectly smooth, explorer is occasionally a bit twitchy for performance but otherwise no different than XP...

I have heard that with the Super Fetch (amongst other things) it will attempt to use what RAM is available. As a developer I can easily max out my 1GB - but if I'm doing regular "user type stuff" then XP rarely tops 300mb; I personally have no problem with Vista using an extra 500mb on top of that if my system runs faster and the searches are all properly indexed.

Guess that old internet favourite YMMV applies perfectly.

 

5308.17 or 5308.60?

http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html

 

I'll never understand this argument. If it's beta then you can't criticise because it's not final. But then when it's final you should have criticised when they were in time to fix it.

I know it's not final, that's why I asked if he was not worried that 6 months might not be enough time to optimise the whole operating system.

Well, if you have games using 1gb for themselves, I guess the OS using 500mb at boot for itself may be a bit problematic don't you think?

 

Well I wouldn't say vastly slower, having used it. It's definitly noticable when resizing though. It's definitly nothing like non-accelerated GDI on xp, as you still have compositing etc. If the app is doing silly things like rendering large transparent objects, then yeah, it's not going to run well, but overall I am more than happy with the tradeoff.

That said it's still beta, and of course non-VDDM drivers will still accelerate GDI for you. I'd expect windows forms may also recieve a boost eventually, but not sure on this.

 

Tell you what... If you don't like it, don't use it. There are other alternatives, nobody is forcing you to change. Better?

I like 5308 a lot. I'm running it on a 2.13ghz Dothan, a gig of DDR2 ram, X300 64mb mobile and 5400rpm 40gb hard disk (IBM T43). It is slow to boot, and it sucks a lot of ram. This is a feature-complete build, but featureset has no bearing on optimization level.

MS is quite aware of the need to optimize, but you get everything working right FIRST before you start tweaking the hell out of it... It's just good coding practice.

 

Where did I say I'm "using" it (I assume you mean as main OS and not just beta-testing it). And where did I say I'm entitled to change to Vista?

Where did I say it did? Seems like you need to re-read what I wrote.

If you re-read my posts you'll see we're both in agreement on this point.

 

It's nothing against critiscm it's about judgement. I've seen plenty of complaints in the beta newsgroups that you really want to be wearing a flame-retardant suit for

The difference is saying "performance currently sucks" and "performance will suck".

From some of the conference calls and web chats that I've been involved in as well as the public blogs you can get quite a lot of information about the "feature complete" versus "optimized" thing - general consensus is that there is still a lot of optimization and fine-tuning to be done.

Jack

 

Yes, that is different. That's exactly why I characterised performance _now_ and wondered if Graham thought 6 months were enough to improve things significantly. I'm not too confident it is though.

Absolutely, and having tested the Feb CTP my previous impression that Vista would be xp + new skin changed somewhat. I still think it has too fewer features for a new major version of windows but at least there are significant usability improvements in some areas.

Oh and good news about the third option re OGL in Vista.