Vista won't show fancy side to pirates

Yes, they can but you won't want to because GDI is no longer hardware accelerated making it slowly than shit.
 
I don't mind having acceleration turned on but I don't want to see anything that the current screenshots show.
I don't want my desktop in actual 3D, by that I mean I don't want a z coordinate..

ANova said:
Yes, they can but you won't want to because GDI is no longer hardware accelerated making it slowly than shit.
 
Flying Aero
To get the best out of Vista's graphics, you'll need at least four things, according to tentative Microsoft guidelines.

1. A legitimate copy of one of Vista's higher-end versions: Home Premium, Business, Enterprise or Ultimate

I thought the 3D interface wasn't there on Business and Enterprise versions?
as these will probably be the only "corporate" versions with no activation, they will be the non legit versions. We'll see how it works when you install a corporate Enterprise and don't allow it to phone home.
 
ANova said:
Yes, they can but you won't want to because GDI is no longer hardware accelerated making it slowly than shit.

I think it's still there if you put it in classic or "XP" mode? it makes no sense to leave it out if compositing is disabled. the slowness will still bite you if you run Aero, with thousands of apps drawing their stuff with GDI.

I for one don't give a shit about transparency, and could'nt care less about the rest, I don't even use the "show contents while dragging windows" feature.
 
And I thought pirates and people buying new 'puters with it preinstalled will be the two significant groups of Vista users. In that order.
 
zeckensack said:
And I thought pirates and people buying new 'puters with it preinstalled will be the two significant groups of Vista users.
Yup, and the pirates will know how to get around the limitations and the newbies won't. ;)
 
digitalwanderer said:
Yup, and the pirates will know how to get around the limitations and the newbies won't. ;)
QFT.
If someone can make it, someone can break it ;)
They failed with xp's activation so what makes anyone think they'll be able to pull this off?
I have zero confidence in microsoft's ability to successly slow down or deter pirating of windows.
 
Blazkowicz_ said:
I think it's still there if you put it in classic or "XP" mode? it makes no sense to leave it out if compositing is disabled. the slowness will still bite you if you run Aero, with thousands of apps drawing their stuff with GDI.

I for one don't give a shit about transparency, and could'nt care less about the rest, I don't even use the "show contents while dragging windows" feature.
There are three different UIs, classic (using slow ass GDI) which looks like it did in XP, Aero (fully accelerated UI with glass, etc.) and Aero without glass (used primarily on computers that do not have a DX9 class graphics card. I'm not sure if the latter is accelerated or not as I've never tried it. But I can tell you, Aero is a hell of a lot faster than classic, ironically.
 
if they are going to be able to tell if an installed version is pirated, why cant they just make it not work?
 
ANova said:
Yes, they can but you won't want to because GDI is no longer hardware accelerated making it slowly than shit.

Sortof. It depends on how you write your UI code.
Windows forms (in .net), which currently runs on top of GDI+, runs on WPF in vista. So these apps run at full speed.
However native GDI applications will run in software. This currently includes internet explorer, firefox, etc. However I expect IE at least to be rejigged to take use WPF. No doubt there will be a WPF firefox around the corner eventually too.

Honestly it's not as bad as it seems. The OS is still very usable, it's not like in XP when you don't have a proper video driver installed, it's much faster than that. And of course anything written in windows forms or WPF runs beautifully. In a year or two 95% of the aps you run will be using either of these so it hardly matters imo.

if they are going to be able to tell if an installed version is pirated, why cant they just make it not work?

because then they loose market share :)
 
Graham said:
Sortof. It depends on how you write your UI code.
Windows forms (in .net), which currently runs on top of GDI+, runs on WPF in vista. So these apps run at full speed.
However native GDI applications will run in software. This currently includes internet explorer, firefox, etc. However I expect IE at least to be rejigged to take use WPF. No doubt there will be a WPF firefox around the corner eventually too.

Honestly it's not as bad as it seems. The OS is still very usable, it's not like in XP when you don't have a proper video driver installed, it's much faster than that. And of course anything written in windows forms or WPF runs beautifully. In a year or two 95% of the aps you run will be using either of these so it hardly matters imo.

Remember all the standard windows controls are using GDI and I do not see that changing in the near future. The OS is running late enough without trying to fix that.

A clear example of the poor performance is to open an explorer window in Vista and XP and click and drag a selection rectangle. On XP it should be quick and smooth, on Vista it has a noticable lag. Or in classic mode try dragging a window and watch the cpu usage.

Saying lets not worry about it because in a year or two the problem might go away isn't right in my view because we forget that customers may need to buy upgrades of their software to get back to the performance they used to have.
 
NeilBanfield said:
Saying lets not worry about it because in a year or two the problem might go away isn't right in my view because we forget that customers may need to buy upgrades of their software to get back to the performance they used to have.

Just another reason to not bother with Vista for a couple of years until all the software and driver developers catch up.
 
ANova said:
I'm not sure if the latter is accelerated or not as I've never tried it. But I can tell you, Aero is a hell of a lot faster than classic, ironically.
If aero (glass) is a hell of a lot faster in vista, how is it compared to GDI+ in good ol XP then?

What I'd really like to know is why MS made GDI+ to not be hardware accelerated anymore, considering pretty much all apps use it... Same thing with directsound too by the way. Why the fuck remove features already implemented? *boggles* :oops:

I swear, I'll never understand the ways of MS even if I live for a thousand years... :rolleyes:
 
It's about as fast as XPs UI, but XP is still noticably faster and more responsive in some areas such as scrolling.
 
Guden Oden said:
If aero (glass) is a hell of a lot faster in vista, how is it compared to GDI+ in good ol XP then?

What I'd really like to know is why MS made GDI+ to not be hardware accelerated anymore, considering pretty much all apps use it... Same thing with directsound too by the way. Why the fuck remove features already implemented? *boggles* :oops:

I swear, I'll never understand the ways of MS even if I live for a thousand years... :rolleyes:
It creates incentive for using/porting to .NET :rolleyes:
 
Guden Oden said:
Same thing with directsound too by the way. Why the fuck remove features already implemented? *boggles* :oops:
From what I've read about the new audio stack, the reimplemented stuff is actually both better quality and better performance. I forget the details, but the 32bit-throughout gives you much much better sound quality and moving it into user-mode (out of kernel-mode) removes context switching and thus improves performance. Probably also increases stability in the case of crappy drivers. Similar sort of logic to WDDM/D3D10.

Guden Oden said:
I swear, I'll never understand the ways of MS even if I live for a thousand years... :rolleyes:
Train yourself as a software engineer and quite a lot of their decisions become at least understandable. Not necessarily sensible or agreeable, but at least understandable :LOL:

hth
Jack
 
zeckensack said:
It creates incentive for using/porting to .NET :rolleyes:
Don't forget Aero is one of if not the biggest feature MS is pushing for Vista, without it Vista looks alot more like a slightly updated XP.
 
Back
Top