Windows Longhorn (3D interface, etc)

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by St Leo
I use "app" and "games" instead of Program Files and "leo" instead of "My Documents". There is no chance in hell of me using "My Games" instead of "games" as long as installers let me specify a custom directory while installing.

Actually, "My Games" is apparently (and hopefully) not going to be the name of an actual folder. From what I've gathered, the idea of Longhorn database file system is that no matter what folder (or what drive) your music, movies, games, software etc. are located, you will have several database views customized to music, games, etc. that will display all files of that type, sorted according to metadata. "My Games" is just the name of the virtual library of all your games...

I think the library idea, transgressing directory structure limitations, is actually very good, provided that it is implemented correctly. You would no longer need to worry about where your files are physically located, and neither would you need additional software to sort out your mp3s in a database. I can see, however, that it will be very long until we are finally free from actually having to worry about directory paths of files... but actually for the first time for a long time, I like the direction Windows is taking, simplifying the user experience instead of just complicating things by adding additional "virtual" folders and views such as control panel, my computer et al, that can be mistaken for actual folders but do not contain any physical files. Database is the way for file systems to go in the future, since the number of data and files on our hard disks is growing too huge to manage...

As for the 3D features, they look cool but seem to offer little in the way of actual improvement. What I would like to see is effects really helping us to use Windows, clarifying and streamlining user experience instead of cheap tricks. I hope they will be researching into how 3D effects could be best used to make visualising the database file system easier.

[St Leo]

At least the file system sounds interesting. I'm just wondering how much DRM stuff will be integrated with it.

Yep. Of course, they had to kill off BeOS before stealing their filesystem idea.

[Asher]

Did BeOS have a true database-based filesystem or was it just an advanced journalling FS?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Solver
Been reading on Longhorn forever. I remember that two years ago they said that it will not be a big improvement, but rather something minor over XP.

2 years ago, it was due out in the 2nd of 2003 and was going to be like WinXPSE and Blackcomb was going to be the big iteration.

MS restructured their idea, there will be no WinXP SE (just free service packs), and Longhorn will be the next-big desktop, Blackcomb will be the next big server (the Windows Server 2003 successor).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jarouik
I think the library idea, transgressing directory structure limitations, is actually very good, provided that it is implemented correctly. You would no longer need to worry about where your files are physically located, and neither would you need additional software to sort out your mp3s in a database. I can see, however, that it will be very long until we are finally free from actually having to worry about directory paths of files... but actually for the first time for a long time, I like the direction Windows is taking, simplifying the user experience instead of just complicating things by adding additional "virtual" folders and views such as control panel, my computer et al, that can be mistaken for actual folders but do not contain any physical files. Database is the way for file systems to go in the future, since the number of data and files on our hard disks is growing too huge to manage...

I agree.

As for the 3D features, they look cool but seem to offer little in the way of actual improvement. What I would like to see is effects really helping us to use Windows, clarifying and streamlining user experience instead of cheap tricks. I hope they will be researching into how 3D effects could be best used to make visualising the database file system easier.

There are other things you can do with it aside from eyecandy. They demonstrated "Virtual Desktops" at WinHEC too.

From ExtremeTech:

This first picture shows the mouse defining one area that will be a virtual desktop. After the area is defined, it's minimized to a small version of the desktop. This isn't an icon, but is fully active – you can drag stuff to it and drop it in, for example. At first blush, it sounds a bit like an undocked Apple OS X Aqua interface, but it behaves differently – there's much more of a sense of a 3D object to each desktop. You keep track of each desktop with small labels that look like flags. Here's one example.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Re: Windows Longhorn (3D interface, etc)

Originally posted by Asher
3 short videos from ExtremeTech: ftp://ftp.extremetech.com/pub/extrem...WaveWindows.rm
ftp://ftp.extremetech.com/pub/extrem...ec/StarWars.rm
ftp://ftp.extremetech.com/pub/extrem...inhec/Dizzy.rm

Weren't you just complaining about OS X wasting resources on special effects?

[Asher]

Re: Re: Windows Longhorn (3D interface, etc)

Originally posted by dv8ed
Weren't you just complaining about OS X wasting resources on special effects?

OS X does it on the underpowered CPU (aside from alpha blending, which XP also does in hardware).

The GPUs sit idle 99% of the time when people are using the Windows desktop. It theoretically uses both less RAM and CPU than previous versions since it'll use the video card RAM rather than system RAM, and it'll use the GPU instead of the CPU.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think I have enough problems with DirectX that I don't really want it running my basic desktop...

That's ignoring, of course, the hardware requirements of the graphics card. I can just imagine what this is going to be like on integrated video.

Yes, I know integrated video isn't like it used to be, but...

If the graphics card (I will not use the term 'GPU', thanks) isn't powerful enough, does the interface get offloaded back to the processor? Or just hang and create strange visual effects?

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
I think I have enough problems with DirectX that I don't really want it running my basic desktop...

That's ignoring, of course, the hardware requirements of the graphics card. I can just imagine what this is going to be like on integrated video.

Yes, I know integrated video isn't like it used to be, but...

If the graphics card (I will not use the term 'GPU', thanks) isn't powerful enough, does the interface get offloaded back to the processor? Or just hang and create strange visual effects?

Did you have problems understanding the first post or something?
If your graphics card is not powerful enough, you can't run it. It just won't let you. So if you can't run Tier 2 (DX9), you can try Tier 1 (DX7) which is essentially hardware-based Windows XP-style effects. If you can't even run that, it falls back on the old 2D GDI that Win2K and XP uses.

And what's wrong with using "GPU"? Modern-day GPUs are multi-threaded, programmable, and have more precision than even desktop processors.

By ~2005, integrated chipsets will support DX9. Hell, ATi and Nvidia are both releasing DX9-based integrated graphics in 2003. Via(S3) also have a DX9 chipset in development, and SiS can use its Xabre core.

[faded glory]

cool

[faded glory]

I concur. Let us see SS of the GUI :doitnow:

Lest I go find it myself!

[Asher]

Originally posted by faded glory
I concur. Let us see SS of the GUI :doitnow:

Lest I go find it myself!

The videos I linked to are demos of what the Tier 2 GUI can do.

The screenshots on the WinSuperSite I linked to are of the compatibility mode GUI, Win2k/XP.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
Did you have problems understanding the first post or something?
If your graphics card is not powerful enough, you can't run it.

Given the fact that you never said this in the first post, no, I think my comprehension was just fine. You said there were tiers. You never said people were blocked from using them. My assumption, based on previous MS releases (such as the travesty that was Active Desktop), was that all the bells and whistles would be turned on by default and 99% of the users out there wouldn't know that they could be turned off, much less how to do it or what effect it would have on their system.

It just won't let you. So if you can't run Tier 2 (DX9), you can try Tier 1 (DX7) which is essentially hardware-based Windows XP-style effects. If you can't even run that, it falls back on the old 2D GDI that Win2K and XP uses.

That's fine then. It's all I asked.

Although I would still like to see more driver/software/DX compatibility before I depend on it for my primary interface.

And what's wrong with using "GPU"? Modern-day GPUs are multi-threaded, programmable, and have more precision than even desktop processors.

"GPU" is a marketing term invented by nVidia. Yeah, modern graphics chipsets are powerful, and most likely even deserve the term, but I don't like it just because it was invented as marketing hype.

By ~2005, integrated chipsets will support DX9. Hell, ATi and Nvidia are both releasing DX9-based integrated graphics in 2003. Via(S3) also have a DX9 chipset in development, and SiS can use its Xabre core.

And I already said that integrated video was getting better. That doesn't make it good.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Given the fact that you never said this in the first post, no, I think my comprehension was just fine. You said there were tiers. You never said people were blocked from using them. My assumption, based on previous MS releases (such as the travesty that was Active Desktop), was that all the bells and whistles would be turned on by default and 99% of the users out there wouldn't know that they could be turned off, much less how to do it or what effect it would have on their system.

This doesn't make sense -- if you based it on previous MS recent releases, you'd remember that stuff like the special effects in XP is determined automatically during the install by detecting the system hardware's capabilities.

And seeing as how it's simply impossible to run the DX9 pixel shading code on non-DX9 hardware, nor run the DX7 code on non-DX7 capable hardware, I thought it would have been obvious that those would only be enabled by default if the system was capable.

"GPU" is a marketing term invented by nVidia. Yeah, modern graphics chipsets are powerful, and most likely even deserve the term, but I don't like it just because it was invented as marketing hype.

"CPU" was once a marketing term too, I suppose we shouldn't use that either?

Nvidia calls them GPU, others call them VPUs, it doesn't matter. I call them GPUs because they're not always just video cards, they're frequently being integrated onto the motherboard (see nForce).

And I already said that integrated video was getting better. That doesn't make it good.

It makes it good enough for simplistic 3D apps. As impressive as those videos appear, they're actually extremely simple 3D applications that just use simple pixel shading programs. They won't require much graphical horsepower at all.

All it does is generate procedural textures, which is a small portion of what most games can do.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
This doesn't make sense -- if you based it on previous MS recent releases, you'd remember that stuff like the special effects in XP is determined automatically during the install by detecting the system hardware's capabilities.

Oh, does it? If so, it does it pretty badly...I've installed it on systems that choked to death on the special effects and it never gave any hint that it thought about turning them off.

"CPU" was once a marketing term too, I suppose we shouldn't use that either?

Nvidia calls them GPU, others call them VPUs, it doesn't matter. I call them GPUs because they're not always just video cards, they're frequently being integrated onto the motherboard (see nForce).

Ok. That's your prerogative.

It makes it good enough for simplistic 3D apps. As impressive as those videos appear, they're actually extremely simple 3D applications that just use simple pixel shading programs. They won't require much graphical horsepower at all.

All it does is generate procedural textures, which is a small portion of what most games can do.

I'll wait to see before I say that they're good enough.

And you still haven't said anything about the fact that DX causes a whole lot of compatibility & driver problems.

(Click to see Asher's response)