Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Hardware

One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface 520

Posted by Zonk from the new-pcs-may-be-required dept.
ThinSkin writes "While integrated graphics seem to handle Windows XP and 2000 just fine, they won't be able to handle Vista's 3D 'Aero Glass' compositor, which will prevent roughly half of all PCs from running Microsoft's new OS. Performance class cards that can handle DirectX 9.0c are up for the challenge." From the article: "After years of delays and several feature revisions, one of Vista's main selling points is the Aero Glass interface. However, as Peddie notes, users already have the ability to start constructing a PC that should be Vista-ready before the OS even ships. Microsoft also said this week that it would reserve its Halo 2 videogame for Vista."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface More

One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface

Comments Filter:

  • Vista != Vista's 3D Interface (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:40PM (#14690940) Homepage Journal

    Back in 2004, Microsoft announced that Longhorn would automatically detect a computer's graphics capability [com.com] and show one of three GUIs: Aero, Aero Glass (the really high-end interface) or a classic Win2K-style interface.

    This new article doesn't actually say the PCs won't be able to run Vista, but that they won't be able to take advantage of Aero Glass. It doesn't mention the three tiers of interface, but it does say this:

    "When [a] user sees a system running Vista on a PC with integrated graphics, and then sees Vista on a PC with a powerful graphics [board] in it, there will be no discussion -- they will go for the better looking system if they can possibly afford it," Peddie said in a statement.

    Sounds like one in two machines will be stuck with classic. Or maybe even some of those will get the mid-level GUI. But it doesn't say they won't be able to run the OS.

    • But the slick 3D interface is one of the primary selling points of Vista. Without a visual difference, casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.
      • Without a visual difference, casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.

        Without a visual difference I'm not sure there's much left even for -us- to notice much benefit of Vista over XP. :)
      • They tend to only get OS upgrades when they get a new computer, or when a techie pushes them to. The non-tech users that are likely to upgrade are more the gamer/power user types that are likely to have a card that'll handle the UI.
        • They tend to only get OS upgrades when they get a new computer [...].

          This is probably the most insightful comment in this entire story. Think about what Vista is going to do to the bottom end of the PC market - the Sempron-and-256M-and-integrated-graphics-for-$300- disasters. They're going to be wiped out. I'm sure that the market will find a new acceptable lowest common denominator, but it won't be as cheap as before.

      • Re:Vista != Vista's 3D Interface (Score:5, Funny)

        by MadJo ( 674225 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @06:20PM (#14691215) Homepage Journal
        casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.

        whereas we, hardcore computer users, don't see any benefit of Vista over XP. :)
      • If that's really a major selling point for vista, then the group of people who actually have a decent reason to get it is even smaller. Half of the computers out there are in the hands of ordinary people who want a flashy interface, but their computers can't handle it. Of the other half, a large proportion are geeks, and gloss on the interface is second to performance, so if it doesn't perform, it ain't worth having.

        Or is Microsoft still in bed with Dell and this is intended to bumb up new computer sales

      • Re:Vista != Vista's 3D Interface (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Burning1 ( 204959 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @07:11PM (#14691512) Homepage
        Casual users rarely notice any difference between this OS, and that OS until marketing or minimum requirements kick in. The majority of people run the latest and greatest for the same reason they buy only new cars.
      • Without a visual difference, casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.

        Well, except Vista looks very different from XP even without the "Glass" high end interface. In fact, there's really no way to make it look like XP at all - it either looks like Win2000, it looks like Glass or it looks like a flat, opaque version of Glass.
      • I agree with all of you! My biggest beef with the XP system was all the bubbly "war and fuzzy feelings" interface. Simple is better. I guess that is why I use Solaris more than I use my Window box.
      • Without a visual difference, casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.

        Sure they would; they'd notice the helpful DRM.
    • ANy idea if the user can override that choice? For example, if I don't want to use the 3d graphics because I have better things to spend CPU cycles on? Or because I don't want it taking cycles/video memory away from the game I'm alt-tabbing between?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It doesn't really take up anything if you're playing a full-screen game, but yes, you can disable it pretty easily in the current betas.

        Of course, it doesn't really take up CPU cycles so much - if you've got the video hardware for it, most of the big stuff should happen there.

    • That and integrated cards are no slouch (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:47PM (#14690983)
      The Intel 900 series graphics chips are good enough to run World of Warcraft. They aren't all that fast, mind you, but it works, I've met a couple people that do it.

      I'd wager that at least the GMA 950 will be enough for the more advanced interface, and even the GMA 900 will be.

      • I'd wager that at least the GMA 950 will be enough for the more advanced interface, and even the GMA 900 will be.

        At this point in Vista's development, GMA 950 (desktop and mobile) will run Aero [intel.com], although that page I linked to doesn't say which level of Aero ("Standard" or Glass).

        An older version of Intel's notebook guidelines for Vista (before the current 945GM chipset was released) said that GMA 900 would run Vista without the new Aero interface.

        The key difference is support for Windows Vista Displ

    • Hardly, most of the 3d interface is eye candy and a few usability improvements, the biggest reasons to upgrade are under the hood, you know the user mode driver support, application specific audio control, new and improved networking stack... just to name a few.
    • "Back in 2004..."

      Only a quarter of current desktops could run it (joking)... If they keep up at this rate, by the time Vista is released ALL desktops will be able to run it.

    • Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by umbrellasd ( 876984 )

      "When [a] user sees a system running Vista on a PC with integrated graphics, and then sees Vista on a PC with a powerful graphics [board] in it, there will be no discussion -- they will go for the better looking system if they can possibly afford it," Peddie said in a statement.

      What I find most amusing about this quote is that when I see a GUI and a command line, I go for the command line. So I'd say these 'tards have about as much of a notion of the many types of people that use their UI as a mole has

  • Switch (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:40PM (#14690942) Homepage Journal
    Jeez, it seems to me that Microsoft should be very careful about the marketing of this, because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista, then why not just simply make the switch [apple.com]? After all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X [apple.com].

    • Re:Switch (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Rude Turnip ( 49495 )
      The funny thing about OS X is that as they advance to each new version, it runs better and better on older hardware.
    • Video games. Even though I personally would be totally enthused over all 6 games you can play on a Mac, I can see where other people wouldn't be.

      (how well did your sarcasm detector do....)
    • I have the needed quality of hardware and it's running Linux and will never run Vista. Sorry Bill, I don't need your DRM nightmare.
    • because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista

      You don't.. you'd just have to buy a $50 video card.

    • Re:Switch (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 )
      all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X [apple.com].

      Um... No... There is quite a level of difference between OSX's Graphics and what Vista is bringing to the table. Even Video cards that don't support Glass will be able to do amazing 3D application and animation effects that OSX STILL can't do without the application being written for OpenGL.

      I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX. And I am not so muc

    • Re:Switch (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drsmithy ( 35869 )
      Jeez, it seems to me that Microsoft should be very careful about the marketing of this, because if ya gotta buy a new box to run Vista, then why not just simply make the switch?

      Because a PC will be cheaper.

      After all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X.

      Everything I've seen suggests that Vista's display system is technologically better (resolution indepependent, for example).

    • Re:Switch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by westlake ( 615356 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @08:26PM (#14691848)
      then why not just simply make the switch?

      Mac users upgrade within the Mac family, Windows users within the Windows family. In twenty years nothing has changed that equation.

      • Re:Switch (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @09:05PM (#14692053)
        But that's just not true. Over the last couple of years I've seen lots of normal users switch from Windows to OSX, mostly to get away from spyware. I don't think I've anyone go back, nor have I seen any mac users switch to windows (although one thought he was when he bought an XBox).

    • Um, compatibility with their software? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @08:33PM (#14691873) Homepage
      Or are you suggesting Vista is forcing them to buy a new box and all-new software for everything they do? And to convert much of their data from their old software's format to that of whatever software might actually run on Vista? And to relearn an entirely new interface, new maintenance tricks etc? And to give up many games and other programs that aren't available on Vista at all? Coz that's what you'd have to do to switch to a Mac. You think the only difference between PCs and Macs is the interface?

      Faced with such a choice, I think I'd just stick with the fully-functional system I already have. Luckily, there's no such issue anyway, as for 99% of Windows users, Vista doesn't require a new box to run at all.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:41PM (#14690943)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • THey already do put adequate video cards into machines- adequate for what 99% of users will be doing. If you're using web surfing, email, and office software you don't need a 3D interface. Only gamers really do. So why require a more expensive video card (and even a cheap 3D card is more expensive, it takes a lot more transistors to make it, lowering yield) instead of passing those savings on to the user? This is another case of MS bloating system specs to make it seem like their new OS does something
    • The latest integrated chipset [nvidia.com] from Nvidia seem to support Shader Model 3.0, which I believe is a requirement for Aero Glass.

      I ordered myself an Asus board recently with GeForce6150 + nForce430 [nvidia.com] onboard, infact it should be arriving tommorow. Will be fun to finally test some Vista beta's but to be honest I didn't have Aero Glass in mind when I made my purchase, and if it doesn't work then I won't give it a second thought.

      Heh, I just noticed my choice seems to top of the line integrated from nVidia. That pleas
    • We'll finally either:

      A) Get some decent integrated graphics systems (or see NForce boards take off in popularity)
      or
      B) See big computer retailers putting at least adequate graphics cards into their base systems.

      This will do wonders for the ability to play games on cheap laptops.

      Did it occur to you that perhaps these laptops are cheap because they don't have nice graphics cards?
    • Yeah, but the way that I look at it, the operating system should not be the most resource intensive piece of software installed on my system. The operating system is there to make sure that things run smoothly, and make sure things behave. Did MS solve the security problems that have been plaguing them for years? Did they make any advancement in the way of spyware/malware? What about performance? From the sounds of it, it doesn't look like it. Just by the hardware requirements, it is one hell of a resource

  • Inaccurate Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:42PM (#14690951)
    Not only is it inaccurate summary, it's pretty trollish too... sure running Aero Glass takes some horsepower, there is nothing preventing a user from turning it off and running it in a more 95/98/2000 style and not have the benefits or eye candy they could have if they had a more powerful system

    Hell, go back to 2001, I remember knowing many people whose PC's ran awful slow when running XP in Fisher Price mode, so they'd revert to the classic look and things were fine until they had a slightly better PC a little later.

    Same will happen here.

    • Joe Sixpack? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ScottCooperDotNet ( 929575 )
      You may remember technically minded people who knew to change it to W2K Style, but Microsoft forbid shipping PCs using that as default. As a result the early XP systems with 128MB RAM were dog slow. Sure made a lot of money for local shops selling "tune ups."

      I would guess over 90% of /.ers (when forced to use Windows) use the W2K Style, with the rest enjoying XP's Aero or a 3rd party skinning app. I hope Microsoft opens up the format for the Themes so such an additional app isn't needed. It would be a

    • Re:Inaccurate Summary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @07:00PM (#14691467)
      The point is that one of the big selling points is Vista's new OS X-alike interface. Vista is going to be a tough sell to the mainstream public. Microsoft makes the majority of its Windows sales through computer pre-installations, so they're going to try to work hard to get people to buy new Vista-based PCs despite having missed last year's hardware purchase cycle. A new interface was part of that.

      I find it very telling that OS X already surpasses Vista's current interface (what you see in the betas is mostly what you're going to get according to Microsoft) but runs on much less demanding machines, like a Mac mini. OS X Leopard is just going to widen the gap further between Microsoft and Apple in the interface department.
      • Keep in mind that the original OS X interface ran godawfully slow when it first came out. I remember trying to drag windows on a Bondi blue iMac (one of the listed machines on the box) and watching the "slideshow effect" (shudder). Apple made no effort to scale settings back automatically like MS is trying to do. If the genie effect looked like a clogged drain --tough, buy a new Mac.

        Also, note that MS is trying to do something Apple didn't: maintain compatibility with 20+ years worth of app within the A

  • Small Goof in the description (Score:3, Informative)

    by ThinSkin ( 851769 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:43PM (#14690960)
    In the description: "which will prevent roughly half of all PCs from running Microsoft's new OS."

    They can run the OS, just can't take advantage of Aero Glass.

  • dont be evil (Score:3, Interesting)

    by get quad ( 917331 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:45PM (#14690973)
    Did MS ever hear of the bauhaus design theory at all? Last thing I care for is an OS that tries its hardest to blow moonbeams and fluffy bunnies up my ass. If you cant go back to the no-frills win2k classic interface I plan to squeeze every last drop of life out of XP Pro. That is, until M$ does evil things to force people to upgrade, like releasing Vista-specific software and dropping patches for XP altogether.
    • Last thing I care for is an OS that tries its hardest to blow moonbeams and fluffy bunnies up my ass.

      Ah, yes... the Richard Gere editions.

      (someone had to say it)

    • Re:dont be evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MojoStan ( 776183 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @07:08PM (#14691500)
      ...I plan to squeeze every last drop of life out of XP Pro. That is, until M$ does evil things to force people to upgrade, like releasing Vista-specific software and dropping patches for XP altogether.
      Microsoft will continue to provide security updates (part of "extended support") for Windows XP Pro for at least 7 years after Vista's release [microsoft.com]. So if Vista is released late this year, XP Pro will be under extended support until late 2013. (Note that XP Home doesn't get "extended support" and "mainstream support" ends 2 years after Vista's release.)

      Since so many users (especially businesses) will continue to use XP Pro while it's still under "extended support," I'm sure third-party software will continue to be written for XP if many of the software company's customers are still using XP. Only Microsoft has an interest in shutting out a large number of existing XP users (so users will upgrade to Vista).

  • This is just a way to get large coroprations to spring for the $500 video card on their desktops. No really, this is just like Windows pushing everything to 24 bit color when everyone was doing 8bit. Within a year or so EVERONE was at 24bit. Well, almost everyone, but you get the idea.

    Ted
    • Actually it will have the opposite effect. This will just be one more reason not to upgrade and stick with what is working currently. I don't know of too many businesses which value "pretty interface" over a regular interface which costs less and works just fine.

      Microsoft makes its revenue by enticing people to upgrade. While they took out some features in order to ship this product it appears the main selling point being picked up in the media is the interface and the strict requirements needed to run
      • Oh, I understand what you say, but I've been told a hundred times when prepping a Powerpoint presentation or designing a website for the PHB. "Cartoon, think cartoon, the big wigs think in neat small pictures, not it row upon row of numbers or statements. Think Sound Bites, think pithy statements." And a new interface will have 'cool' rounded effects on the chart, cool drop shadows and reflections. I can see a point 2 years from now where it will be required when presenting stuff to senior management th
    • Intel GMA 900 and 950 chips are full DirectX 9 accelerators, and those are the integrated video on all new Intel systems. They aren't blazing or anything, but enough to play World of Warcraft and enough to handle Vista's interface. However even on an older system, no problem. Once can pick up a GeForce 6200 or Radeon X300 for about $50. Despite the price, they are full DirectX 9 cards with all teh features of their bigger brothers, just less power.

      So while you may need an upgrade to get the advanced interfa

  • What does aeroglass DO? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmazingRuss ( 555076 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:48PM (#14690994)
    All I have heard about aeroglass is that it makes the windows desktop look like the OSX desktop. Why does that take so much horsepower? I'm running OSX on an old Imac G3 450.

    Why does the desktop requre more graphics calculations than a modern video game? Somebody please whack me with the cluebat.
    • As I understand things:

      OS X -> Uses the CPU to draw the windows, and the GPU to compose (composite) the desktop.

      Windows 98,NT,2000,XP,2003 -> Uses the CPU to draw the windows and to compose the desktop.

      Windows Vista -> Uses the GPU to draw the windows and to compose the desktop.

      OS X uses the GPU to offload some work. Vista will use the GPU to offload all the work.
    • Why does that take so much horsepower? I'm running OSX on an old Imac G3 450.

      Yeah, but you don't get all the eye candy.

      OSX has the same 'high-end nvidia card' requirement for its eye candy... like the ripples on dashboard.

  • Forced Upgrades (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    Great way to get the 'hold outs' to upgrade faster to the nice shiny DRM enabled hardware.

    Make it impossible to run the 'trusted OS' that will be needed to run next years applications.

    The power wasted in todays applications is almost obscene.

  • One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface (Score:4, Funny)

    by Saiyine ( 689367 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:49PM (#14690998) Homepage

    One In Two PCs Won't Run Vista's Interface

    That's nothing, zero out of my three PC's will!

  • How this kind of marketing might work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AEton ( 654737 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @05:50PM (#14691007)
    When you're faced with a hostile audience (e.g. Slashdot), it can be tricky to slip your PR messages past the filters. After all, you aren't AMD; you don't want to have your own Slashdot Vendors section [slashdot.org] to give you a straight feed to the PR bin, since you know that skeptical readers will just ignore your message.

    So what you do instead is construct a message that seems threatening for about forty-five seconds -- just as long as an editor will review it in the pending articles queue: you say, hey, my new software product is going to have really stringent hardware requirements. Oh, the editors say, this is perfect! It's interesting, controversial, and definitely front page material.

    What they don't see is the second touch: you subtly phrase the article so that the impression left on reader is not that your product is incompatible, but that it is exclusive. Oh, they think -- I have a high-end system! I've got to try out this Vista thing on it!

    Suckers.
  • I think I will wait a bit to upgrade my home machine; there should be piles of really nice used ones hitting the market when Vista comes out.
  • Have you seen Aero Glass? Obviously you're not going to do these things on a bargain basement graphics board.
  • Which will be left over which will happily run Linux.

     
  • We're *just now* upgrading to XP. Who really cares what the requirements for Vista are? In 4 or 5 years time, we'll be upgrading to Vista - after the OS has had several patches and a couple of service packs. I think MS is well aware of this trend in the business world. Those fanboys that want the latest and greatest already *have* the latest and greatest hardware. Get over it already.

    I will add that requiring Vista for Halo2 is a bit slimey, but hey...what did you really expect? The business world isn't
  • What's the difference between 9.0 and 9.0c? I recently upgraded several PCs with some inexpensive ATI Radeon 9550 cards, which are supposed to support DirectX 9.
    • Some tweaks and a few extra features, and optimisations in D3DX and fxc, plus the support for some intermediate shader model versions between 2 and 3 that some cards support. The article submitter (or maybe the article, didn't RTFA :P) is confusing hardware DX with the software; the highest SW version is 9.0c (December 2005 edition). Technically any card with support for at least shader model 2 is a HW 9.0 card, including the GeForce FX and the Radeon 9550, so they should run Vista.
  • One of the guys at work has run the latest vista CTPs on an Intel 945-based machine using the onboard Intel-Extreme graphics card, and it ran perfectly well. My guess is that quite a few onboard chipsets will be capable, or at least those within the last 18-months say. Earlier ones might not, but then I've seen stranger things.
  • It seems that M$ is going out of their way to make the Vista release as unpalletable as possible. Between the endless delays and now what appears to be massive incompatibility problems, I suspect that Vista will fall flat on its face. The only way this is going to get wide spread adoptance is by force. M$ will likely pull one of their famous application "upgrades" forcing people to switch OS to continue to use their applications. I refuse to play that game any more. Thank God for open office. Screw M$.
  • So now evey desktop PC will ship with 3d acceleration and an opengl based X server - or better - an opengl based graphic server supporting X a legacy can arise... no more "but some people don't have acceleration" argument... I'm already dribbling in front of expose... but my linux desktop being behind MacOs AND vista... no way!

  • One in Two PCs won't run Vista.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by malraid ( 592373 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @06:10PM (#14691145)
    ...because by the time it's released, those computers will be in a landfill!!
  • It couldnt be any uglier. Consider those who cant run it, lucky

    Atleast they'll be able to use their monitor still :)
  • Shit, so now I'll be utilizing that extra GB of RAM if I upgrade to Vista? Just damn. I upgraded from 1GB to 2GB last night. That makes XP run pretty nicely. Like I explain in my JE though, software is just freaking exploding in size. What ever happened to lean and mean?

    --Once you try 2GB you never want less-- (Athlon 64 3500+) PF Usage still 225MB running just IE, Google video player, and Yahoo messenger. Feels pretty damn smooth, Windows XP that is. But damn, I can remember running Win98 with,hell, may

  • I've recommended to all of my customers, friends and family that they not even consider migrating to Vista unless they want to buy ALL NEW HARDWARE and suffer Draconian and oppressive restrictions on what they can do with their computers.

    I also notified my customers that if they do go to Vista that I will not provide tech support or make service calls for Vista based systems.

    I use Linux on all my machines but I have 1 XP and 1 2k box that I fire up only when needed to do over the phone walk-thrus. I won't
  • I have friends who still run Win98 because they prefer it over XP.

    Personally, I'm happy with my computer on Win XP and I'm just going to wait until I buy or build a new system.

    Or until after SP1....I do enough beta testing as it is.

  • This is NOT true.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @06:27PM (#14691252)
    This is NOT true, do the Slashdot editors even know people that are in the Vista Beta or have a MSDN subscription?

    Vista scales its graphics to three levels, the basic level which still supports all of the WPF applications, scales the OS UI back to look like Windows 2000. This level however does not use WPF effects for the UI, such as transparent 'glass' Window Frames, etc.

    The second level is a cross between WindowsXP and the Vista Interface. Again it supports all the WPF applicaitons, however the UI, visually is themed and looks somewhat like the higher level 3D 'Glass' Vista UI.

    The third level is the 'high' level 'glass' and basically works on any Video Card that has basic DirectX 9.0 features built in. This level brings the WPF and 3D effects to the UI.

    You get Glassy WIndow Frames that not only are transparent but also do a blur effect on the Windowsw Frames with Shading. This level also takes full advantage of your cards 3D Acceleration features throughout the basic Windows UI.

    However even in the 'basic' mode Vista will run on ANY video card, Vista will still do amazing looking 3D effects on a crap card with the WPF, and if possible take advantage of any 3D GPU acceleration features in your video card.

    For example if you are running a 1998 ATI Rage 128 32MB Video card, you are going to run in the seconde level of quality, and can turn it down to the basic level if you choose. (See, even old cards run in the second level, just like they would be themed in WindowsXP.)

    Now even if your video card is only able to run in the second level or lets say, it has no 3D acceleration features, Vista will still properly run WPF and 3D WPF designed applications.

    For example the WPF Chess game that comes with Vista, has reflective tile, smooth lines, is a full 3D applciaiton workspace, and runs with or without a 3D GPU in the computer. (The power of software rendering of WPF and DirectX.)

    What Vista won't do on older video Cards is map the UI to 3D RAM on the GPU, and slow down your computer interface to display cute animations or glass if your Video card is not fast enough to do that.

    So if you are running a computer with a video diplay older than a Geforce FX 5200, then you won't get the pretty UI, but if you have an old FX 5200 you will, and most people can pick this level of card up for almost any computer for like 30-50 US. (You can even buy a PCI version for your 500mhz system that has no AGP port, get the pretty Vista high level Glass.)

    There are some recent 'cheap' Intel onboard chipsets that don't support enough 3D to the high level 3D display mode, and there are also some onboard Video that uses shared Memory, etc that won't support the high level Vista display mode.

    Sure these people won't get the 'glass' effect, but they will be able to do everything else. And if they want the prettier interface, buying a video card that is considered 'low level' by today's standards is not such a big thing. If these people are playing WoW or any other game released in the past few years, they already have had to buy a newer video card anyway.

    And Vista without Glass is not ugly or losing a lot for people, all it means is that Windows itself won't be sucking your GPU power and RAM for 'pretty' effects, when it is not necessary.

    This not much different than people turning off themes in XP, expect there is a new level of UI themes in Vista that is a full 3D UI implementation that Windows itself uses for displaying runing applicaitons and the Windows Shell Interface.

    If anyone has any doubts or questions go to the WinSuperSite, he seems to have the ability to release information on Vista without breaking an NDA. http://www.winsupersite.com/ [winsupersite.com] (You can even see him explain this, screen shots of the different modes, and why and how it works.) -It is actually pretty slick and smart of Microsoft.

    One thing Microsoft if introducing with Vista is a new Display Driver Model Called the LDDM an

  • "...up to the challenge" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @06:30PM (#14691266)

    Performance class cards that can handle DirectX 9.0c are up for the challenge.

    Should something as simple as a UI require as much horsepower as a top of the line first person shooter?

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close