A. It's pretty, but uses mroe resources then needed for teh fancy effects.
B. I dunno about your video cards, but when mine is in a 3d aplication the fan on my card turns on and is quite loud. This would mean a constant noise increase, and a lower lifespan for the card i'm assuming.
C. It's still nto going to get off the ground untill more applications are supported. People actually dont mind paying for software if it's decent quality, this openoffice/free OS stuff, it's great but lacks so much ease of use and functionality it almosts begs the user to go buy windows, or dual boot etc.
A. It's pretty, but uses mroe resources then needed for teh fancy effects.
B. I dunno about your video cards, but when mine is in a 3d aplication the fan on my card turns on and is quite loud. This would mean a constant noise increase, and a lower lifespan for the card i'm assuming.
C. It's still nto going to get off the ground untill more applications are supported. People actually dont mind paying for software if it's decent quality, this openoffice/free OS stuff, it's great but lacks so much ease of use and functionality it almosts begs the user to go buy windows, or dual boot etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
A: What's new? Windows takes more and more resources with every version with no discernable improvements Actually, a number of things from that video displayed a significant code improvemnent over windows systems. It's not that I'd actually find it useful to have two transparent full-video/render windows going at once, but the fact that it does it shows a significant significant impeovement (Tell me you've never had a program not be able to run because you've got two monitors active or something thinks another is using the 3d renderer)
[Edit] Actually, since it's all running in 3d-accelerated goodness, it's probably actually a good deal less of a performance hit than it would be on traditional systems. [/edit]
B: If your fans are loud, clean them or look into it, they're not supposed to be. Any noise generation is a loss of energy-- a result of additional friction/vibration/etc which may mean additional heat to your system. I hardly consider 'uses the computer' to be a valid reason to resist progress. 3d desktops *are* where things will go eventually, the potential is incredible. This tech demo shows exactly what I want to see: That the technology is being implimented by people who are focusing on the technology, not coders who think they're UI designers or anything.
C: "Get off the ground"? You speak as if Linux is struggling for users or programs.
If your fans are loud, clean them or look into it, they're not supposed to be.
An unregulated GeForce 5 or 6 fan is very loud because it spins so fast. Though I've never heard it spin as fast even when the GPU is under full load.
And Windows Vista will use a 3d accellerated desktop as well except it uses DX10 and won't let you run OpenGL on the computer. Oh and that it doesn't offer all these cool features.
Some of the features in that thing are really pointless. A Windows-only user might be amazed by the multiple screens but that's a standard feature for Gnome (I think it's meant to replace X11 so the gnome running on it can probably be exchenged for your favourite window manager).
actually, multiple desktops are a standard under X and have been for countless years. by far not a gnome-exclusive.
since linux isn't a standard whatsoever just another unix clone, i bet XGL will always remain a linux thing and not become a common X replacement.
i've seen this and the vista videos and i think i don't want gpu-effects at this scale to interfere with my 3d app's performance anytime soon
I love the way XGL has progressed. I only hope they start getting proper 3D acceleration support at the install. Otherwise I assume there will be issues
Still the lack of applications bugs me. 95% of the US government uses windows, we put up with the quirks because it has useable software. Linux does not have anywhere near the ease of use or software library to warrant this. Yeah it'll attract some more people, but if it's released free, whats teh point in wasting the man hours? I just don't understand the business ethic of this besides advertising. Windows, i can use out of the box. This, i'm sure is a module i'll have to start on top of X, on top of linux. It's ridiculous. I'd have to wait for a combination build install, compile the right drivers for my system, tweak tweak tweak, patch, yada. And still come out of it only being able to run 5% of the entire software library availible out there. I just dont see the point, other than to brag or have somethign different to be cool. How does this enhance productivity?
You can use a Linux distro OOTB as well and unlike Windows, Linux includes enough software to allow you to be productive with an OOTB install instead of requiring that you buy or download an office application, a decent webbrowser, a firewall, etc.
photoshop, photoshop, photoshop and zbrush, 3ds max, decent compositing and video editing tools, ...
basically everything that's in that gap between open source hackjobs like the gimp, cinelerra or jahshaka (sp?) that are a mess and used for mostly "religious" reasons and the ultra-specialized overpriced commercial high end.
on the desktop, i'm sure theres much that's lacking if you inspect the situation closely, but i'm not using much office, etc stuff anyway.
having dealt with a few of those kde apps, i think i can say "you get what you pay for".
linux-wise i guess we'll get there someday. microsoft does too good a job of making one detest windows a bit more with every new incarnation. sooner or later, a true alternative will arise
oh and i'm very aware that you didn't claim multiple desktops a gnome exclusive. just though it wasn't clear enough.
The only thing Linux is missing are the games really. A few specialty programs here and there, but for most businesses, Linux has reached it's goals. The only thing left is to convince businesses that it is indeed cheaper to use Linux.
If you recall (or are old enough to remember), Windows wasn't easy OOTB when it arrived either. It took a long time for Windows to reach the level it is now. And to be honest, it still has a long way to go. Linux needs applications like XGL to keep up with the market, or possibly surpass it. Any edge they can offer is good for it's advancement.
Once Linux becomes more commonplace, applications will follow. The argument always provided by developers is, there isn't enough marketshare using Linux. Why? Because the developers are creating programs for Linux. If the developers aren't going to help the users switch, then the users are going to need other reasons to switch, then the developers will follow.
don't worry, the only games that ever reach the linux platform are good ones done by developers who know cross-platform gaming is essential to success, so it's a good automatic bad game filter.
i seriously doubt the time taken to make something cross platform is worth the return investment. Given that only maybe 5% of the people who play games do so on a linux system. Yes you can run some win32 apps or virtual machiens, but it's still too complicated for the average human.
ID software has made thier games cross platform, but not easily. It's still a manual install from the windows cd, and the addition of linux bianaries. Linux drivers for video cards are also slow to update. The only true cross platform games I can think of, are anything using tourque. Maybe i've missed something, but ease of use is still the key to the money and user base. But I personally would never waste my time making something cross platform just for leet street internet cred, when the time should be focused on improving the experience for users on teh main cash cow OS.
Also I agree with teh lack of development apps. If they geared linux to have more free art tools, the follower base would sky rocket, due to teh starving artist clause.
All visual interfaces for linux, feel like VESA run dos menus with slow response, and poor design. Maybe this will solve it, but it would be nice to see functionality first before the bells and whistes. Why dont they show easy to use control panels, or a dumbed down user account interface vs admin interface etc. Linux is very single minded, all about the OS, all about stability. Why not diversity, or ease of use for a new build for once.
You can write a game using SDL, making a Linux port is trivial after that. That's what Epic did for the UT200x games.
Maya is available for Linux, we just need to bug Adobe enough to get a Linux Photoshop. I mean, there's Mac Photoshop and Mac OSX is a Unix derivative so the difference shouldn't be that big.
If they geared linux to have more free art tools, the follower base would sky rocket, due to teh starving artist clause.
There are free art tools but people complain that they aren't on the same level as the 1000$+ applications. People complain about Blender's interface and complain about the GIMP in general. And there's just no way to make those go POOF and have all the features and the same UI as, say, Photoshop (is there ANY program that would be considered an alternative to Photoshop?).
Linux is very single minded, all about the OS, all about stability. Why not diversity, or ease of use for a new build for once.
There's different distros for different needs. Ubuntu or SuSE are focussed on ease of use, AFAIK.
I think anyone that hasn't tried Linux in the last few years, should revisit it. Check out Ubuntu, which I believe is the best version that exists out there. At least for people who seek a windows type environment. There are still hardcore people that don't like Ubuntu because they like to type everything
I think you might be surprised what is included these days. While I'll agree, there are still some steps necessary to make things completely dummy proof.
Downsizer, Ubuntu has added a very easy control panel. They have also integrated an add/remove programs that automatically creates the menu links (something I always felt Linux was missing). Items that aren't available on the install CD, are available in the add/remove programs. It will automatically download the files from ftp locations on the internet. If you know a Linux application that isn't in the list, you can add their ftp location and keep yourself updated that way (that part is still a bit advanced).
To me, the one hurdle they need to improve is driver support... especially for video acceleration. The drivers exist, but it still isn't easy to impliment.
XSI comes with a Linux version. What's so wrong with GIMP? Yes, it's not photoshop, but it's Adobe's choice not to provide Linux support. Perhaps in fear it would run more stable on Linux. Same with Pioxlogic.
You can play games on Linux. And there are games released with Linux support. There are many that you can't play on Linux, but there are many games that don't play in WinXP without a patch...IF the company decides to release one.
man this just reminds me how pissed i am vista is going to use 3d hardware for the interface. i happen to use my 3d harware, and pretty much all i can get of it for my job, all i need is a framerate drop in max or zbrush just so my desktop can do loopty loops and friggen summersaults. screw animated windows and transparent crap and 3d thingamabobs and shadows and lazers and talking dogs and paperclips. i want my programs to run faster not my os to look neat for 5 seconds . thats about how long it takes for me to get over the fact my desk top did a skateboard trick and i am only getting 5 frames a second in zbrush. i hope you can turn everything off. even colors.
Some stuff looks nice, but i'd turn most of it OFF. I really hate the stuff like what happened to the windows when you drag them (the rubber band effect).
I'm still waiting for a shell that i can customise in a simple layout language (like CSS). I'd strip off most fancy effects immediately, make the taskbar smaller, with simple 2D borders and clean up the rest as well...all this (quasi-) 3d stuff is useless imo...sure, it's nice for the first 5 minutes, after that it's just annoying.
(this post is not to bash Linux or anything, i just dislike most OS gui's)
That's what I was going to add. You could use a different window manager. Actually, the XGL appears to be a program rather than a window manager since it's running gnome. EIther way, you can disable it easily I'm sure.
My point is there ARE people that like the twirly windows and transparencies, and this desktop would help draw in those users.
ok... wasn't sure exactly how it was getting implimented. It makes sense that it would replace X, but I didn't know if XGL was just a name because it would be build ON X, or if it was replacing X.
Cheap: i'm a sr. systems engineer for various department of defence contracts, and have been for over 6 years years now. I certainly hope you are not inferring that I am a dumbass. I have used Ubuntu, and even passed a proposal to use it for a G4u file server/ftp for our desktop images.
I'm obviously not alone in thinking this is going to impact functionality in exchange for flashy gadgets. Which was the whole point of my arguments. It's a niche OS, only taken seriously in terms of lower budget around here. Ease of use is the ultimate gateway to the user compromising functionality, but ease of use is not wobbly windows.
Windows is attractive and robust. It is an easy base to add onto. I dont have to install different builds to try out and waste time. It's a great hobby OS, but untill it becomes attractive to normal people, there will be minimal commercial support. I would love to see it go beyond what it is, but it's speed at getting there is a crawl. KDE, Gnome, X, all still feel like VESA dos apps to me.
Vista has the option to use a classic interface. I have an MSDN subscription and legal Community Technology Previews. Vista is not the monster you think it is in terms of interface, it just feels like the next positive progression. It's all that DRM crap I dont like.
I used to get excited over Linux and it's possibilities, but Windows really has come so far now with XP, that honestly Linux has become pointless for regular users. Of course it's great for the enthusiast market (I won't even say for the cheap bastards because it's so easy to pirate XP now ).
I read an article on Slashdot a while back about how a company tried using Linux, but the cost and time of installation and maintanence easily cost them much more than just installing XP. They said it took them over 2 weeks I believe to get the OS set up, while it would have taken them a couple days for XP.
I read an article on Slashdot a while back about how a company tried using Linux, but the cost and time of installation and maintanence easily cost them much more than just installing XP. They said it took them over 2 weeks I believe to get the OS set up, while it would have taken them a couple days for XP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those types of articles appear a lot, then someone will release an article countering it
Usually, they try to state linux is more expensive because it basically takes the company longer to teach everyone the system. Sure, it probably takes a couple hours to set up XP, but if they got someone that knew Linux to set it up, I'm sure it would take just as little time. The problem with those articles is they time how long it takes a Windows guy to install and learn a Linux machine. Last I checked, people don't walk out of the womb with a knowledge of Windows. It took time for them to learn it also.
I dont need a system hog desktop, it takes forever to quit apps anyways and thats without it having to load some spinny cube dektop thing with transparent movies layered over each other.
Maybe when i have enought computing power that i wont notice it - then yeah, but this time will be far far away.
Not to mention that i didnt see a single thing that i would like to use or that would be helpful.
[ QUOTE ]
There are windowmanagers that are highly configurable, I think Blackbox and derivatives are a popular choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was looking at that stuff before i saw this thread, but the documentation seems to be a bit poor (at least, for the windows port...rather not switch to Linux, since i use Max most)...
Most user made themes are all sparkly and...well...plain ugly Or it is decent and they use some shitty tiny font which isnt readable at all.
If you could point me to some decent documentation, i'm gonna customise the hell out of XP
Replies
Seems more gimicky than anything else. The key is is to work smarter.
A. It's pretty, but uses mroe resources then needed for teh fancy effects.
B. I dunno about your video cards, but when mine is in a 3d aplication the fan on my card turns on and is quite loud. This would mean a constant noise increase, and a lower lifespan for the card i'm assuming.
C. It's still nto going to get off the ground untill more applications are supported. People actually dont mind paying for software if it's decent quality, this openoffice/free OS stuff, it's great but lacks so much ease of use and functionality it almosts begs the user to go buy windows, or dual boot etc.
Yeah but:
A. It's pretty, but uses mroe resources then needed for teh fancy effects.
B. I dunno about your video cards, but when mine is in a 3d aplication the fan on my card turns on and is quite loud. This would mean a constant noise increase, and a lower lifespan for the card i'm assuming.
C. It's still nto going to get off the ground untill more applications are supported. People actually dont mind paying for software if it's decent quality, this openoffice/free OS stuff, it's great but lacks so much ease of use and functionality it almosts begs the user to go buy windows, or dual boot etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
A: What's new? Windows takes more and more resources with every version with no discernable improvements
[Edit] Actually, since it's all running in 3d-accelerated goodness, it's probably actually a good deal less of a performance hit than it would be on traditional systems. [/edit]
B: If your fans are loud, clean them or look into it, they're not supposed to be. Any noise generation is a loss of energy-- a result of additional friction/vibration/etc which may mean additional heat to your system. I hardly consider 'uses the computer' to be a valid reason to resist progress. 3d desktops *are* where things will go eventually, the potential is incredible. This tech demo shows exactly what I want to see: That the technology is being implimented by people who are focusing on the technology, not coders who think they're UI designers or anything.
C: "Get off the ground"?
An unregulated GeForce 5 or 6 fan is very loud because it spins so fast. Though I've never heard it spin as fast even when the GPU is under full load.
And Windows Vista will use a 3d accellerated desktop as well except it uses DX10 and won't let you run OpenGL on the computer. Oh and that it doesn't offer all these cool features.
Some of the features in that thing are really pointless. A Windows-only user might be amazed by the multiple screens but that's a standard feature for Gnome (I think it's meant to replace X11 so the gnome running on it can probably be exchenged for your favourite window manager).
since linux isn't a standard whatsoever just another unix clone, i bet XGL will always remain a linux thing and not become a common X replacement.
i've seen this and the vista videos and i think i don't want gpu-effects at this scale to interfere with my 3d app's performance anytime soon
I'm not saying it's a gnome exclusive, just that it's not a new feature.
You can use a Linux distro OOTB as well and unlike Windows, Linux includes enough software to allow you to be productive with an OOTB install instead of requiring that you buy or download an office application, a decent webbrowser, a firewall, etc.
What software are you missing?
basically everything that's in that gap between open source hackjobs like the gimp, cinelerra or jahshaka (sp?) that are a mess and used for mostly "religious" reasons
on the desktop, i'm sure theres much that's lacking if you inspect the situation closely, but i'm not using much office, etc stuff anyway.
having dealt with a few of those kde apps, i think i can say "you get what you pay for".
linux-wise i guess we'll get there someday. microsoft does too good a job of making one detest windows a bit more with every new incarnation. sooner or later, a true alternative will arise
oh and i'm very aware that you didn't claim multiple desktops a gnome exclusive. just though it wasn't clear enough.
If you recall (or are old enough to remember), Windows wasn't easy OOTB when it arrived either. It took a long time for Windows to reach the level it is now. And to be honest, it still has a long way to go. Linux needs applications like XGL to keep up with the market, or possibly surpass it. Any edge they can offer is good for it's advancement.
Once Linux becomes more commonplace, applications will follow. The argument always provided by developers is, there isn't enough marketshare using Linux. Why? Because the developers are creating programs for Linux. If the developers aren't going to help the users switch, then the users are going to need other reasons to switch, then the developers will follow.
ID software has made thier games cross platform, but not easily. It's still a manual install from the windows cd, and the addition of linux bianaries. Linux drivers for video cards are also slow to update. The only true cross platform games I can think of, are anything using tourque. Maybe i've missed something, but ease of use is still the key to the money and user base. But I personally would never waste my time making something cross platform just for leet street internet cred, when the time should be focused on improving the experience for users on teh main cash cow OS.
Also I agree with teh lack of development apps. If they geared linux to have more free art tools, the follower base would sky rocket, due to teh starving artist clause.
All visual interfaces for linux, feel like VESA run dos menus with slow response, and poor design. Maybe this will solve it, but it would be nice to see functionality first before the bells and whistes. Why dont they show easy to use control panels, or a dumbed down user account interface vs admin interface etc. Linux is very single minded, all about the OS, all about stability. Why not diversity, or ease of use for a new build for once.
Maya is available for Linux, we just need to bug Adobe enough to get a Linux Photoshop. I mean, there's Mac Photoshop and Mac OSX is a Unix derivative so the difference shouldn't be that big.
If they geared linux to have more free art tools, the follower base would sky rocket, due to teh starving artist clause.
There are free art tools but people complain that they aren't on the same level as the 1000$+ applications. People complain about Blender's interface and complain about the GIMP in general. And there's just no way to make those go POOF and have all the features and the same UI as, say, Photoshop (is there ANY program that would be considered an alternative to Photoshop?).
Linux is very single minded, all about the OS, all about stability. Why not diversity, or ease of use for a new build for once.
There's different distros for different needs. Ubuntu or SuSE are focussed on ease of use, AFAIK.
I think you might be surprised what is included these days. While I'll agree, there are still some steps necessary to make things completely dummy proof.
Downsizer, Ubuntu has added a very easy control panel. They have also integrated an add/remove programs that automatically creates the menu links (something I always felt Linux was missing). Items that aren't available on the install CD, are available in the add/remove programs. It will automatically download the files from ftp locations on the internet. If you know a Linux application that isn't in the list, you can add their ftp location and keep yourself updated that way (that part is still a bit advanced).
To me, the one hurdle they need to improve is driver support... especially for video acceleration. The drivers exist, but it still isn't easy to impliment.
You can play games on Linux. And there are games released with Linux support. There are many that you can't play on Linux, but there are many games that don't play in WinXP without a patch...IF the company decides to release one.
Opinions change once the userbase grows.
I'm still waiting for a shell that i can customise in a simple layout language (like CSS). I'd strip off most fancy effects immediately, make the taskbar smaller, with simple 2D borders and clean up the rest as well...all this (quasi-) 3d stuff is useless imo...sure, it's nice for the first 5 minutes, after that it's just annoying.
(this post is not to bash Linux or anything, i just dislike most OS gui's)
My point is there ARE people that like the twirly windows and transparencies, and this desktop would help draw in those users.
I'm obviously not alone in thinking this is going to impact functionality in exchange for flashy gadgets. Which was the whole point of my arguments. It's a niche OS, only taken seriously in terms of lower budget around here. Ease of use is the ultimate gateway to the user compromising functionality, but ease of use is not wobbly windows.
Windows is attractive and robust. It is an easy base to add onto. I dont have to install different builds to try out and waste time. It's a great hobby OS, but untill it becomes attractive to normal people, there will be minimal commercial support. I would love to see it go beyond what it is, but it's speed at getting there is a crawl. KDE, Gnome, X, all still feel like VESA dos apps to me.
Vista has the option to use a classic interface. I have an MSDN subscription and legal Community Technology Previews. Vista is not the monster you think it is in terms of interface, it just feels like the next positive progression. It's all that DRM crap I dont like.
I read an article on Slashdot a while back about how a company tried using Linux, but the cost and time of installation and maintanence easily cost them much more than just installing XP. They said it took them over 2 weeks I believe to get the OS set up, while it would have taken them a couple days for XP.
I read an article on Slashdot a while back about how a company tried using Linux, but the cost and time of installation and maintanence easily cost them much more than just installing XP. They said it took them over 2 weeks I believe to get the OS set up, while it would have taken them a couple days for XP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those types of articles appear a lot, then someone will release an article countering it
Usually, they try to state linux is more expensive because it basically takes the company longer to teach everyone the system. Sure, it probably takes a couple hours to set up XP, but if they got someone that knew Linux to set it up, I'm sure it would take just as little time. The problem with those articles is they time how long it takes a Windows guy to install and learn a Linux machine. Last I checked, people don't walk out of the womb with a knowledge of Windows. It took time for them to learn it also.
Maybe when i have enought computing power that i wont notice it - then yeah, but this time will be far far away.
Not to mention that i didnt see a single thing that i would like to use or that would be helpful.
There are windowmanagers that are highly configurable, I think Blackbox and derivatives are a popular choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was looking at that stuff before i saw this thread, but the documentation seems to be a bit poor (at least, for the windows port...rather not switch to Linux, since i use Max most)...
Most user made themes are all sparkly and...well...plain ugly
If you could point me to some decent documentation, i'm gonna customise the hell out of XP
looks like it's catching on.
to play ogg video formats in a direct show compatible player:
http://www.gromkov.com/faq/faq2004-0076.html