"Jari-Matti Mäkelä" <jmjmak@utu.fi.invalid> wrote in message news:f0klls$7e2$1@digitalmars.com...
> Saaa wrote:
>> Are even programmers against vista?
>> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?
>> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting
>> can't be shown in general commercials, right?
>
> No, but please don't think you can force people to think the same way as you do.
Is this about me or about microsoft?
If this is about me: well in a discussion you hope to force, others to think
like you or adapt to their better thoughts, by arguments.
If its not directed to me: ignore that sentence :D

>
> There are several reasons not to always use the newest version of Windows. Maybe the biggest (from the developer POV) are compatibility issues. People start to develop Vista-only apps with the new shiny dev tools. Simply great, now everyone has to convert.
This even happens in ubuntu: some apps are supported, the rest ake alot of
effort to get to work.
Somebody makes choises including develepors and as vista breaks
compatibility with previous windows
(like for fthe first time for real) this is going to happen yes. But most
non-3d apps have the tag: (98)/2k/xp/vista
>
> Sure it has interesting 'features' like Aero (which is a bad joke compared to Beryl), but you know, some people really don't appreciate
You understand that aero was the one feature which is easy to market and thus not one the features I was talking about :D
> the arbitrary limits the OS introduces - like maximum number of network sessions < n (where n is a relatively small number, forcing you to buy the most expensive Vista version if you do networking stuff), picture
Marketing yes.
> quality of video clips on non-HDCP displays is max a x b pixels. Then it
Only if you buy drm protected media, which I won't.
> phones home, forces to register new hardware, forces to use WMP, WMA,
I don't like the phones home part and I hope there is an VistaAntiSpy.
> standards-wise retarded IE7, etc.
This is not true, the forcing part. Neelie won't allow this :D

> Now if you think these are features, please take a look at any other OS out there. Maybe you will notice the feeling that you're not being held hostage anymore.
It is mostly the lack of support by other apps that's holding me back. There
is atm no good alternative for office, excel and Photoshop.
I don't care whose fault this is, I need to use these apps and XP is for now
my os.
I like the research Microsoft did which are expressed in Vista (look for
instance in the video I mentioned earlier).
I also like the open source concept and by using windows I can use allot
opensource programs.
(next to the os itself and Photoshop and office everything is opensource)
But after an enthusiastic start with ubuntu I had some annoyances with it
(which I should report somewhere)
and getting to know a new os as well as windows just takes allot of
effort(because it is new).

Saaa wrote:
>> Except from what I understand, ultimately they got it so it _does_ work in a window just like it does in XP:
>>
>> Found this from a quick search:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/winperf/archive/2007/04/04/opengl-and-windows-vista.aspx
>> """
>> Another thing that has left a lot of people confused has been around OpenGL applications and how they work with the new desktop composition system, called DWM. DWM is implemented using Direct3D 9, and as such it was originally thought that OpenGL applications could not interoperate with DWM and DWM would need to shut down in the presence of an OpenGL application. This is not the case. Windows Vista provides a mechanism for hardware vendors to use to integrate an OpenGL application with DWM, which acts in the exact same manner as D3D9 and GDI integration with DWM via shared surfaces (a new feature of WDDM).
>> """
>>
>> So in the end it sounds like all's right with the world.  Except this lingering bad taste in my mouth.  Even if they didn't do it this time, it shows that Microsoft is willing to make OpenGL (and by extension any not-invented-here API) a 2nd class citizen at the drop of a hat.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> That it lingers a bitter taste in your mouth is a good example of how microsoft is looked at :)
> How does 'making everything work nicely even though they didn't have to' make you think they were willing to make OpenGL a 2th class citizen?

I think exactly because "they didn't have to". Their OS monopoly gives them enormous power -- why *should* they make everything work nicely? OpenGL has one of the biggest lobby groups of anything which could be affected.
See how they almost disabled support for 80-bit floating point in Win64; it's only because of Walter that it stayed. They were ready to deny access to the hardware.
Are there any similar-sized monopolies of 'essential services' with so much freedom? (Imagine if there were rumours that your electricity supplier was considering moving to 68Hz. 10% of all electrical products would stop working!) The fact that it's plausible that OpenGL could become a second-class citizen is quite scary.

Saaa wrote:


> How does 'making everything work nicely even though they didn't have to' make you think they were willing to make OpenGL a 2th class citizen?
> The whole confusion started when microsoft announced the use of dx10 for the ui and people expecting they would probably drop OpenGL as this seemed the easiest option for microsoft.

The problem was that they initially said that Windowed OpenGL apps would automatically cause Aeroglass (or whatever they call it) to be shutoff upon launching. This caused a stir among OpenGL developers (and there was a lot of misinformation and speculation in the beginning) because they would be the ones getting support calls from clueless users ("Why does your app break Windows?") There was never any concern about OpenGL being dropped. All of this is well documented in a lengthy forum discussion at opengl.org.


> And in the end it still doesn't work like in XP: it is like wine does dx: translating all calls.

That's just the stock drivers. Windows XP and earlier shipped with a software OpenGL driver that implemented version 1.1 of the specification. On machines with broken graphics card drivers (or no graphics card), this is the version that is loaded. Vista offers the same version as well as a new driver that implements the 1.4 spec (with no, or limited, extensions) and is implemented on top of DirectX. However, graphics card vendors supply drivers that provide raw OpenGL access so that apps can take full advantage of all of the latest OpenGL features and not worry about a DX translation layer.

So in practice, the majority of OpenGL applications will be running on OEM drivers and not the MS driver. Unfortunately, the driver architecture of Vista is supposedly a PITA to work with. It took NVIDIA several tries to get it right and AFAIK ATI is still having difficulties with buggy drivers. I've also seen evidence that, except for some popular applications that MS special-cased, many OpenGL games and other apps suffer a performance hit on Vista compared to XP. This might change as the graphics card vendors enhance their Vista drivers, but it isn't going to happen overnight.

The audio situation is atrocious as well. Any old apps you have that use DirectAudio/Sound/Music will no longer have functioning EAX or hardware acceleration. As far as games go, that's a lot of titles.

There's a lot to dislike in Vista. I personally won't be downgrading to it. When XP is no longer supported and becomes a PITA to use, I'll be making a more permanent move to Linux. I don't want draconian anti-piracy and security measures forced down my throat, nor do I want to upgrade my hardware just for an OS. I'll also be primarily targeting Mac and Linux for my software development. I don't need the support headaches that will inevitably come from non-tech savvy users when they see scary dialog boxes pop up and get the impression that my applications are spyware. Or when they are running buggy graphics drivers that they haven't updated since they first installed Vista.

If you're happy with Vista, more power to you. I have nothing against MS, but Vista is pile of crap.

Saaa wrote:
> Are even programmers against vista?
> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?

It isn't necessary.  The only notable feature over XP is DX10.  But performance is abysmal, partially because of immature drivers and partially (it seems) because of DRM enforcement (read reviews that discuss file copying across drives or across the network).  And I object to the DRM features on purely idealistic grounds.

> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?

Please name one.  I'll admit that as a programmer I like some of the new API features they've added, but at the same time, I can't use them because Vista is too new.


Sean

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Also, as a programmer, I'm seriously pissed off with the new stuff in
> Vista.  I mean, first they bring out .NET with SWForms, then almost
> immediately deprecate it for WPF.  How long before they bring out
> something else new that I need to re-learn?  Bugger it; I'm sticking to
> cross platform toolkits from now on, no exceptions.

But Microsoft has always done this.  It's one reason my Win32 apps look like Unix apps at the code level.  I have no interest in chasing technologies that will be obsolete six months later.

> Finally is the fact that anything Vista can do, Linux can already do,
> and do it better.  I mean, the marketing push for Vista has been "The
> Wow starts Now": have you ever seen Beryl?  That thing completely blows
> Vista and OSX out of the water in terms of how shiny it is.

Ubuntu is fantastic.  The only reason I still use Windows at all is for game playing and the fact that I hate dual booting.  But I don't have any plans to upgrade past XP.  From here I'll either get a mac or install Linux.


Sean

Saaa wrote:
> "Jari-Matti Mäkelä" <jmjmak@utu.fi.invalid> wrote in message news:f0klls$7e2$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Saaa wrote:

>>> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?
>> No, but please don't think you can force people to think the same way as you do.

> Is this about me or about microsoft?
> If this is about me: well in a discussion you hope to force, others to think
> like you or adapt to their better thoughts, by arguments.
> If its not directed to me: ignore that sentence :D

Both -- no, you were not. :) I just wanted to point out some people
think they can force others. I have strong opinions about free software,
yes. But you can freely ignore my posts, I just gave some food for
thought. I've used Linux exclusively for several years. Everything new
MS creates just causes me more work since none of that new is ever
compatible with other systems. I think that is a valid reason to dismiss it.

>> There are several reasons not to always use the newest version of Windows. Maybe the biggest (from the developer POV) are compatibility issues. People start to develop Vista-only apps with the new shiny dev tools. Simply great, now everyone has to convert.

> This even happens in ubuntu: some apps are supported, the rest ake alot of
> effort to get to work.
> Somebody makes choises including develepors and as vista breaks
> compatibility with previous windows
> (like for fthe first time for real) this is going to happen yes. But most
> non-3d apps have the tag: (98)/2k/xp/vista

But in the open source world you are allowed to choose. Canonical isn't deliberately forcing people to convert to Ubuntu 7.04. The newest development tools they offer produce working binaries for old and other distros as well.

>> Sure it has interesting 'features' like Aero (which is a bad joke compared to Beryl), but you know, some people really don't appreciate
> You understand that aero was the one feature which is easy to market and thus not one the features I was talking about :D

Sure, but there are/could be also alternatives whose management is more willing to co-operate with 3rd parties. I haven't checked, but I think e.g. transactional ntfs and the semantic desktop project (not yet in Vista I think) are one of those new features that are not possible to implement in other OSes without reverse engineering. What about dx10 api? Again, there are cross platform alternatives.

>> quality of video clips on non-HDCP displays is max a x b pixels. Then it
> Only if you buy drm protected media, which I won't.

Well, why the heck should I pay for this then.

> It is mostly the lack of support by other apps that's holding me back. There
> is atm no good alternative for office, excel and Photoshop.
> I don't care whose fault this is, I need to use these apps and XP is for now
> my os.

You can run office, excel and photoshop without any problems on linux or mac, try crossover. Wine is also getting there step by step.

> I also like the open source concept and by using windows I can use allot
> opensource programs.
> (next to the os itself and Photoshop and office everything is opensource)

They all work on older Windowses as well.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:37:39 +0900, Mike Parker wrote:

> Saaa wrote:
> 
> 
>> How does 'making everything work nicely even though they didn't have to'
>> make you think they were willing to make OpenGL a 2th class citizen?
>> The whole confusion started when microsoft announced the use of dx10 for the
>> ui and people expecting they would probably drop OpenGL as this seemed the
>> easiest option for microsoft.
> 
> The problem was that they initially said that Windowed OpenGL apps would automatically cause Aeroglass (or whatever they call it) to be shutoff upon launching. This caused a stir among OpenGL developers (and there was a lot of misinformation and speculation in the beginning) because they would be the ones getting support calls from clueless users ("Why does your app break Windows?") There was never any concern about OpenGL being dropped. All of this is well documented in a lengthy forum discussion at opengl.org.
> 
> 
>> And in the end it still doesn't work like in XP: it is like wine does dx: translating all calls.
> 
> That's just the stock drivers. Windows XP and earlier shipped with a software OpenGL driver that implemented version 1.1 of the specification. On machines with broken graphics card drivers (or no graphics card), this is the version that is loaded. Vista offers the same version as well as a new driver that implements the 1.4 spec (with no, or limited, extensions) and is implemented on top of DirectX. However, graphics card vendors supply drivers that provide raw OpenGL access so that apps can take full advantage of all of the latest OpenGL features and not worry about a DX translation layer.
> 
> So in practice, the majority of OpenGL applications will be running on OEM drivers and not the MS driver. Unfortunately, the driver architecture of Vista is supposedly a PITA to work with. It took NVIDIA several tries to get it right and AFAIK ATI is still having difficulties with buggy drivers. I've also seen evidence that, except for some popular applications that MS special-cased, many OpenGL games and other apps suffer a performance hit on Vista compared to XP. This might change as the graphics card vendors enhance their Vista drivers, but it isn't going to happen overnight.
> 
> The audio situation is atrocious as well. Any old apps you have that use DirectAudio/Sound/Music will no longer have functioning EAX or hardware acceleration. As far as games go, that's a lot of titles.
> 
> There's a lot to dislike in Vista. I personally won't be downgrading to it. When XP is no longer supported and becomes a PITA to use, I'll be making a more permanent move to Linux. I don't want draconian anti-piracy and security measures forced down my throat, nor do I want to upgrade my hardware just for an OS. I'll also be primarily targeting Mac and Linux for my software development. I don't need the support headaches that will inevitably come from non-tech savvy users when they see scary dialog boxes pop up and get the impression that my applications are spyware. Or when they are running buggy graphics drivers that they haven't updated since they first installed Vista.
> 
> If you're happy with Vista, more power to you. I have nothing against MS, but Vista is pile of crap.


Whaaa?  Did I hear Mike Parker say that he will move to Linux?!  Wow! Never thought I'd hear that.  :-)

-JJR

I had Vista pre-installed on my new lenovo laptop and absolutely could not stand it.  I'm mostly OS neutral, I like XP and Ubuntu , but Vista is absolutely god awful, I had to jump through so many hoops to get it configured, and now instead of configuration files the have *registry patches* , good lord!

I have a core duo 2 and Vista ran so slow, it literally took over 5 minutes to boot up.

And besides eye candy it has no new features that would make it more productive.

I uninstalled Vista and installed kubuntu, and could not be happier. Its quick, its pretty, and insanely productive.

I remember trying to install Slackware 3.0 pre 21st century from a set of floppies and totally trashing the family computer - they wouldn't let me touch it after that.  Linux now is a one click install, with most drivers detected automatically.  Everything on my laptop, sound - wireless card - ethernet , worked out of the box.

Charlie




Saaa wrote:
> Are even programmers against vista?
> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?
> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?
> 
> No that I'm a fan.. I don't even run it but I could get excited when I get my new computer.
> 
> http://manodesign.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!1pRsSVBaAuwgFSti-clSJ6Ng!362.entry
> DirectX 10 , software sound approach
> 
> I  am just interested in the why it is that bad that you think because of it to switch?
> 
> 
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:f0gv1a$2jtf$1@digitalmars.com...
>> freeagle wrote:
>>> Charlie wrote:
>>>> DFL and Entice are really under-appreciated IMO , an awesome piece of work.
>>> I think this is because the project is hosted at www.dprogramming.com. I'm not saying there's anything bad about it, but I think that first, and probably the last, stop for any beginning D programmer is www.dsource.org. That's why projects at dprogramming don't receive much attention.
>> It looks like a very nice project, but I think the fact that it's Windows-only is the reason for lack of widespread adoption.  Heck I'm a Windows-only user but I won't touch Windows-only libraries.  I value my own freedom to switch platforms at will too much, especially these days with Vista breathing uncomfortably down my neck.   I also value the ability to share with friends who don't use Windows.  So I never really gave DFL a second look.
>>
>> --bb 
> 
> 

John Reimer wrote:

> 
> Whaaa?  Did I hear Mike Parker say that he will move to Linux?!  Wow! Never thought I'd hear that.  :-)

Yeah, neither did he :) Vista and Ubuntu changed my mind.

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Saaa wrote:
>> I didn't hear anything about drm being the cause of crappy creative drivers, I thought it was this:
>> http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html
> 
> Basically, MS changed the whole audio stack over to software-only and
> just uses the soundcard as a DAC *because* of the DRM stuff.  DRM isn't
> the technical reason why soundcard's got demoted, but it *is* the
> motivation.
> 
>> DirectX 10 is really great and it really seems to be made for the hardware iso the other way around.
>> I think http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=146749 gives really good examples of the same new approach.
>> (Its an interesting talk in itself although being a tad long ;)
>> These small differences are really hard to see and extremely hard to market...
>> Like HyperThreading: Its not always faster and even slower at times, but talking about system responsiveness it beats a single core without a doubt.
> 
> Yeah, but if I write for DX10, it runs on... Vista.  Only.  Not even XP.
>   When I found out that Alan Wake was Vista only, I was *seriously*
> pissed off.  I was *really* looking forward to that after Max Payne 1
> and 2.  I'm not going to forgive Microsoft for that one easily.
> 
> As for development, I think I'll just wait for OpenGL 3.0 (I think it's
> 3.0) which will run on pretty much everything, and IIRC be pretty damn
> close to DX10 anyway.  And anything that doesn't run OpenGL will
> probably run ES :P
> 
>> I didn't know where to move this discussion. But I would like to know the ideas of those who know more than me...
>> The choice of OS is important enough.
> 
> Yeah; threads on these NGs tend to get off track sometimes.  Maybe we
> should just make a digitalmars.D.offtopic group :P
> 
> 	-- Daniel
> 

What?? Say it ain't so :(
The Max Payne series were (are!) awesome games!

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D