PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft revises minimal GPU requirements for longhorn



VJ
7th May 2004, 02:44
There will be 3 layers:
Aero
-> GPU: DirectX 9, at least 32MB of RAM, Intel AGP 4x bus, minimal 1024 x 768
Aero glass
-> GPU: DirectX 9, at least 64MB of RAM, Intel AGP 4x bus, minimal 1024 x 768
Win2000 mode
-> should work on lower end systems

http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/42580/windowspaulthurrott_42580.html


Jörg

Jammrock
7th May 2004, 05:58
That was nice of them to reduce the standard. I loaded a Longhorn build on my laptop a couple of months ago and it brought my laptop to it's virtual knees.

I wouldn't recommend running Longhorn unless you have at least 512 MB RAM (1 GB Recommended), with a beefy vid card. At least the current builds are hogs.

Jammrock

VJ
7th May 2004, 06:54
Euhm, the specs I mentioned are concerning the videocard: it needs to have 32 MB for Aero, and 64 MB for Aero Glass. This is not the overall system spec... :)

Jörg

UtwigMU
7th May 2004, 08:51
Basically this means, Matrox needs full DX9 part for Longhorn.

Currently the rumour mill is that Longhorn will be scaled down and released sooner (end of 05/early 06 instead of 06/07).

skinrock
7th May 2004, 11:06
Where do you get this Longhorn?

Greebe
7th May 2004, 12:28
M$,.. unless you are in Texas,.. you better have 733t roping skilz if you go for the latter :D

a_h
8th May 2004, 07:53
Nice to see that M$ copies *cough* reinvents all those nice features Mac OS X has for at least one year now (translucent effects, bouncing icons!!).

Sorry, couldn't resist - Cheers, Hannes

Edit: forgot to say that OS X features a hw accelerated gui for more than one year now.

Wombat
8th May 2004, 15:07
Originally posted by a_h
Nice to see that M$ copies *cough* reinvents all those nice features Mac OS X has for at least one year now (translucent effects, bouncing icons!!).

Sorry, couldn't resist - Cheers, Hannes

Edit: forgot to say that OS X features a hw accelerated gui for more than one year now. Yeah, because OS X was the first to have those things :rolleyes:

Jon P. Inghram
8th May 2004, 17:25
I could be wrong, (but I'm not :p) but the Amiga had a HW accelerated GUI a tad bit longer than a year ago.

Chrono_Wanderer
8th May 2004, 23:36
lol@Jon :D

Aero looks promising...

now, I am left wondering when KDE/Gnome will get their acts together...

hmm.... KDE w/3D effects... yummy :D

I wonder if my 5200 /128MB will be enough.

This is stupid, but when they say DX9, is it beause they need vertex shaders or something?

And like wth. I can't picture Longhorn as a gaming environment... lol...

DGhost
8th May 2004, 23:57
they require a number of capabilities that were introduced with DX9, one of which is PS2.0

leech
9th May 2004, 00:09
Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
I could be wrong, (but I'm not :p) but the Amiga had a HW accelerated GUI a tad bit longer than a year ago.

oh yeah, the hardware blitter... :D

Just out of curiousity, am I the only one thinking that we don't need all this flash? I mean really, if it requires a freaking 64mb video card than aren't they doing something wrong?

As far as KDE/Gnome goes, I think they're mostly waiting on the ability to do it through X windows. There are various hacks for making windows transparent, and KDE already has a bouncing icon for the startup notification (at least it's there in 3.2.x) Personally, if I ever decide to use Longhorn (which I probably never will...) then I'd end up just switching it to the Win2k look like I have with Windows XP. Until M$ get off their arses and make a real theme engine, then they can go blow. I mean come on, charging for themes?

Leech

Wombat
9th May 2004, 00:38
Originally posted by leech

Just out of curiousity, am I the only one thinking that we don't need all this flash? I mean really, if it requires a freaking 64mb video card than aren't they doing something wrong?
Who knows? Did people really need a GUI to start with?

Faramir1966
9th May 2004, 02:02
No,but it makes life much easier .
Well.....at least most of the times... ;)

Jon P. Inghram
9th May 2004, 08:08
It also had an extremely primitive coprocessor, the copper, which you might (if you were really drunk maybe) consider as a very remote cousin of the shaders in modern video cards. Although with only 3 instructions and the various timing issues it's not the most powerfull device around. :)


Wait for the monitors electron beam to reach a certain location on screen,
Move a 16 bit value into a hardware register (can't directly access RAM, but can indirectly via commands sent to the blitter,)
And even a flow control command, Skip, which skips the next instruction if the video beam has gone past the specified location.


Oh, and HW video data decompression, it could, via a semi-lossy process, expand 6 bit color to 12 bit, or 8 to 18 on AGA systems.

As far as a GUI goes, it's nice to have a simple GUI, even if it's only text based (text graphics count don't they?) I remember learning Pascal on Apple ]['s back in high school, and really enjoying the development system it used. The next year they "upgraded" to Mac's, much to everyone's dissapointment. Then you suddendly were having to fight with the UI, and, shockingly, it also compiled programs noticibly slower.

leech
9th May 2004, 09:40
GUI's have their place, as do Command lines. My point was that does the GUI NEED to look fancy...

My point here is this... the GUI by default should be a pretty dull, yet functional thing. But have theming abilities for those that are bored and want to customize. (I'm thinking Gnome is perfect in this...) The Amiga was great, it also was good at this, the standard GUI was pretty plain to look at, but there were a lot of third party utilities to make it look a whole lot better. Good old MagicWB... :D This makes me want to go play with the Amiga emulator again...

I think it's a bad idea for Microsoft to make it so the operating system requires a 3D enabled card. It's not like we have displays like in the movie Minority Report (I want one though!)

Leech

Ribbit
9th May 2004, 10:14
Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
As far as a GUI goes, it's nice to have a simple GUI, even if it's only text based (text graphics count don't they?) I remember learning Pascal on Apple ]['s back in high school, and really enjoying the development system it used. The next year they "upgraded" to Mac's, much to everyone's dissapointment. Then you suddendly were having to fight with the UI, and, shockingly, it also compiled programs noticibly slower. Ah yes, Apple Pascal, my first real programming language. Those were the days....

I also had a C compiler under CP/M on my Apple, called BDS (not BSD) C, and it was fast. Orders of magnitude faster than Zortech on my 486-66. On a 4MHz Z80. :eek: Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if it was faster than GCC on my dual 1.6GHz Athlon.....

Wombat
9th May 2004, 11:34
Originally posted by leech
GUI's have their place, as do Command lines. My point was that does the GUI NEED to look fancy...

My point here is this... the GUI by default should be a pretty dull, yet functional thing. So you're running in 640x480x8bit color then?

My point is that having the new technology will enable features that we can't even imagine now, but will find indispensible once we're used to them.

I for one am really glad that XP installs a default 800x600x16bit driver, instead of the old 640x480x4bit that used to be the "safe minimum" until you installed specific drivers.

Jon P. Inghram
9th May 2004, 12:28
I for one am really glad that XP installs a default 800x600x16bit driver, instead of the old 640x480x4bit that used to be the "safe minimum" until you installed specific drivers.

That's one of WinXP's better features. :)

I think a major problem with modern technology is that the marketing departments have beecome the driving force behind product design, that combined with mindless consumerism just ends up making more and more useless features that seem to exist only to satisfy the idea that the more complex something is the better it must be.

DGhost
9th May 2004, 22:15
there are a lot of things that the enchanced gui will bring to the table. one such thing is something that OS X has had since Jaguar - syncing page flips with the refresh rate of the monitor/lcd.

i agree that having an interface that screams for attention is a bad idea for a default, but having a dull, drab interface as a default is no better of an option. the default GUI should have subtle flare (like the mouse cursor shadow in 2k/XP (and i believe even NT4)), but still be simple and not scream at the user.

in the end, there are a lot of things that this stuff could be used for. the idea of showing which window an alert is coming from is something that can help the user intuitively understand the flow of logic. the thing is that they have to be less intrusive and "loud" as XP's defaults were.

oh, and its not like Longhorn requires a 3d card. however, since pretty much every computer now days is shipping with a 3d graphics card, it does not really pose any problems from a market standpoint.