[KellyHogan]

http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/index.htm
http://research.microsoft.com/ui/Tas...technology.htm

The current base implementation runs on Windows PCs with a 400 MHz Intel Pentium II processor, 128 MB of RAM, and AGP support. We initially used the NVIDIA Riva TNT2 graphics accelerator with 32MB of memory and AGP texturing support. With this setup we achieved frame rates above 20 frames per second (fps) without substantial optimization of the code. The newest emerging graphics accelerator cards will certainly provide "real-time" updates of well over 30 fps and with with even less texture-mapping bottlenecks.

All TaskGallery code was implemented in C++, using the Win32 and Direct3D APIs. The software architecture is divided into five major components as follows:

1.

�objects to simplify and abstract Win32 platform functionality like window creation, devices and events
2.

management of redirected windows
3.

a simple 3D renderer that abstracts the Direct3D interface and performs render state maintenance and texture management
4.

a library for scene graph management, animation, and basic graphical object types
5.

the high-level objects that implement behavior and visual representations of Rooms, Tasks, and Windows.


Redirection

The key technical challenge in building a 3D window manager like the TaskGallery is to get existing applications to work in the 3D environment without changing, rewriting, or recompiling them.� This requires both output and input redirection facilities in the operating system.�

Output redirection causes applications, without the application "knowing it," to render to off-screen bitmaps instead of the screen, provides access to those bitmaps so they can be used as textures in the 3D environment, and sends notification whenever an application has updated its visual display in any way.�

Texture Management

Another key problem is managing textures. Keeping a texture for each window and each task can quickly fill any texture memory available. In addition, because each application is always running, the texture for each application has to update often -- thus requiring high texture download bandwidth. AGP graphics cards make it possible to texture from main memory with LITTLE PERFORMANCE PENALTY.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>Dear god almighty on a flaming pogo stick.

Am I invisible? Or do you just have your head so far in the sand that you can't even acknowledge the 'fancy words and physics'... which by the way, the rest of us here in reality call 'facts'.

Cripes. I give up. There can't be more than three firing neurons in this guy's skull.
</STRONG>

Watch the video, read the website and then shut up. I have been vindicated. Either Apple is tempting people to upgrade by waving a golden carrot that the end user should have anyway or they are crap at coding.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

That video basically vindicated everything I have been saying (this tends to happen on these forums time and time again). That video showed Windows 2000 running current applications mapped live onto 2D windows floating in

Watch the video, then explain. Don't give fancy physics and swear words and then mock me when I retaliate in the same manner. I don't expect any apologies at all because I'm not hurt.
</STRONG>

That was 1999 - it is now 2002, 3 years later. Did MS implement ANYTHING from that in XP? Nope. Makes you wonder why?

MS even admitted the best they could get was 20FPS in the rendering. That would still be choppy to most users. Not to mention the toll all that rendering took on other apps running. If the tech was so great on a P2/400 it should be AWESOME on an Athlon 2000+ with a GeForce4...

I could make a video showing Windows XP on a 386SX-16 to be fast and fluid. It's all how you capture it and what speed you present it at (1.5x, 2x, etc).

Again, a demo only proves a concept can be done. It makes nothing about the speed, practicality, etc. of doing it. Sure, you could "accelerate" QE on a Rage 128 (or a CGA Board if you wanted to), but the resulting overhead of doing it would probably slow it down to the point where there is no gain from doing it. That is what they are trying to get through to you. Maybe it can be done. But the overhead from scaling and moving all that data would outweigh any performance gain.

Don't BS about current shipping Macs. Back in 90(or 91), you could get:
An XT Clone
A 286 Clone
a 386 Clone... All would run current Apps (DOS 4.01/DESQview) fine. Then MS came out with Windows 3.1, which would not run on anything less than a 386. It didn't matter if you bought that XT 6 months ago, it just didn't run. Technically, it could have ran (some of those turbo XT's were quite fast), but for MS to program it to run it would have been very hard and not worth the effort.

Same with QE - you can still run Jaguar on an older Mac, but you just won't get all the performance of a newer one. You will see a speed improvement, but it won't be as great as if you had supported HW. There is nothing in Jaguar that will preent it from running on older hardware...

Take a step back and think about it logically...

[Kickaha]

Kelly, you're assuming first of all that their little system actually worked in real life.

Their video doesn't prove that - the windows don't update, they aren't resized. It's a fixed, rigged demo, for precisely the reasons I stated earlier.

Deal with it. You have no proof, you have no smoking gun. Sorry.

If you think you do, then please come up with a rational explanation for why the windows are sized the way they are, and why they don't update. Seriously.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>

That was 1999 - it is now 2002, 3 years later. Did MS implement ANYTHING from that in XP? Nope. Makes you wonder why?

</STRONG>

Because it is a frigging concept. But the fact remains that the technology is demonstrated running on three year old hardware older than anything in any Mac with an ATI Rage 128. Everything is slower in the hardware used in the technology demo. It's a 400Mhz Pentium II, just released 100Mhz bus, Riva TNT 2, AGP 2X. And it puts Quartz to shame.

I AM VINDICATED. There is simply no way around that. You can holler. You can pull your hair out and worship your Apple computer until the Apple rots. But the fact remains that I claimed the hardware two years old was capable of handling such technology and I was insulted, I still am by yourself, mocked and ridiculed. And now I AM VINDICATED.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>Kelly, you're assuming first of all that their little system actually worked in real life.

Their video doesn't prove that - the windows don't update, they aren't resized. It's a fixed, rigged demo, for precisely the reasons I stated earlier.
</STRONG>

So now it is a rigged demo. What a loser. Read the whole site, watch all the videos. They resize windows and even cause menus to drop down in real-time. Any use defending Quartz Extreme from this point and shouting me down is about as useful as talking Chinese to George Bush Jr. I proved my point and now you are the one with the conspiracy theories.

[Kickaha]

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*sigh*

Well, that was fun.

Pointless, obviously, but fun.

The rest of you guys continue on doing what you're doing... he'll get mad and take his ball home eventually.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]

[WombatPredator]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>The answer can only be two things. One, Quartz Extreme is bloated rubbish and badly implemented. Or two, Apple wants people to upgrade their hardware and like times before is abandoning perfectly suitable machines.</STRONG>

You are entirely correct. These are the only two possible answers.

You have flawlessly demonstrated your point by the crafty use of a video from 1999 showing a mock-up interface running on a completely different system architecture. Which, incidentally, is still not available today.

Also, you are starting to mention religious and political views and it seems only a matter of time until you mention nazis, which would invoke Godwin's law.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Because it is a frigging concept. But the fact remains that the technology is demonstrated running on three year old hardware older than anything in any Mac with an ATI Rage 128. Everything is slower in the hardware used in the technology demo. It's a 400Mhz Pentium II, just released 100Mhz bus, Riva TNT 2, AGP 2X. And it puts Quartz to shame.

I AM VINDICATED. There is simply no way around that. You can holler. You can pull your hair out and worship your Apple computer until the Apple rots. But the fact remains that I claimed the hardware two years old was capable of handling such technology and I was insulted, I still am by yourself, mocked and ridiculed. And now I AM VINDICATED.</STRONG>

YOU COULD RUN THE SAME DEMO ON A 386 all you would have to do is pre-render it and it would be like click.....wait five minutes, click....5 more minutes.... If I want to make it fluid all I have to do is edit out those 5 minute waits....

Not to mention you havn't answered the question of: if it could be done then why isn't it done now? Maybe because deep down inside you know the answer - it isn't practical!

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by WombatPredator:
<STRONG>
You have flawlessly demonstrated your point by the crafty use of a video from 1999 showing a mock-up interface running on a completely different system architecture. Which, incidentally, is still not available today.
[/URL].</STRONG>

Amazing. Now the 'conspiracies' are coming from the Apple camp and I'm the one facing people with their fingers in their ears going 'LALALALALALA'.

La vita e bella. Madonna, come bella!

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>

YOU COULD RUN THE SAME DEMO ON A 386 all you would have to do is pre-render it and it would be like click.....wait five minutes, click....5 more minutes.... If I want to make it fluid all I have to do is edit out those 5 minute waits....
!</STRONG>

Wow. Amazing conspiracies. Was it an Apple or Microsoft conspiracy? This is getting too funny. You get the evidence in my favor and then you start making conspiracy theories. Millennium will tell you about the lizard people if you want.

[Kickaha]

Okay, I give.

Kelly, you're a master of the art of irony and high humor masquerading as idiocy. You have placed yourself high within the comedy pantheon alongsid Jerry Lewis and Charlie Chaplin in your portrayal of an absolutely narrow minded and minimalist mentality that just bravely struggles on no matter what the world throws at him, or what the facts and reality should deem to dictate.

My hat off to you.

Because otherwise the alternatives are just too scary to contemplate.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>Okay, I give.

Kelly, you're a master of the art of irony and high humor masquerading as idiocy. You have placed yourself high within the comedy pantheon alongsid Jerry Lewis and Charlie Chaplin in your portrayal of an absolutely narrow minded and minimalist mentality that just bravely struggles on no matter what the world throws at him, or what the facts and reality should deem to dictate.

My hat off to you.

Because otherwise the alternatives are just too scary to contemplate.</STRONG>

Wow. A reasonable method of discussion. I threw up the theory that the Rage 128 was capable. I was mocked and insulted. The evidence in my favor turned up. Now the highly fanatical and devoted use intimidation, conspiracy theories and more mockery to change the subject completely. Guess what? I'm not going to change subject or play your game! Haha!

So here are the links again!
http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/index.htm http://research.microsoft.com/ui/Tas...technology.htm

And when watching the video, please notice that the mouse cursor is flickering. That doesn't happen on pre-renders. It's a live interface and its ****ing FAAASSSSTTT!

Those guys know how to code.

[P]

KellyHogan, you've pretty much burnt your bridges around here with your attitude. Giving a link to a demo would have been a reasonable argument in most cases, but it's very far from a proof, especially coming from Microsoft. MS actually tried to fake evidence in the antitrust trial by editing two pieces of vieo together. MS claimed in 1993 that they'd have "OFS" (Object File System) - a file system on top of a databse, much like BFS - out in the next revision of NT, in 1996. OFS is still not here, right now they're saying Longhorn in 2004.

My point is that most people would get away with an argument like that, but you won't. You claimed that you _knew_ that a Rage 128 would support QE if correctly coded, knew all the way until Andrew took time out of his life to explain in extreme detail why it wasn't possible.

Another thing: Is TNT2 and Rage 128 really equal? I can give you one hint that they're not: TNT2 supports AGP 4x. I wouldn't put it past MS to borrow an early mobo from Intel with AGP 4x support so they could make that demo - AGP 4x wasn't more than a few months away at that point. Do you know if TNT2 supports textures of any size or just power of 2 like Rage 128? I don't, but it's not impossible by any means. I have an open mind, but right now the burden of proof is on you.

[Scribble]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Those guys know how to code.</STRONG>

Yeah, they got those 'blue screens' down pretty well I have to admit.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>KellyHogan, you've pretty much burnt your bridges around here with your attitude. Giving a link to a demo would have been a reasonable argument in most cases, but it's very far from a proof,
Another thing: Is TNT2 and Rage 128 really equal? I can give you one hint that they're not: TNT2 supports AGP 4x. I wouldn't put it past MS to borrow an early mobo from Intel with AGP 4x support so they could make that demo - AGP 4x wasn't more than a few months away at that point. Do you know if TNT2 supports textures of any size or just power of 2 like Rage 128? I don't, but it's not impossible by any means. I have an open mind, but right now the burden of proof is on you.</STRONG>

Amazing. Check the video, look at the video, look at the mouse cursor flicker, look at the open Internet Explorer windows downloading web pages, look at the interaction. I used 3D Studio Max and Lightwave. I've done 3D and video production. I'm not the blind fanatic who won't accept that Apple is pulling a con and believes that 'Microsoft is always guilty'.

The TNT2 is - shite- by todays standards. My little brother can't run Wolfenstein for crap on it. But I played Wolfenstein demo on an ATI Rage 128 on a 400Mhz Ti-Book. The Rage 128 is better than a TNT2 by about 20% from what I remember back in the days when I was a regular visitor at Sharky Extreme. AGP 4X? Well, the test rig is a 400Mhz Pentium II. It is 2X.

What other conspiracy theories and dumb questions would you like to ask? Why not ask Apple some questions in the process?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Scribble:
<STRONG>

Yeah, they got those 'blue screens' down pretty well I have to admit.</STRONG>

They do look nicer than kernal panics, don't they? I'm actually checking right now to see if Task Manager is leaked on the web somewhere. Microsoft should have leaked it just to show Apple fanatics the demo in person. That way I would not have to put up with 'its pre-rendered! Boohoo' from them.

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Amazing. Check the video, look at the video, look at the mouse cursor flicker, look at the open Internet Explorer windows downloading web pages, look at the interaction. I used 3D Studio Max and Lightwave. I've done 3D and video production. I'm not the blind fanatic who won't accept that Apple is pulling a con and believes that 'Microsoft is always guilty'.

The TNT2 is - shite- by todays standards. My little brother can't run Wolfenstein for crap on it. But I played Wolfenstein demo on an ATI Rage 128 on a 400Mhz Ti-Book. The Rage 128 is better than a TNT2 by about 20% from what I remember back in the days when I was a regular visitor at Sharky Extreme. AGP 4X? Well, the test rig is a 400Mhz Pentium II. It is 2X.

What other conspiracy theories and dumb questions would you like to ask? Why not ask Apple some questions in the process?</STRONG>

Did you even read what I wrote? I know very well that TNT2 sucks, but that still doesn't exclude the possibility that it supports textures of any size.Could you show me it does not? The test rig is a PII/400 - the text says nothing about the mobo or grade of AGP suport.

As for TNT2 vs. Rage 128... I checked for Rage 128 over at Tom's hardware and found this piece:
http://www2.tomshardware.com/graphic...210/index.html

It's a first look of the Rage 128, showing it beaten by the TNT. Not TNT2, the first TNT. Here's the review of TNT2:
http://www2.tomshardware.com/graphic...312/index.html

which is in turn 70%-100% faster than TNT.

[mitchell_pgh]

This sums it all up,
KellyHogan said: "If I were a programmer"

[mitchell_pgh]

This sums it all up,
KellyHogan said: "If I were a programmer"

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>

Did you even read what I wrote? I know very well that TNT2 sucks, but that still doesn't exclude the possibility that it supports textures of any size.Could you show me it does not? The test rig is a PII/400 - the text says nothing about the mobo or grade of AGP suport.

As for TNT2 vs. Rage 128... I checked for Rage 128 over at Tom's hardware and found this piece:
http://www2.tomshardware.com/graphic...210/index.html

It's a first look of the Rage 128, showing it beaten by the TNT. Not TNT2, the first TNT. Here's the review of TNT2:
http://www2.tomshardware.com/graphic...312/index.html

which is in turn 70%-100% faster than TNT.</STRONG>

That was the first generation of Rage 128. Look carefully. The core clock was 90Mhz (pre-release ATI said it would be 100Mhz). The version found in Apple's computer since 2000 are the ATi Rage Pro which has a core clock increase of around 35Mhz faster and faster memory. Tom does in fact call the first version 'an amazing 2D/3D card'. I invite you to check these facts since you seem so incensed and possible jealous of Microsoft's achievements.

The first generation ATI Rage 128 was neck in neck with the TNT. The second generation Ati Rage Pro (as found in Macs) was neck in neck with TNT2. Check the Quake benchmarks.



Regarding the 400Mhz machine in Microsoft's tech demo. You talk about the AGP performance and the motherboard. Do you think there is some sort of amazing motherboard with AGP 4X and superduper throughput that would have made the 400Mhz machine perform like a 500Mhz machine? There isn't one. At most a good motherboard gives about 10% performance advantage over a bad one. It's a 400Mhz machine nevertheless and the 400Mhz Pentium II with 100Mhz bus only had AGP 2X support at the time.

Regardless of all that, performance on the Wintel side has increased by a factor of 6-10 times on the CPU and graphics card front. Modern Macs are also much faster. iBooks with 500Mhz G3 chips are faster. So my points still stand. Either Quartz Extreme is crippling some recent Macs on purpose or the coders are not very good compared to Microsoft's engineers.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: KellyHogan ]

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: KellyHogan ]

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

That was the first generation of Rage 128. Look carefully. The core clock was 90Mhz (pre-release ATI said it would be 100Mhz). The version found in Apple's computer since 2000 are the ATi Rage Pro which has a core clock increase of around 35Mhz and faster memory. Tom does in fact call the first version 'an amazing 2D/3D card'. I invite you to check these facts since you seem so incensed and possible jealous of Microsoft's achievements.
</STRONG>

I'm not at all angry, I just think you're wrong. Yes, that was the first Rage 128, I thought that was what you were talking about. If you meant Rage 128 Pro then say Rage 128 Pro. The Rage 128 was an amazing 2D/3D card for the time, mainly because of the features for handling MPEG playback, but it didn't even beat the TNT on 3D.

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
The first generation ATI Rage 128 was neck in neck with the TNT. The second generation Ati Rage Pro (as found in Macs) was neck in neck with TNT2.



</STRONG>

You can't post direct image links to Tom's hardware, you'll have to post links to the webpages, but I think I know what you graph you wanted to show. As for which chip was used more... My slot-loading iMac has a Rage 128, B&W G3s had Rage 128s. I don't know the specifics about Powerbooks - I've never been in the market for one - but the standard Rage 128 is still used in a lot of Macs. Once again: say what you mean. Rage 128 is not Rage 128 Pro.

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Regarding the 400Mhz machine in Microsoft's tech demo. You talk about the AGP performance and the motherboard. Do you think there is some sort of amazing motherboard with AGP 4X and superduper throughput that would have made the 400Mhz machine perform like a 500Mhz machine? There isn't one. At most a good motherboard gives about 10% performance advantage over a bad one. It's a 400Mhz machine nevertheless and the 400Mhz Pentium II with 100Mhz bus only had AGP 2X support at the time.
</STRONG>

In a system like this, where you rely heavily on memory bandwidth for transfering textures, I think AGP performance is a very important.

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Regardless of all that, performance on the Wintel side has increased by a factor of 6-10 times on the CPU and graphics card front. Modern Macs are also much faster. iBooks with 500Mhz G3 chips are faster. So my points still stand. Either Quartz Extreme is crippling some recent Macs on purpose or the coders are not very good compared to Microsoft's engineers.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: KellyHogan ]</STRONG>

Oh shut up. Current performance isn't relevant here: current boards are supported. We're talking about the performance of four year old boards. CPU doesn't matter, because we don't want to transfer those textures back and forth. The one and only thing that matters is whether a Rage 128 chip can handle the workload.

Those videos prove zip. I don't know the res they're using and I don't know the bit depth they're using, but I'm still not very impressed with the 30 fps they're getting. The display system in Windows 2000 doesn't do all that Quartz does anyway. If it was so damn easy and MS has so great engineers, why haven't they done what Apple is doing already? They're working on it, and plan to be ready in 2004 (Longhorn again) and they haven't set reqs yet. I doubt they'll be lower than for QE.

[moki]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>After watching that Microsoft technology demonstration I think all the people insulting me now better watch the video and give me a clear cut explanation.

That video basically vindicated everything I have been saying (this tends to happen on these forums time and time again). That video showed Windows 2000 running current applications mapped live onto 2D windows floating in 3D space with live resizing, fluid animations, fantastic multi-tasking and running many apps with no slow down while using sound effects too. This was all done on a 16MB Riva TNT 2 which the engineers called 'consumer grade graphics card'. This was done in 1999 and Apple have no claim to being inventive with Quartz Extreme.</STRONG>

Oh for god's sake. I give up. If you're going to base your judgements on highly resctrictive, specialized tech demos from 3 years ago (gee, I wonder why they never shipped it?) in addition to your mal-informed speculation, well, more power to you.

There is no point in arguing with a brick wall (especially one that claims to know it all ).

UBB needs a killfile

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: moki ]

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>

Those videos prove zip. I don't know the res they're using and I don't know the bit depth they're using, but I'm still not very impressed with the 30 fps they're getting.</STRONG>

Hehe. Amazing. This gets funnier all the time.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

Oh for god's sake. I give up. If you're going to base your judgements on highly resctrictive, specialized tech demos from 3 years ago (gee, I wonder why they never shipped it?) in addition to your mal-informed speculation, well, more power to you.

There is no point in arguing with a brick wall (especially one that claims to know it all ).

UBB needs a killfile

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</STRONG>

So sad to see a developer get miffed now. You have no explanation left, all the fancy physics you posted on page 3 of this discussion has been left in a pile of poo with Microsoft aptly demonstrating that the technology is possible if coded properly and if engineers are willing.

There is no getting away from this at all. Insults, jibes, calling names. This won't change a damn thing. The whole debate around Quartz Extreme will never be the same again and every time the topic comes up or if people want better support, Microsoft's Task Manager will turn up again and again and again. If a 400Mhz Pentium II is doing it in 1999 then there is no reason why current shipping Macs, the iBook for example, should not be supported. It is written in stone now that we have evidence old systems can do it.

Thanks Developer for posting the link. This will allow Mac users to have some say on the matter because frankly this was and to come degree is being censored or made taboo by fanatics and by developers like Moki who do indeed have vested interests.

What's amazing is that Microsoft was doing it in a mixed 2D and 3D environment fluidly. Quartz Extreme does it in a 2D environment and still Apple wants to shut out owners of machines fast enough.

[moki]

For the Euclidation of everyone else here (I realize by now that Kelly isn't interested in understanding anything, but rather proving himself right at any cost of fact distortion or fabrication), I'll note a few things.

First, this was a technology demo -- as any developer will tell you, it is very easy to cook up a demo that looks good, it is very hard to translate that into something tha works in the real world.

More importantly, what they did in the demo is very different that what Quartz and Quartz Extreme do. What they did is they implemented a system of virtual screens, and they mapped the rendered pixmaps of those virtual screens onto 3D planes using Direct3D.

So we're talking about at most 5 textures (3 walls, 1 ceiling, 1 floor) of a fixed screen size rendered to a 3D plane -- they merely cached the updates to those virtual screens and applied them as textures to these 3D planes at fixed intervals.

Note some important things here: one texture per screen, not per window -- many Windows windows appear on each screen texture. The texture is a fixed size, not a variable sized window.

Comparing this to what QE does is utterly comparing Apples to Oranges.

PS Kelly, you are not vindicated, but you are making yourself look foolish.

[besson3c]

Kelly:

The comparison between the MS demo and QE is Apples vs. Oranges. There could be any number of tricks used in the demo. For example, portions could have been pre-rendering (i.e. the windows on the side could be pre-rendered during idle times), it was most certainly bitmapped, and unknown whether this was genuine or just rigged to demonstrate a concept.

Quartz renders stuff on-the-fly, uses vectors, and exists.

Creating vector animations is trivial in comparison to bitmaps, creating an extremely powerful framework for developers to use now and in the future. All of this is rendered on-the-fly - no tricks (this is why the slow-motion genie demonstration is so impressive).

There is NO comparing Quartz to anything else except Quartz.

[besson3c]

Moki:

Are we related? =)

[theolein]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Watch the video, read the website and then shut up. I have been vindicated. Either Apple is tempting people to upgrade by waving a golden carrot that the end user should have anyway or they are crap at coding.</STRONG>

Hey, moron! If you think your MS pansy texture mapped crap is so cool, you obviously haven't seen this.

This whole trip about 3D UI's is a dead end in any case. SGI had one up and running in '97 and there were even some that would run on the Classic mac (anyone rememeber when 3D was "going to take over the web" and there were a mass of 3D plug-ins?). The reason they never caught on is because they are not very practical. There are many people who can not function well in 3D space and for most of what one uses a computer for there is simply no point: 2D documents are not more legible in 3D space and navigating a file system in 3D is not more efficient than it is in 2D space. Your Microcrap demo comes from around that time.

You wonder why people get so pised off with you? It's because you behave like a 15 year old who is never taken seriously at home or at school and has to "prove" your worth in the face of all odds at all costs. You should stick to carrots. And they fit in the appropriate orifice.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: theolein ]

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Hehe. Amazing. This gets funnier all the time.</STRONG>

Wow, that's an intelligent response. You truly answered every one of my points on one single line. Let me guess: you just hit the Reply button and then type up the same damn thing again - or do you have a macro that does it for you? At least give it a decent try.

On second thought: no, don't bother, unless you can come up with something new. Don't try to confuse the issue with the rest of the hardware, because we have to do everything on the board for this to work. You have 1 Rage 128 board with an AGP 2x connector. You say that this will work for running QE.

1) Do you have anything to prove that, or even suggest that it's possible?
2) How is that video even relevant? It's different board on a different display system in a proof-of-concept demo that's three years old.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:

So sad to see a developer get miffed now. You have no explanation left, all the <STRONG>fancy physics</STRONG> you posted on page 3 of this discussion has been left in a pile of poo with Microsoft aptly demonstrating that the technology is possible if coded properly and if engineers are willing.

"Fancy physics"! Beautiful!

Like arguing science with a creationist ... when it proves your point it's on the level. When it doesn't, it's conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo.

[bendable frank]

It's called delusion. Hogan suffers from it in general, but periodically he gets a more acute flare up. Unfortunately, we are all the ones who subsequently suffer the pain in our arses.

[BuonRotto]

I'm going to regret getting in the middle of this, but it's clear to me that this thread is about 3 1/2 pages too long. No one will convince Kelly that he is wrong. Likewise, Kelly will not convince anyone else that they are wrong. Similarly, no one will accept Kelly's argument. Further, Kelly will not accept anyone else's argument. To continue, Kelly will not convert anyone to his point of view. Also, no one will convert Kelly to theirs. Is anyone starting to get it?

This thread is not a discussion or an argument. It barely qualifies as communication. It goes 'round and 'round in circles, and for what point? Do you want to get the last word in? As if having the last word in this tired, inane thread, in an obscure corner of the internet is going to give you some sort of moral or intellectual victory? You might as well be speaking to a wall. Lunatics talk to walls.

Go home, kiddies. No one is listening to you, and no one is going to.

[edddeduck]

ha ha ha ha ha....

You are comparing a tech demo that microsoft wrote and did not implement. M$ are going to implement a QE style program into longhorn.

You are trying to compare a old windowing system with a new one which has many benefits.

You could not do things like in painter the water brush is real time animated for example... M$ have not implemented this at all if it was feasible they would have.

3DO Console was shown off in a tech demo. They looked at the trays they were empty they followed the tv cables and found a set of Quadras running all the tech demos... (See EDGE SE Magazine Autumn 1995)

Next have been guilty too.... So have BeOS....

Till summat (something) is released it is vapour-ware....

This applies to Apples Quartz Extreme too...

Till Release it has no real value at all....

Cheers Edwin

[edddeduck]

I will now try and wash my hands as Kelly has dug her trench and will not leave it.. as she would be to embarrassed to admit her wrong if she realized...

So I bid you good day Ladies and Gentleman.

Edwin

[Double Post] I edited the second double post to the above.. [Double Post]

[Final thought] I will call Kelly her as I need for grammar purposes to settle on a gender I will never change my mind coz I know someone called kelly who is female and thus I must be right. [Final Thought]

Sarcasm mode off now

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: edddeduck ]

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Wow. Amazing conspiracies. Was it an Apple or Microsoft conspiracy? This is getting too funny. You get the evidence in my favor and then you start making conspiracy theories. Millennium will tell you about the lizard people if you want.</STRONG>

No, just saying unless you can put your hands on something, take it with a grain of salt. You know, use common sense that the dog and pony show may just be smoke and mirrors. Coming from MS who has a history of putting out products with less than expected specs and then patching the death out of them, I have to take anything coming from Redmond with a grain of salt.

Also, anything that is not first hand experience (ie: actually playing with a demo) is subject to doctoring. Just ask the TV show Dateline...

What I would have liked to see was some sort of downloadable demo or something. Since it was on Win2k it shouldn't have been that hard for MS to provide something. But, no there is nothing. That has to make you wonder why - maybe the tech. wasn't that great????

Oh Well, I'd probably get better results talking to the wall than trying to reason with you.

You truly are a character - or a typical teenager with tantrums and all.

-Matt

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Wow. Amazing conspiracies. Was it an Apple or Microsoft conspiracy? This is getting too funny. You get the evidence in my favor and then you start making conspiracy theories. Millennium will tell you about the lizard people if you want.</STRONG>

No, just saying unless you can put your hands on something, take it with a grain of salt. You know, use common sense that the dog and pony show may just be smoke and mirrors. Coming from MS who has a history of putting out products with less than expected specs and then patching the death out of them, I have to take anything coming from Redmond with a grain of salt.

Also, anything that is not first hand experience (ie: actually playing with a demo) is subject to doctoring. Just ask the TV show Dateline...

What I would have liked to see was some sort of downloadable demo or something. Since it was on Win2k it shouldn't have been that hard for MS to provide something. But, no there is nothing. That has to make you wonder why - maybe the tech. wasn't that great????

Oh Well, I'd probably get better results talking to the wall than trying to reason with you.

You truly are a character - or a typical teenager with tantrums and all.

-Matt

[unimacs]

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<STRONG>I'm going to regret getting in the middle of this, but it's clear to me that this thread is about 3 1/2 pages too long. No one will convince Kelly that he is wrong. Likewise, Kelly will not convince anyone else that they are wrong. Similarly, no one will accept Kelly's argument. Further, Kelly will not accept anyone else's argument. To continue, Kelly will not convert anyone to his point of view. Also, no one will convert Kelly to theirs. Is anyone starting to get it?

This thread is not a discussion or an argument. It barely qualifies as communication. It goes 'round and 'round in circles, and for what point? Do you want to get the last word in? As if having the last word in this tired, inane thread, in an obscure corner of the internet is going to give you some sort of moral or intellectual victory? You might as well be speaking to a wall. Lunatics talk to walls.

Go home, kiddies. No one is listening to you, and no one is going to.</STRONG>

If this weren't true, would the thread be any fun at all? I mean really. Imagine if two pages ago Kelly were to have said: "Well, moki obviously knows his stuff, and his reasoning seems sound, so I guess I believe him.".
Then imagine if all forums and usenet discussions went like that.

Think of all the advertising revenue MacNN and other discussion sites would lose. ISPs would lose business. Our economy could collapse.

I say keep up the good fight.

[moki]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>More importantly, what they did in the demo is very different that what Quartz and Quartz Extreme do. What they did is they implemented a system of virtual screens, and they mapped the rendered pixmaps of those virtual screens onto 3D planes using Direct3D.

So we're talking about at most 5 textures (3 walls, 1 ceiling, 1 floor) of a fixed screen size rendered to a 3D plane -- they merely cached the updates to those virtual screens and applied them as textures to these 3D planes at fixed intervals.</STRONG>

Yeah! What he said! Oh...

[blixa]

oh man, i really hate to defend a troll (especially against the usually well-reasoned moki), but...

Doesn't the task gallery demo do something very very similar to QE? Every window gets rendered into an offscreen texturemap, and these bitmaps are drawn as textured quads. I don't really see the difference (except that they probably aren't keeping 2 buffers per window around like Quartz is).

[disclaimer: I work at MSR, though I haven't played with this demo in person -- I've seen it running, though. Next time I bump into Dan or Maarten, I'll have to ask how well the demo scaled...]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>For the Euclidation of everyone else here (I realize by now that Kelly isn't interested in understanding anything, but rather proving himself right at any cost of fact distortion or fabrication), I'll note a few things.

First, this was a technology demo -- as any developer will tell you, it is very easy to cook up a demo that looks good, it is very hard to translate that into something tha works in the real world.

More importantly, what they did in the demo is very different that what Quartz and Quartz Extreme do. What they did is they implemented a system of virtual screens, and they mapped the rendered pixmaps of those virtual screens onto 3D planes using Direct3D.

So we're talking about at most 5 textures (3 walls, 1 ceiling, 1 floor) of a fixed screen size rendered to a 3D plane -- they merely cached the updates to those virtual screens and applied them as textures to these 3D planes at fixed intervals.

Note some important things here: one texture per screen, not per window -- many Windows windows appear on each screen texture. The texture is a fixed size, not a variable sized window.

Comparing this to what QE does is utterly comparing Apples to Oranges.

PS Kelly, you are not vindicated, but you are making yourself look foolish.</STRONG>

[KellyHogan]

I'm not the least bit surprised that no one can admit, after four pages of this debate, that I now have the evidence that older generation of hardware is capable of taking an application and mapping it to a polygon using a 3D API using Open GL or in the case of the Microsoft demo, Direct 3D.

It's there. It's evident. It's not a fraud. It's a live video, real time, flickering mouse cursor, drop down menus. They even use 'non-modified applications' such as Internet Explorer. If they were modified then the applications themselves would have some 3D elements.

Also Task Gallery's concept is completely different from that rubbish 3DOSX. Task Gallery did what Quartz Extreme claims to do, use a 3D API to map windows to polygons in real-time. Task Gallery however does it in a 3D virtual space, far more stressful on a system than what Quartz Extreme is doing.

The answer is not forthcoming, people like Moki are getting a little desperate. That kind of behavior is not good for Apple or Ambrosia. I will definitely not be buying another Mac if Apple is not going to support them properly or ever buy any software from Ambrosia. There are probably more than a few people reading this thread who are shy to speak up who feel the same way but don't want to be flamed.

[KellyHogan]

Thanks Blixa. If you do work at Microsoft Research could you please tell these guys how well it runs, how interactive the apps were and that it is not a 'cooked up pre-rendered video'.

If you could get one of the engineers to come over and explain to them that if Quartz Extreme was properly coded it could run on most hardware within the last two years that would be nice too.

And I never troll. I just like to show who the fanatics are and who the sensible ones are.

[Mr.E]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>This fits with what we've all been saying... *if* you had power of 2 sized windows, the Rage 128 would probably be able to handle some of the load... on AGP. The lack of real world ^2 sized square windows means that you're pumping an *incredible* amount of wasted RAM through the bus. (Remember, that 225% of normal was an *average*, not a maximum... that's what you'd *expect* to be wasting.) That alone is going to significantly impact your performance, and it only gets worse (read: fugeddaboudit) on PCI.</STRONG>

What I want to know is if this 225% average waste is worse than what the CPU can do. No one has explained why the Rage 128, no matter how poor it handles Quartz Extreme, is worse than what a g3 CPU can do that typically accompanies this card.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG> map windows to polygons in real-time. Task Gallery however does it in a 3D virtual space, far more stressful on a system than what Quartz Extreme is doing.

</STRONG>
Actually, no. TG looks more like a game than anything else. One other thing - notice how in the video they never interact with a running program? They show you screens from it but never interact with it (like viewing pages in that IE window)...

<STRONG>The answer is not forthcoming, people like Moki are getting a little desperate. That kind of behavior is not good for Apple or Ambrosia. I will definitely not be buying another Mac if Apple is not going to support them properly or ever buy any software from Ambrosia. There are probably more than a few people reading this thread who are shy to speak up who feel the same way but don't want to be flamed.</STRONG>

Is that a promise never to buy another Mac? Please, pretty please. You're the type who would be well served by a nice PC - then you can go and share your wealth of knowledge about nothing with the nice folks over at MS. I'm sure you will get far with your whiney attitude and lack of comprehension for even the simplest thing....

[mbryda]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG> map windows to polygons in real-time. Task Gallery however does it in a 3D virtual space, far more stressful on a system than what Quartz Extreme is doing.

</STRONG>
Actually, no. TG looks more like a game than anything else. One other thing - notice how in the video they never interact with a running program? They show you screens from it but never interact with it (like viewing pages in that IE window)...

<STRONG>The answer is not forthcoming, people like Moki are getting a little desperate. That kind of behavior is not good for Apple or Ambrosia. I will definitely not be buying another Mac if Apple is not going to support them properly or ever buy any software from Ambrosia. There are probably more than a few people reading this thread who are shy to speak up who feel the same way but don't want to be flamed.</STRONG>

Is that a promise never to buy another Mac? Please, pretty please. You're the type who would be well served by a nice PC - then you can go and share your wealth of knowledge about nothing with the nice folks over at MS. I'm sure you will get far with your whiney attitude and lack of comprehension for even the simplest thing....

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>I'm not the least bit surprised that no one can admit, after four pages of this debate, that I now have the evidence that older generation of hardware is capable of taking an application and mapping it to a polygon using a 3D API using Open GL or in the case of the Microsoft demo, Direct 3D.

It's there. It's evident. It's not a fraud. It's a live video, real time, flickering mouse cursor, drop down menus. They even use 'non-modified applications' such as Internet Explorer. If they were modified then the applications themselves would have some 3D elements.

Also Task Gallery's concept is completely different from that rubbish 3DOSX. Task Gallery did what Quartz Extreme claims to do, use a 3D API to map windows to polygons in real-time. Task Gallery however does it in a 3D virtual space, far more stressful on a system than what Quartz Extreme is doing.

The answer is not forthcoming, people like Moki are getting a little desperate. That kind of behavior is not good for Apple or Ambrosia. I will definitely not be buying another Mac if Apple is not going to support them properly or ever buy any software from Ambrosia. There are probably more than a few people reading this thread who are shy to speak up who feel the same way but don't want to be flamed.</STRONG>

Yeah, everyone else is just a poor, misguided fool that believes anything Apple says. It's a good thing that we have you to show us the truth, isn't it?

Your style of argumentation could be used to argue that the earth is flat. Every argument why it is impossible is just ignored, and instead you jump on a picture that to the uninitiated seems to suggest that what you say is possible. Andrew made a very convincing argument about why it isn't possible - the part about the power of two textures, if you have too limited an attention span to remember - why don't you try to refute that for starters?

[edddeduck]

Kelly please read my previous post about vapour-ware...

BeOS showed a "tech demo" of video footage on a BEOS box... It was hooked up to a VCR!!!!!

If it works it gets released if it does no it doesn't btw Quartz has Alpha Blending Double buffering etc so it like saying..

I have a shopping trolley to save time on carrying bags, how come it does not work with my truckload of food I just bought?

You need a truck not a trolley...

Trolley == old card
Truck == Newer card

btw your machines are supported and I DONT NEED YOU DEFENDING MY IBOOK...

Edwin

oops I swore not to post again but I just hoped this analogy would prove something.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

So sad to see a developer get miffed now. You have no explanation left, all the fancy physics you posted on page 3 of this discussion has been left in a pile of poo with Microsoft aptly demonstrating that the technology is possible if coded properly and if engineers are willing.

There is no getting away from this at all. Insults, jibes, calling names. This won't change a damn thing. The whole debate around Quartz Extreme will never be the same again and every time the topic comes up or if people want better support, Microsoft's Task Manager will turn up again and again and again. If a 400Mhz Pentium II is doing it in 1999 then there is no reason why current shipping Macs, the iBook for example, should not be supported. It is written in stone now that we have evidence old systems can do it.

Thanks Developer for posting the link. This will allow Mac users to have some say on the matter because frankly this was and to come degree is being censored or made taboo by fanatics and by developers like Moki who do indeed have vested interests.

What's amazing is that Microsoft was doing it in a mixed 2D and 3D environment fluidly. Quartz Extreme does it in a 2D environment and still Apple wants to shut out owners of machines fast enough.</STRONG>

Maybe you missed my post about Apple trying to piss you off by not supporting the Rage 128. That's right...Apple's purposely driving you up the walls. There's nothing more to talk about.

k, thx, bye.

[Love Calm Quiet]

Ummmmm.... Guys? Guys?

Why not take the flames to IMs?

...and post again when you've got new info or insights?

Sheesh!

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by edddeduck:
<STRONG>Kelly please read my previous post about vapour-ware...

BeOS showed a "tech demo" of video footage on a BEOS box... It was hooked up to a VCR!!!!!

</STRONG>

Again you are supposing a conspiracy theory. First I was accused of that and insulted because of it. The technology demo that Developer pointed out is where Apple got its idea from to 'map applications to polygons'. This video, the whole site even, is a few years old. The same technology has to some degree been implemented in Longhorn (mapping apps to polygons and resizing windows using Direct 3D). What you saw was a 'concept' of the power that is available at the consumer level to handle compositing 2D and 3D techniques. That doesn't mean we want 3D workspaces. We don't. Microsoft would probably only implement 'some' 3D elements.

You can harp on about this being a fake, it might make your world a more comfortable place, but one can easily see it is not a fake from the flickering cursor, the interaction with the interface
and at the ned of the video the user clicks a 'relaunch' button which basically pulls the user back out of the workspace, plays a tune and then propels the user back into the workspace.

You will also notice that they had not integrated this into Windows 2000. They ran the concept as an application on top of Windows, read the whole site instead of rambling, and then tricked unmodified applications into thinking they were running as usual. The Task Gallery application's job simply to generate live textures and map them to scalable polygons on the fly while providing a 3D workspace and make system sounds when selecting items. If someone wanted to make a fake or mock up they could have done one integrated into the OS. But no, Task Gallery runs as an application and someone in this thread claims to have seen it and hopefully will tell you 'non-believers' how it runs.

The fact remains, and I hate to say this over and over again, but there you see applications being mapped on polygons on quite old hardware. Read the site carefully and then read again:

'Another key problem is managing textures. Keeping a texture for each window and each task can quickly fill any texture memory available. In addition, because each application is always running, the texture for each application has to update often -- thus requiring high texture download bandwidth. AGP graphics cards make it possible to texture from main memory with LITTLE PERFORMANCE PENALTY.'

Can you read that? It is running on a TNT2 which is equivalent to a Rage 128 Pro and even though it has more memory, the engineers state quite emphatically above that 'AGP graphics cards make it possible to texture from main memory with LITTLE PERFORMANCE PENALTY'.

Now either Quartz Extreme is not optimal programming or Apple wants people to upgrade. But it is a fantasy to espouse that Microsoft has faked the demo when people talk about it (check Deja/Google) and that Apple is a nice little company that cares for its users. It's a fat corporation like all the rest and they want money. Moki wants your money too. That's why he is here.

To end this post let's look at some links from all over the web regarding Task Gallery. Some of these are by engineers who have seen this in person:
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/robertson00task.html
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...+gallery&hl=en
http://hci.stanford.edu/cs547/abstra...1-robbins.html

If you want to contact Daniel Robbins and ask him if the technology is real then go ahead and Email him at [email protected]

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: KellyHogan ]