[snerdini]

there appear to be very few actual polygons in that demo...that's one of the reasons why it runs so fast. most graphics cards were probably pushing more polys in games at the time, so no, that interface wouldn't be too much demand on them. the other reason it appears to be running smoothly, is that they are all static textures...which demand much less processing power. but ultimately, that interface looks like a nightmare to use, so i wouldn't even care how fast it is. i'd rather use a slow quartz than that crap.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by snerdini:
<STRONG>there appear to be very few actual polygons in that demo...</STRONG>

Remarkable. Absolutely remarkable. How many polygons do you want there to be? There's something like four apps active in the centre, a few on the shelf stack and an open file manager (the old Windows Explorer). And it still works smooth. Imagine how swift it would be on today's hardware?

Also, it's a concept. This has been pointed out a million times now. What it shows is that the technology was available in 1999. Any hardware and software since then should be an improvement.

[snerdini]

my point was that i don't care how fast it is, or was. it still looks like crap, so why do you keep pushing how great it is?

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

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by snerdini:
<STRONG>my point was that i don't care how fast it is, or was. it still looks like crap, so why do you keep pushing how great it is?

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: snerdini ]</STRONG>

Oh brother. I think a 3D interface looks like crap too. But you still got apps mapped to polygons in real time with a fast interface. My point still stands regardless. If anybody likes that or not is irrelevant.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

If anybody likes that or not is irrelevant.</STRONG>

You're irrelevant.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
<STRONG>

You're irrelevant.</STRONG>

You incited some serious flaming and some pretty low standard insults earlier in this thread before Developer posted the link. Can you now debate or have you no words at all? You didn't in the first place.

[synner]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Oh brother. I think a 3D interface looks like crap too. But you still got apps mapped to polygons in real time with a fast interface. My point still stands regardless. If anybody likes that or not is irrelevant.</STRONG>

OK, I'll sidestep the fact that it's already been proved (how many pages ago?) why QE won't work on older cards....

Answer this. Why hasn't that been implemented yet if it's 3 years old? Not the 3D interface, but the technical concept.

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

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

You incited some serious flaming and some pretty low standard insults earlier in this thread before Developer posted the link. Can you now debate or have you no words at all? You didn't in the first place. Oh and I'm gay.</STRONG>

I told you already...Apple is out there to have anal intercourse with you. That's right b1tch, Apple has decided to make QE unavailable to Rage 128 owners just to spite you. There's nothing more to talk about. There's nothing else you can do. Why not just give it up? YUO=0WN3D!!!!

But honestly though, I don't know much about graphics cards or Quartz Extreme. That's why I wouldn't be able to debate this without looking like a fool. I think I should be an example to you as to why you should keep your big mouth shut Mr. I-Think-I'm-Omniscient-So-�uck-You-All.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Guy Incognito ]

[TNproud2b]

wow.

You guys take it badly when Kelly proves you wrong.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by synner:
<STRONG>

OK, I'll sidestep the fact that it's already been proved (how many pages ago?) why QE won't work on older cards....

Answer this. Why hasn't that been implemented yet if it's 3 years old? Not the 3D interface, but the technical concept.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: synner ]</STRONG>

Because 'it is still a concept'. You can't leap from people from a 2D interface to a 3D one overnight. What's more, Microsoft is still trying to merge the consumer family (Win 95/98) with the NT family. At the moment they have only pulled this off partially with the XP family, it still comes in several flavors. Ultimately they only want one possibly two flavors of Windows, something that can also be scaled to fit on handheld devices and replace Pocket PC. See the OQO for an example of what I mean.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>wow.

You guys take it badly when Kelly proves you wrong.</STRONG>

Not really...we're just sick of hearing his poorly constructed thoughts.

[synner]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>wow.

You guys take it badly when Kelly proves you wrong.</STRONG>

Uh, sorry, I missed that proof somewhere along the way...

[besson3c]

Kelly:

It's Apples and Oranges.

We are talking bitmaps vs. vectors, a real-time display engine vs. one that may or may not be working in real-time. We are talking about something which makes simple bitmaps primitive 3D objects, as opposed to an engine that renders pdf/anti-aliased text, drop shadows, transparencies, double buffered windows, etc. over vectors.

It's pretty much like saying that since Quake runs great on such and such hardware that Doom should too (and on a completely different platform).

[synner]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Because 'it is still a concept'. You can't leap from people from a 2D interface to a 3D one overnight. What's more, Microsoft is still trying to merge the consumer family (Win 95/98) with the NT family. At the moment they have only pulled this off partially with the XP family, it still comes in several flavors. Ultimately they only want one possibly two flavors of Windows, something that can also be scaled to fit on handheld devices and replace Pocket PC. See the OQO for an example of what I mean.</STRONG>

No. Not the 3D interface. The technical aspects of mapping these textures to polgons that you've proved is possible on old hardware. Why hasn't that been done yet?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by besson3c:
<STRONG>Kelly:

It's Apples and Oranges.

We are talking bitmaps vs. vectors, a real-time display engine vs. one that may or may not be working in real-time. We are talking about something which makes simple bitmaps primitive 3D objects, as opposed to an engine that renders pdf/anti-aliased text, drop shadows, transparencies, double buffered windows, etc. over vectors.

</STRONG>

Well, the Task Gallery also had 'drop shadows'. Check the cursor.

What's more, we are talking about much better hardware than a Pentium II 400, right? I hope so. If so, then logically my Mac from last year, a 450 DP with 16Mb Rage 128 Pro, should be able to handle Quartz Extreme pretty well. How much faster is that machine compared to the one in Microsoft's 1999 demo machine? Twice as fast, right? Well, then it should be able to handle mapped polygons and perhaps even silly effects like shadows and transparency. But sadly, and it is quite amazing, Quartz Extreme is not going to run in hardware on the following machines:

-Dual G4-450 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-Dual G4-500 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-G4 733 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-Powerbook G4 400 with Rage 128 Pro 8Mb
-Powerbook G4 500 with Rage 128 Pro 8Mb
-All 2001-2002 iBooks.

That is some very decent hardware in that list, much faster than the 400Mhz Pentium II with TNT2. I can understand the machines with 8Mb cards not supporting QE, but the 16Mb ones are going to be phased out quite soon when QE becomes even more complex. Why? microsoft's engineers say that using the main system memory over AGP does not cause any speed hit. That's what AGP is there for.

Then there is the worry that you spend a couple of thousand bucks on a Mac that is underpowered in the first place. It has a 32MB Geforce 2MX. Then one yearlater Quartz Extreme, due to apparently bloated and bad code, does not require just 32MB but now requires 64MBsimply because Apple says so. Any questioning that in the future will again incur the wrath of the fanatics.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by synner:
<STRONG>

No. Not the 3D interface. The technical aspects of mapping these textures to polgons that you've proved is possible on old hardware. Why hasn't that been done yet?</STRONG>

It might have been done on Longhorn but it has not been implemented in Windows yet because of other priorities (merging the Windows family was a long term project called 'Cairo'). Now that they have succeeded in merging the families to some extent, the next evolution would obviously be towards interface changes. Since Apple is now going to map apps to polygons then Microsoft might as well implement it. It probably has been done. Someone posted a video of Longhorn with a mix of OSX style minimizing and Task Gallery style window management (check the animations where two or more windows align and scale themselves).

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>

"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.</STRONG>

That's the kind of lame off-topic crap that KH posts that starts these arguments. A good scientist is ALWAYS skeptical, regardless of his bias. A person who believes in creation simply has a different view of the world than you do, in the same way that scientists who have differing ideologies view the world in different (somtimes contradictory) ways. It is, however, interesting that our culture generally rails against the existence of absolute truth, yet when the issue is considered a scientific fact it is a closed case (until some enlightened individual, usually in the next century, has a different idea).

It is even more interesting that two secular scientists can argue scientific facts and it is considered to be an open-minded, iron-sharpens-iron debate. If, however, one of the scientists happens to accept creation (or simply intelligent design) no matter how scientific and legitimate his reasons, it is viewed as fanatical ravings.

In many ways these discussion boards emphasize the best and worst in people.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by absmiths:
<STRONG>
A good scientist is ALWAYS skeptical, regardless of his bias.</STRONG>

Absolutely. Skepticism is healthy. Blindly accepting a demo video and website info is not. Oh wait... I guess that gets a little too close to 'fancy physics'. Nevermind. Skepticism is for the weak. Believe all you see with your own eyes, because after all, they can never be tricked.

<STRONG>If, however, one of the scientists happens to accept creation (or simply intelligent design) no matter how scientific and legitimate his reasons...</STRONG>

Um... I have never, and I mean never, seen a scientific reason for creationism. Tons of ill formed and misinformed attempts at *applying* scientific theories to support creationism, but never, not once, have I seen a scientific *reason* for creationism.

Science answers "How"
Religion answers "Why"

Trying to merge the two is ridiculous, from either standpoint, and there is a place for both.

Okay, now that we've hit religion explicitly, can we PLEASE invoke Godwin's Law and LOCK THIS &%*(@#! THREAD?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>

Okay, now that we've hit religion explicitly, can we PLEASE invoke Godwin's Law and LOCK THIS &%*(@#! THREAD?</STRONG>

Why?

I will keep bringing up the technology used in Task Gallery for a very long time in any thread where Quartz Extreme and speed issues is mentioned. It's best to handle it in a mature manner than try to censor or ridicule any discussion about it because it isn't going away now.

[Back up 15 and punt]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Well, the Task Gallery also had 'drop shadows'. Check the cursor.

What's more, we are talking about much better hardware than a Pentium II 400, right? I hope so. If so, then logically my Mac from last year, a 450 DP with 16Mb Rage 128 Pro, should be able to handle Quartz Extreme pretty well. How much faster is that machine compared to the one in Microsoft's 1999 demo machine? Twice as fast, right? Well, then it should be able to handle mapped polygons and perhaps even silly effects like shadows and transparency. But sadly, and it is quite amazing, Quartz Extreme is not going to run in hardware on the following machines:

-Dual G4-450 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-Dual G4-500 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-G4 733 with Rage 128 Pro 16Mb
-Powerbook G4 400 with Rage 128 Pro 8Mb
-Powerbook G4 500 with Rage 128 Pro 8Mb
-All 2001-2002 iBooks.

That is some very decent hardware in that list, much faster than the 400Mhz Pentium II with TNT2. I can understand the machines with 8Mb cards not supporting QE, but the 16Mb ones are going to be phased out quite soon when QE becomes even more complex. Why? microsoft's engineers say that using the main system memory over AGP does not cause any speed hit. That's what AGP is there for.

Then there is the worry that you spend a couple of thousand bucks on a Mac that is underpowered in the first place. It has a 32MB Geforce 2MX. Then one yearlater Quartz Extreme, due to apparently bloated and bad code, does not require just 32MB but now requires 64MBsimply because Apple says so. Any questioning that in the future will again incur the wrath of the fanatics.</STRONG>

Frankly speaking, I don't have a problem buying a new graphics card. However, none of the commercially available cards have the Apple ADC connector. That mean you have to spend more money for an adapter and you lose the benefit of less cabling. The problem here is that Apple will not supply a graphics for purchase by owners of older equipment. That is what pisses me off. I have no doubt that there will be a class action law suite over this one. There is just to large of base for Apple to ignore this problem and one way or another Apple will be forced to resolve the issues without having to buy a new Mac.

[Kickaha]

Neither did my Dad's foot fungus.

Didn't mean it was something to be brought out and displayed in public at every opportunity.

Kelly, you're the lone voice in the wilderness in this. If that makes you feel empowered, then fine. Pathetic, but fine.

You've stated you're not a developer.

You've demonstrated you're not, through sheer ignorance.

You're well on the way to demonstrating that you are, in fact, a Markov Chain generator posing as a person, from the lack of coherency and rational behaviour in your posts.

Do whatever you feel you need to bolster your ego, because frankly the majority of us here couldn't care less at this point. Obviously, this has gone way beyond arguing technical issues, and has turned into an ego trip for you. Go for it. I'm sure it'll make you feel better in whatever you're actually lacking in life.

[Nonsuch]

[OT]
Appy polly logies for the creationist remark. I could've been more specific and said "the small minority of creationists who ascribe to a philosophy of biblical literalism and regard all contrary science as an atheist conspiracy," but it didn't have the same rhetorical zip.
[/OT]

Back to the "discussion," already in progress. Boy, that MS Task Gallery is something else!

[edited for proper vaporware terminology]

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

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Back up 15 and punt:
<STRONG>

Frankly speaking, I don't have a problem buying a new graphics card. However, none of the commercially available cards have the Apple ADC connector. That mean you have to spend more money for an adapter and you lose the benefit of less cabling. The problem here is that Apple will not supply a graphics for purchase by owners of older equipment. That is what pisses me off. I have no doubt that there will be a class action law suite over this one. There is just to large of base for Apple to ignore this problem and one way or another Apple will be forced to resolve the issues without having to buy a new Mac. </STRONG>

Exactly. That's another strong point. There's nothing wrong with upgrading the graphics card, but what is it doesn't work right in your system? There are people who forked out $500 for a Geforce 3 only to find that their AGP 2X slot isn't quite as compatible as it would be in the Wintel world. I find it even more incredible that a Mac owner would pay for such a card in their machine when Mac gaming isn't exactly state of the art.

But then there are Apple machines with built in graphics chips. To not support them properly with full hardware acceleration even when they are still new or just a year old is, by consumer standards, criminal.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>
Kelly, you're the lone voice in the wilderness in this. If that makes you feel empowered, then fine. Pathetic, but fine.

</STRONG>

Great for me. If the wilderness is full of noisy monkeys and pigs then I'm fine being a 'human that asks questions and finds answers'.

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

[besson3c]

What's more, we are talking about much better hardware than a Pentium II 400, right? I hope so. If so, then logically my Mac from last year, a 450 DP with 16Mb Rage 128 Pro, should be able to handle Quartz Extreme pretty well. How much faster is that machine compared to the one in Microsoft's 1999 demo machine? Twice as fast, right? Well, then it should be able to handle mapped polygons and perhaps even silly effects like shadows and transparency.

So, I guess todays machines can run the latest Quake twice as fast as the latest version of Doom in 1999, right? This seems to be how your math works.

Then there is the worry that you spend a couple of thousand bucks on a Mac that is underpowered in the first place. It has a 32MB Geforce 2MX. Then one yearlater Quartz Extreme, due to apparently bloated and bad code, does not require just 32MB but now requires 64MBsimply because Apple says so. Any questioning that in the future will again incur the wrath of the fanatics.

And Windows XP won't run well (if at all) on most machines over 3 years old, how is this news?

Your deduction that Quartz Extreme is bloated code is flawed...

1) it's not out yet
2) you have nothing to compare it to (and that includes your MS stuff as I have explained)
3) requiring more resources does not necessarily make it bloated if it also performs like a champ. Do less intensive 3D programs render faster than more intensive ones? If so, I guess Infini-D must blow Maya out of the water.

As far as #3, what would the most scientific way be to compare the speeds of Infini-D to Maya? To render the exact same scene with the exact same specs on the exact same hardware, right? Well, you can't do that with your MS stuff and Quartz... therefore, labeling something as being bloated and making comparisons like you do is not accurate.

It's called emperical evidence, you seem to use this a lot. "Because it appears this way on the outside, it must actually be this way".

I think that's why people here are getting frustrated with you.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Great for me. If the wilderness is full of noisy monkeys and pigs then I'm fine being a 'human that asks questions and finds answers'.</STRONG>

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*sigh*

Oh Kelly, you loon you.

[edddeduck]

Ok Kelly the M$ tech demo is real but I never really argued this, my point was it is not the same.

Let me try again... (btw you never answered the trolly argument perhaps it was to close to the truth... )

M$ would have put it in XP if it was that easy. Why not? XP is the all in one system for home and office so how come they delayed? Perhaps the tech demo could not handle the XP GUI without some rewriting etc.. More memory needed etc...

I showed you the 3DO quote you didn't reply to that either later the 3DO did about 90% of the demos but at the time it was not stable enough.

M$ said they had 20 Frames per sec anything below 60Htz gives me a headache to you need to increase the performance by over 3 times... Maybe the card could not speed up that much????

Notice I am not stating anything 100% but you with only an unreleased 3 year old tech demo that was never implemented in real life claim Apple are **** coders and M$ can do it.

This technology is supposed to be 2 years ahead of the of the industry if Apple was so wrong who come people have not said this is PR crap????

Also that M$ tech demo style thing is available on the mac or at least summat similar at the
Macwarriors 3DOSX website. Does this mean they could write QE on a 128 Rage I don't know.

Before you reply the PC tech demo was using M$'s old style windowing engine it was similar in features to Apples Quickdraw.

I recommend you read this. It is "Quartz beyond Quickdraw" it explains a lot of the stuff Quartz does natively which quickdraw never did (also neither did the m$ windowing system).

Apple could possibly spend a lot of time and effort getting some limited support for the 128 in Quatrz extreme but as ..

a) It's a lot faster even without Extreme.
b) These cards are on there way out why support older tech
c) OK b) is harsh if you own a ATI 128 but see a)

Also I have not heard any developers saying it is possible at all. You have pointed out the one tech demo but ....

a) Apple and all there engineers say its not possible
b) Moki a well established developer and on track record a level headed and good coder explained why he thought it was not possible.
c) The guy Arshad (sp?) from ATI said they tried but it was to slow due to bandwidth problems with low memory.

And still you claim it is possible if so write to
Apple about how you think it could be implemented because I really hope you can work out a way coz the my machine would then run QE. You could even direct them to links and emails you might think were usefull etc.

But if you cannot and in 10.2 QE does not work on my iBook I will not be to annoyed as QE is just one of many speed increases Apple have done.

Cheers Edwin

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
What's more, we are talking about much better hardware than a Pentium II 400, right?</STRONG>

You still don't get it, do you? The rest of the box doesn't matter, because we don't have the bandwidth to transfer the data back and forth between GPU and CPU. Once it's on the Rage 128 board, the Rage 128 board has to do all the work.

Another reason why Rage 128 won't work, if you need more: Maximum texture size is 1024*1024 pixels. If your screen is wider than 1024, a window that wide can't even be drawn by the board's 3D circuitry. TNT2 has a maximum size of 2048*2048 pixels, I haven't found if it's limited to "power of 2" textures yet

[P]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

It might have been done on Longhorn but it has not been implemented in Windows yet because of other priorities (merging the Windows family was a long term project called 'Cairo').
</STRONG>

Cairo was Windows NT 4.0, completed in 1996.

[chris.p]

kelly, you believe the quotes stated by developers +Microsoft in the links you posted as the truth, however, you fail to believe the developers in this forum, and what Apple says of QE-- why is this?

[edddeduck]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>It might have been done on Longhorn but it has not been implemented in Windows yet because of other priorities (merging the Windows family was a long term project called 'Cairo').
</STRONG>

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>

Cairo was Windows NT 4.0, completed in 1996.</STRONG>

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>

Another reason why Rage 128 won't work, if you need more: Maximum texture size is 1024*1024 pixels. If your screen is wider than 1024, a window that wide can't even be drawn by the board's 3D circuitry. TNT2 has a maximum size of 2048*2048 pixels, I haven't found if it's limited to "power of 2" textures yet</STRONG>

The whole screen is not a single texture. Most textures would be far less than 1024x1024. This has been covered already.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by P:
<STRONG>

Cairo was Windows NT 4.0, completed in 1996.</STRONG>

Cairo was NOT NT 4. For ****'s sake this is getting out of hand and I'm dealing with uninformed fanatical conspiracy theories now.

Cairo was going to be the merging of the consumer and NT family. This was due to happen with Windows 2000 but didn't happen due to time constraints and new technologies. Officially XP isn't Cairo, yet the letters X and P are pronounced in ancient Greek 'kai' and 'roh' and in fact the Kairoh was a sign of early Christianity under Constantine (it looks like an overlapping X and P). But fearing people would call Windows XP 'Windows Cairo' Microsoft invented the 'eXPerience' marketing slogan.

That's the basic facts.

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

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by edddeduck:
<STRONG>Ok Kelly the M$ tech demo is real but I never really argued this, my point was it is not the same.

Let me try again... (btw you never answered the trolly argument perhaps it was to close to the truth... )

M$ would have put it in XP if it was that easy. Why not? XP is the all in one system for home and office so how come they delayed? Perhaps the tech demo could not handle the XP GUI without some rewriting etc.. More memory needed etc...

I showed you the 3DO quote you didn't reply to that either later the 3DO did about 90% of the demos but at the time it was not stable enough.

Before you reply the PC tech demo was using M$'s old style windowing engine it was similar in features to Apples Quickdraw.

Cheers Edwin</STRONG>

Firstly, why should have mapped the windows to polygons in XP? Why with XP and not later? You see the logic? You're demanding to know why they didn't put it in XP. Well, maybe because it is not for XP and it is for a later revision?

Regarding 3DO, it's pretty sad. Does it map current application to polygons and allow real time manipulation and scaling? Again, it's a 3D environment. We're not talking about 3D environments. We are talking about texture mapping apps to polygons. Microsoft has done that three years ago. Apple knows this and yet they don't want to support hardware newer than what Microsoft was using.

And regarding your last comment above, you say that Microsoft is using 'old style windowing engine it was similar in features to Apples Quickdraw'. This is quit flat out wrong. The website states it was done using Direct 3D. Direct 3D is still the current model. If it were the old engine that would make it Direct Draw. Direct Draw does not support the features required to be able to handle that technology.

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>This was due to happen with Windows 2000 but didn't happen due to time constraints and new technologies.</STRONG>

It was actually due to happen in 1994, but your excellent MS programmers couldn't do it:

1992: Jim Allchin details a vision for a new version of Windows, code-named Cairo, which would include a revamped user interface and a new data store, called the Object File System (OFS), for storing document files, spreadsheets, multimedia files and other information. The goal is to enable searching not only by file name, but by file content. Cairo would also include a new directory service. The operating system is expected to debut in 1994.

November 1994: Microsoft says Cairo will slip again, this time until "sometime in 1996" then-executive Vice President Mike Maples told Computerworld.

August 1995: Microsoft says the first test version of Cairo will debut in late 1996, pushing the release date to 1997

1996: Bill Gates says Cairo is a "vision," not a product, leading many to believe the project is running into a roadblock. Gates tells Computerworld: "Cairo is a futuristic system. It's something we're working on."

August 1996: Gates says some Cairo technologies, including indexing capabilities and a distributed version of Microsoft's Component Object Model software, will be included in Windows NT 4.0, and directory features will be part of NT 5.0. The product jockeying causes Goldman Sachs analyst Rick Sherlund to say: "I think Cairo has lost its definition."

2001: Allchin says he has "not given up" on the OFS concept.

January 2002: CEO Steve Ballmer says, "We want to evolve our storage system." Allchin says the OFS unified storage concept is again in development and will be a major part of Longhorn, the code name for the next version of Windows.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
January 2002: CEO Steve Ballmer says, "We want to evolve our storage system." Allchin says the OFS unified storage concept is again in development and will be a major part of Longhorn, the code name for the next version of Windows.</STRONG>

Yay! Developers, developers, developers, developers!

Longhorn, now with textures mapped to polygons!

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Yay! Developers, developers, developers, developers!

Longhorn, now with textures mapped to polygons!</STRONG>

Will it run on a Rage 128? Is PDF integrated? Duoble buffering?

[::maroma::]

That's gotta be the most intrusive 'task bar' I've ever seen. Way to go MS! Can that thing be disabled? I hope not!


(P.S. - KH is a turd!)

[JLL]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
<STRONG>That's gotta be the most intrusive 'task bar' I've ever seen. Way to go MS! Can that thing be disabled? I hope not! </STRONG>

I really like that it tells you that you have a keyboard connected

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>

Will it run on a Rage 128? Is PDF integrated? Duoble buffering?</STRONG>

Yes, all graphics cards that are Direct 3D capable are supported. PDF is not part of the OS, they have Cleartype instead. Double buffering? If it is there you can disable it, you should have that option. XP offers the user the right to disable everything including minimize effects and shadows.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>

I really like that it tells you that you have a keyboard connected </STRONG>

Keyboard Manager! Imagine that. You plug in a Japanese keyboard and the configuration changes. You plug in Cyrillic keyboard and it also updates automatically. At least the OS tells the user it found something. I wish OSX would at least ask me.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
<STRONG>That's gotta be the most intrusive 'task bar' I've ever seen. Way to go MS! Can that thing be disabled? I hope not!


(P.S. - KH is a turd!)</STRONG>

Of course you can disable it. It's just a new style Start bar called a Task and Shelf bar. If offers notices such as appointments or Emails. It has a Shelf were the running and minimized apps are kept.

You can disable it, make it thinner with icons only showing. You can put it 'always on top' or on 'auto-hide'. You can have it on any side of the screen too. You can skin it too! And Microsoft supports theming.

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Keyboard Manager! Imagine that. You plug in a Japanese keyboard and the configuration changes. You plug in Cyrillic keyboard and it also updates automatically. At least the OS tells the user it found something. I wish OSX would at least ask me.</STRONG>

That's not the point - I know when I plugged in a keyboard so it doesn't have to tell me the obvious.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>

That's not the point - I know when I plugged in a keyboard so it doesn't have to tell me the obvious.</STRONG>

Does it tell you anything at all though? I plug in a Compact Flash reader and it tells me...nothing. Is it working, is it not working? Some people are beginner users and they need feedback. Don't speak for advanced users only.

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Yes, all graphics cards that are Direct 3D capable are supported. PDF is not part of the OS, they have Cleartype instead. Double buffering? If it is there you can disable it, you should have that option. XP offers the user the right to disable everything including minimize effects and shadows.</STRONG>

Perhaps a Rage 128 will be supported, but does it actually make the damn thing faster?

Why on earth are you comparing PDF with Cleartype?

And I don't think MS care about double buffering.

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Does it tell you anything at all though? I plug in a Compact Flash reader and it tells me...nothing. Is it working, is it not working? Some people are beginner users and they need feedback. Don't speak for advanced users only.</STRONG>

What are you talking about? I'm talking about Longhorn.

[Homer1946]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Keyboard Manager! Imagine that. You plug in a Japanese keyboard and the configuration changes. You plug in Cyrillic keyboard and it also updates automatically. At least the OS tells the user it found something. I wish OSX would at least ask me.</STRONG>

My God, I cannot stand it anymore. Why don't we just all admit Kelly is right, about ALL his points, and beg him to allow us to live in our world of self denial in peace.

He knows he is right. Nothing it going to convince him otherwise. If we can just stop responding to him, he will go away, and the signal to noise ratio will get SO MUCH BETTER.

Any new person who comes along asking the same questions can be referred back to this thread so that Kelly's enduring wisdom can set them straight.

Not responding is SO hard, but we must learn to resist.

-R

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>

Perhaps a Rage 128 will be supported, but does it actually make the damn thing faster?
</STRONG>

Fast, yes. Want faster, buy a faster card. But ATI's drivers are pretty first class on Windows and have always scored very good benchmarks. The Rage 128 still has excellent 2D, video and DVD performance, better than the Geforce range even, and can handle 3D pretty well for the most part.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Homer1946:
<STRONG>

Not responding is SO hard, but we must learn to resist.

-R</STRONG>

We mus learn to resist! We must we must we must! We! We the people! We of the church of Saint Jobs! I really hate it when a small group of fanatics use the word 'we' as if everyone is silent supports them.

[Nonsuch]

What exactly is that screencapture supposed to prove/illustrate? That MS ships really nice desktop pictures?