OT: Why Aero was implemented on 3D?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fernando
  • Start date Start date
F

Fernando

Hi, excuse the OT, but I've found the following by reading an article
about next generation graphics cards and power consumption on Tom's
hardware website, and I ask myself why Microsoft implemented the new
desktop interface by using Direct 3D instead a more general 2D approach.
I don't know how Apple had implemented Mac OSX's desktop, but I think it
is 2D.

Also, there are products from third parties which enhance XP desktop
experience almost as Vista's new desktop (Stardock products in example),
and these products run over GDI (2D), so again why Vista's desktop is 3D?

The full article link is:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/21/the_graphics_state_of_the_union/

"... Vista turns the graphics card into a commodity within the system,
and it claims everything within to dictate its terms to the parts. This
may allow for centralized graphics settings, but it puts the user at
Windows Vista's mercy. The issues at hand are all being worked on, and
hopefully will be fixed by the time Vista hits retail."


"... Just to add insult to injury, we have Microsoft Vista with the Areo
Glass experience. Instead of only running the 2D section of the graphics
core (which accounts to ~4% of a high-end graphics core today), the
3D'ed Windows Vista will run the other 96% all the time. Granted, there
will be power saving features to turn off parts of the core that aren't
needed for picoseconds at a time, but no matter how you look at it,
Windows will be running it more of the time than before."
 
GDI uses the cpu for it's tasks... tres inefficent. MS's new model is to let
the gpu handle all the tasks and let the cpu be free for what it does best.
Still in it's infancy but it's the more effecient approach. You can bet your
buttons Steve Jobs is planning a move to gpu run based desktops for OS X in
the future.
 
Hi, excuse the OT, but I've found the following by reading an article
about next generation graphics cards and power consumption on Tom's
hardware website, and I ask myself why Microsoft implemented the new
desktop interface by using Direct 3D instead a more general 2D approach.
I don't know how Apple had implemented Mac OSX's desktop, but I think it
is 2D.
Click to expand...

Right now, a great deal of CPU time is dedicated to graphics rendering
while a very capable, and powerful GPU sits idle. Why wouldn't you want to
utilize that power to offload tasks from the CPU?

It also allows more advanced desktop effects, like Flip3D.
 
And wait until you see how the ISV's are going to take advantage of a 3D
desktop. I have seen some prototypes that are absolutely mouth watering.
 
Thanks for the reply,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from a lot of time ago video cards
are 2D accelleration capable, so the desktop can be rendered in 2D by
the gpu, but using a lot less of resources, gpu power and video memory,
which I can use to run a demanding 3D application.

Anyway, I expect to see more brilliant effects than Flip 3D or Aero
Glass in order to justify to go for the 3D solution for Windows Desktop.
I want to imagine this is only the beginning for a true 3D desktop in
the near future, without this I can't justify it.

Fernando

Erik Funkenbusch escribió:
 
Colin said:
And wait until you see how the ISV's are going to take advantage of a 3D
desktop. I have seen some prototypes that are absolutely mouth watering.
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Would you care to give a url?
 
GDI+ whether windows, linux or what not, is cpu dependent not gpu. And 2d
acceleration cannot accelerate the whole GDI model (in fact it didn't
accelerate much of the 2d model as is), so the whole GDI model would have to
be rewritten (it would have to be totally rewritten just to handle 2d for
the gpu) and since it can't handle the advances in 3d it's better a new
model is written from scratch.
 
Thanks for the information

Peter M escribió:
GDI+ whether windows, linux or what not, is cpu dependent not gpu. And
2d acceleration cannot accelerate the whole GDI model (in fact it didn't
accelerate much of the 2d model as is), so the whole GDI model would
have to be rewritten (it would have to be totally rewritten just to
handle 2d for the gpu) and since it can't handle the advances in 3d it's
better a new model is written from scratch.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top