Author Topic: Vista Aero vs. Linux Compiz (Read 67358 times)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #25 on:** April 15, 2008, 05:32 PM »

Christ on a cracker ... I'm not even sure what topic to stay on at this point.

However...

As I'm apparently the only truly happy Vista user in the thread, I do have to say that Compiz win the eye-candy contest IMO.

But the purpose of the Vista desktop is not eye-candy, the purpose is that each rendered window is a independent 3D object that can be loaded, unloaded, manipulated & rendered in any size or location without affecting the underlying application. The pre-Vista bitmap rendered windows are/were nowhere near as forgiving or flexible. The eve-candy in Vista is just there to entertain the "kids".

I'm still doing battle with Slackware (sound) amongst other projects, because I see value in being familiar with thing *niX ... but I'm a Windows guy with no intention of switching.

To zridling I say thank you for sharing an interesting bit of information that I enjoyed.

Josh · « **Reply #26 on:** April 15, 2008, 05:35 PM »

Stoic: I am one of the truly happy Vista users, I really dont see many problems with it.

Lashiec · « **Reply #27 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:17 PM »

I've seen compiz runnnig fine on a laptop Aero refuses to run on. And compiz looks prettier to boot!
-nontroppo (April 15, 2008, 09:06 AM)

I suspect the fact that Aero needs a DirectX-9 capable card (or integrated graphics processor) it's the answer to that. Of course, that does not mean Microsoft could have programmed it for older hardware, but considering Vista was a break in many aspects of the video system compared with older Windows versions, I think it can't be helped. Besides, considering the "Vista capable" debacle, perhaps it's all for the best that things are the way they are.

As Compiz uses OpenGL, it does not have those limitations. Ah, well, the wonders of a open API.

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #28 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:30 PM »

Defending Vista/AERO:

While the extra second or two for an effect to occur may be annoying, it can be helpful too. The little minimize animation can help you find a specific window later on by sliding it down to its taskbar button, for example. And seeing through the edges of windows can help you find things below the active program; maybe it is just me, but I used to love the feel of Windows 95 (a friend has a 95 laptop I use on occasion) but now I, personally, cannot live without the... appeal (if you will) of being able to enjoy Windows, and not just work with it. It is just so much more inviting.

[(somewhat) off-topic]
Can this Compiz be installed on any distro/are there certain hardware requirements? Where can I get it at? This has me interested to play around with now...

[off-topic]

Lashiec · « **Reply #29 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:46 PM »

Mmm, most distros carry Compiz, either in their repositories or installed by default. Check up its documentation, but IIRC, you should not have problems with it (you have a Radeon 2600 Pro, don't you?), well, apart from possible driver problems. I wonder how good is the new RadeonHD driver...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #30 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:57 PM »

And seeing through the edges of windows can help you find things below the active program
-wreckedcarzz (April 15, 2008, 06:30 PM)

Haven't windows transparency options been available since Windows 2000 ?

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #31 on:** April 15, 2008, 07:17 PM »

Yea, HD2600 Pro. I have the latest Linux drivers on my XUbuntu install, they run pretty good (the built in ones required a reformat after it corrupted the display).

Mine came with the XFE and Gnome desktop environments. Will have to Google it.

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #32 on:** April 20, 2008, 10:27 PM »

I was able to get Compiz downloaded and installed and actually running today on my Xubuntu install, and sadly it does not work. Window borders disappear, effects don't work, and it is basically the Mac interface - the windows attatch to the top left and the menu bar for each program overlaps the next. Windows can't be moved and you can only switch back to the “xfwm4″ interface.

I'll have to wait for the next version/stable. *sigh*

zridling · « **Reply #33 on:** April 21, 2008, 12:11 AM »

Like Lashiec, I've had good luck with drivers for my peripherals, specifically monitors, cameras, and printers (HP), and a variety of videocards, and since making the switch last October, I've never had more fun on my computer. My point in this post was what Glyn Moody suggested — if you think Vista's Aero is cool, then check out what's being done freely with open source software (Compiz) on the Linux platform. No one's arguing a switch to GNU/Linux, but just as you're aware of Apple's OS X UI, you can see what's on Linux these days (and that video was more than a year old).

I don't use my computer as a toy, but gawd, I know a lot of my friends do — gaming, social media, and youtube mainly. And their misperceptions about what GNU/Linux is are manifold among confusion with 'distros,' 'multiple desktops' (which saves me from buying that second monitor that so many invest in these days), the nature of open source, and why software must be bad if they're not paying for it. (IMO, DonationCoder.com is not about paying for software, it's about rewarding good, useful coding.)

I'm like JoTo: ...eye candy is absolutely useless... I want to work with my pc and so i prefer a fast, informational GUI without any whistles and bells. So I don't use Compiz because I don't need it. I also don't use Flip3D in Vista. But for users like JoTo, there are other, streamlined desktop environments like Xfce and Enlightenment that take up a microscopic amount of memory while providing an attractive (better than XP), efficient UI. As more software moves toward RIA, webware, and into the Cloud, you choice of OS is less relevant. All things being equal, GNU/Linux on the desktop is not part of any market, but I will get back all the money I've given companies like Microsoft for the past 22 years over time.

My intent is not to bash Windows, of course; that's a tired, flammable target that I don't have the energy for. I don't want that fight on DC, because I've become agnostic on OS choice. Use what you like, what you enjoy, what works for you. Meanwhile, I will keep posting positive, informative topics on GNU/Linux, and with the help of others, dispel the myths of open source software and open standards.

Armando · « **Reply #34 on:** April 21, 2008, 12:43 AM »

I was able to get Compiz downloaded and installed and actually running today on my Xubuntu install, and sadly it does not work. Window borders disappear, effects don't work, and it is basically the Mac interface - the windows attatch to the top left and the menu bar for each program overlaps the next. Windows can't be moved and you can only switch back to the “xfwm4″ interface.

I'll have to wait for the next version/stable. *sigh*
-wreckedcarzz (April 20, 2008, 10:27 PM)

I've had that problem before. When that happens, something is probably broken in the Compiz installation, or the emerald windows decorator is not enabled, or something like that. It usually happens when you install Compiz manually, edit your xorg.conf, goof around etc.

But then your HD2600 Pro might not be well supported. But I thought it was.

Did you follow a tutorial, used the packages with synaptic etc?

Josh · « **Reply #35 on:** April 21, 2008, 06:34 AM »

Zaine, that is the first time I've heard of enlightenment being referred to as light. From my experiences it is far from that and one of the more bulky desktop managers, more so than gnome or kde.

Armando · « **Reply #36 on:** April 21, 2008, 07:02 AM »

hummmm... you're probably thinking of something else because enlightenment is indeed light and is known for it. It is not be the lightest, but very light despite all the candy. Actually lighter than many other Desktop environments, or even windows managers for that matter (but haven't tested that myself... or I can't remember). Btw kde and gnome are not strictly windows manager per se, but desktop environments that can actually use enlightenment as their windows manager instead of, say, metacity or kwm, or even Compiz (which is also a "composite manager").

Lashiec · « **Reply #37 on:** April 21, 2008, 05:45 PM »

I disagree with Enlightenment being attractive, certain parts are, others suck hard, but it's true that it's quite light, it reminds me of LiteStep, not only for its low footprint, but also the general look.

Note that I'm not saying that XP is attractive, although some visual styles... I guess that despite the Fisher-Price or Teletubbie-esque look, it's well designed, does not get old, and it's easy on the eyes.

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #38 on:** April 21, 2008, 10:41 PM »

I followed 3 tutorials (command line and package manager based), used 2 package managers (built in and Synaptic) and followed all FAQs and Troubleshooting guides I could find. No go.

Ironically, I gave up on making it work as of last night and followed a tutorial on how to make XFCE look like AERO. That one didn't work fully either, so I am still hacking away at that.

MrCrispy · « **Reply #39 on:** April 22, 2008, 01:26 AM »

As a developer, let me say that as far as I know, DWM (the Vista Aero engine) is technically as good, if not better, than Compiz/Quartz. The issue, as it always is with Windows, is that most of its neat features are not enabled by default in explorer, or even available to developers. We get a measly thumbnail api which lets us generate realtime previews, but not hook into the engine to generate pretty 3D effects like Compiz.

If Microsoft had in fact made the api public, it would be trivial to have Windows emulate any desktop manager in existence. And 90% of the problems people have with Aero performance can squarely be laid at the door of driver developers (Nvidia I'm looking at you!!).

The one thing which could be improved in Aero is that the desktop is 3d-composited, but the rendering of each individual window (non WPF ones) is still 2d and is not hardware accelerated. However on modern hardware 2d rendering is basically free, unless its a game/graphics intensive app in which case they probably use DirectX anyway.

Armando · « **Reply #40 on:** April 22, 2008, 01:42 AM »

And 90% of the problems people have with Aero performance can squarely be laid at the door of driver developers (Nvidia I'm looking at you!!).
-MrCrispy (April 22, 2008, 01:26 AM)

Are you saying that Linux drivers are more carefully crafted ? AFAICT, Compiz runs pretty smoothly on 5 years old hardware. The same cannot be said of Aero. Aero doesn't even run that smoothly on my father's laptop, bought a few months ago. And I'm not even talking about the fancy (and sometimes tasteless) 3d effects. Just the exposé-like effects and stuff.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #41 on:** April 22, 2008, 06:59 AM »

I disagree with Enlightenment being attractive, certain parts are, others suck hard, but it's true that it's quite light, it reminds me of LiteStep, not only for its low footprint, but also the general look.

e16 is relatively light, especially compared to gnome and kde today (e16 was considered heavy at the time when it was released). However their newest e17 which is and has been in pre-alpha since forever can get quite heavy, though many of the components can be disabled to make it as light as e16.

With e17 they wanted to redesign the concept of a 'window manager', and they developed a system to draw widgets/windows in a manner similar to Macromedia(or i should now say Adobe) Flash.
The new dr17 is very modular and with all features and plug-ins enabled i'm pretty sure it can be as heavy as - if not heavier than gnome.
If you're thinking of trying out dr17, you'll probably be disappointed because since they haven't even reached beta yet, it's full of bugs, random crashes, and missing functionality. It has been in development since 2000. 8 years and counting, I wonder if they can beat duke nukem forever...

Lashiec · « **Reply #42 on:** April 22, 2008, 06:57 PM »

With e17 they wanted to redesign the concept of a 'window manager', and they developed a system to draw widgets/windows in a manner similar to Macromedia(or i should now say Adobe) Flash.
-Gothi[c] (April 22, 2008, 06:59 AM)

Is that something similar to Plasmoids in KDE 4?

If you're thinking of trying out dr17, you'll probably be disappointed because since they haven't even reached beta yet, it's full of bugs, random crashes, and missing functionality. It has been in development since 2000.

8 years, and the page still describes it as pre-alpha... too many development time for being in that early stage, I wonder what happened in the interim (apart from Real Life, of course).

8 years and counting, I wonder if they can beat duke nukem forever...

Always bet on ~~Duke~~ Enlightenment ;)

MrCrispy · « **Reply #43 on:** April 22, 2008, 11:05 PM »

Are you saying that Linux drivers are more carefully crafted ? AFAICT, Compiz runs pretty smoothly on 5 years old hardware. The same cannot be said of Aero. Aero doesn't even run that smoothly on my father's laptop, bought a few months ago. And I'm not even talking about the fancy (and sometimes tasteless) 3d effects. Just the exposé-like effects and stuff.
-Armando (April 22, 2008, 01:42 AM)

I was only talking about the technical capabilities of DWM. I believe Linux is lighter than Vista, and explorer in particular is dog slow, so I'm not surprised the 3d desktop experience in Linux is better. Which laptop does your father have? If its only a few months old is it Vista-certified?

And yes, its quite possible Linux drivers are better. Vista introduced (yet again) a whole new driver model (WDDM) which Nvidia and ATI haven't really embraced (partly cause its complex, but mostly cause they are lazy and incompetent). I forget the exact figure but ~80% of Vista crashes were directly caused by Nvidia drivers in the first year of Vista.

Armando · « **Reply #44 on:** April 23, 2008, 12:01 AM »

Which laptop does your father have? If its only a few months old is it Vista-certified?
-MrCrispy (April 22, 2008, 11:05 PM)

Can't remember if it was Vista certified, but came with Vista and is using the integrated GMA X3100 from Intel. It's certainly low end, but more powerful than a GMA900 which runs compiz very well IMO -- and needless to say, on most laptops compiz runs flawlessly on the gma x1300. Aero is slow and clunky.

And yes, its quite possible Linux drivers are better. Vista introduced (yet again) a whole new driver model (WDDM) which Nvidia and ATI haven't really embraced (partly cause its complex, but mostly cause they are lazy and incompetent). I forget the exact figure but ~80% of Vista crashes were directly caused by Nvidia drivers in the first year of Vista.
-MrCrispy (April 22, 2008, 11:05 PM)

I understand about the crashes and everything in Vista. I haven't seen any recent benchmarks, but... I don't recall Linux being used for its great video card drivers... Linux experts like Gothi[c] would know better than me though...

f0dder · « **Reply #45 on:** April 23, 2008, 01:46 AM »

MrCrispy: remember that nvidia not only makes video drivers, but also chipset and network... those crash statistics were interesting, but afaik did not tell which nvidia drivers caused the crash. Also, it would have been interesting to see per-user frequency of the crashes - obviously nvidia has a higher percentage of crashes simply because they (afaik) has larger market share than AMD/ATi.

Afaik (hear-say, not verified!) Aero is implemented using shaders, and requiring SM2.0 - this has some requirements of the GPU and it's drivers. The newer intel integrated graphics is actually relatively capable, but still with insanely retarded drivers.

I dunno if Compiz is done with shaders or whether it uses fixed-feature OpenGL calls with a whole bunch of CPU massaging...

Lashiec · « **Reply #46 on:** April 23, 2008, 07:19 PM »

Well, the system requirements for Vista Aero mention the presence of Shader Model 2.0, so they must be used for something

cranioscopical · « **Reply #47 on:** April 23, 2008, 08:47 PM »

Which laptop does your father have?
-MrCrispy (April 22, 2008, 11:05 PM)

There's a great title for a thread of its own!

MrCrispy · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2008, 09:05 PM »

The GMA X3100 is more than enough for Aero as well as any DX9 game - its actually a pretty capable graphics chip so I'm surprised it gave your problems.

Armando · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2008, 10:31 PM »

Well, flipping windows was not exactly the smoothest with the GMA X3100... But if you say that it should be smooth, I'll have to check that out. Maybe a driver problem...?