Author Topic: Vista Aero vs. Linux Compiz (Read 81,448 times)

Armando · « **Reply #50 on:** April 24, 2008, 03:37 AM »

Quote from: cranioscopical on April 24, 2008, 01:47 AM

Quote from: MrCrispy on April 23, 2008, 04:05 AM
Which laptop does your father have?

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

f0dder · « **Reply #51 on:** April 24, 2008, 08:17 AM »

Quote from: Armando on April 24, 2008, 03:31 AM

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...?

Very likely a driver problem - intel has a track record of writing retarded graphics drivers, and crippling their otherwise OK/nice chips.

housetier · « **Reply #52 on:** April 24, 2008, 09:44 AM »

OK since arguments are discounted: I use Linux because.

GHammer · « **Reply #53 on:** April 24, 2008, 11:37 PM »

First, I'd like to say that running an old hardware has never been a criteria of Windows. You have old hardware and Windows runs, cool. It doesn't, buy hardware. It's been the way for a LONG time. People have been complacent with the long time between releases.

Second, I have thousands of dollars of apps and utilities. Most of those do not have a counterpart in the *nix world. If there were a wide selection of apps and utilities available it would still be a reach for me to say "so long" to my investment. Then there is the time to relearn what I do with the tools I have.

For me, it is a matter of "Here's the one app that does thus and so". In any category with Windows I can choose among many apps at many price points. I'm certain to find what I'm looking for. With *nix, tain't so.

Ease of contacting the developer of this or that? Contacting and having your need/problem positively addressed are two different things. Lots of coders do it for their own use and other suggestions take a back seat. There are MANY orphaned apps on SourceForge and other like sites. What do I do if I had chosen one of them to do this or that?

Finally, eyecandy. I like it but it would never be a deciding factor for what OS I use.

MrCrispy · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2008, 04:34 AM »

^ Thats a very good point. Lets also talk about a huge revenue source and target market for Windows - businesses. In a corporate environment, what are the values that absolutely cannot be compromised - being conservative and not flashy, backwards compatibility, features based on actual user feedback and customer demand.

Guess what, these are the exact areas Windows outshines OSX and Linux. It may not be sexy, and it has a bit of design-by-committee, but the features are put in after extensive user testing, not because some dev coded an overnight effect that looks good on youtube. 3d rippling windows is good - is it usable? The PDC builds of Longhorn (in 2003, before Compiz, beryl etc) had all kinds of 3d effects that were dropped.

Microsoft is also moving towards a componentized, modular Windows. CE has it, and Windows 2008 lets you mix and match what you want to run, so e.g. you can run it without a GUI. So I have hopes for reduced resource usage as well.

zridling · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM »

Quote from: MrCrispy on April 25, 2008, 04:34 AM

In a corporate environment, what are the values that absolutely cannot be compromised - being conservative and not flashy, backwards compatibility, features based on actual user feedback and customer demand.... Guess what, these are the exact areas Windows outshines OSX and Linux. It may not be sexy, and it has a bit of design-by-committee, but the features are put in after extensive user testing, not because some dev coded an overnight effect that looks good on youtube. Windows [Server] 2008 lets you mix and match what you want to run, so e.g. you can run it without a GUI. So I have hopes for reduced resource usage as well.

Interesting, and I'd like to break this down.
________________________________________________
(1) In a corporate environment, what are the values that absolutely cannot be compromised — being conservative and not flashy, backwards compatibility, features based on actual user feedback and customer demand.... Guess what, these are the exact areas Windows outshines OSX and Linux.

Really?
— I presume you mean XP (which Ballmer hinted may get its death sentenced commuted again), not Vista. But since we're in the now, let's stick with the current Windows: Vista.

— This doesn't account for MS-OOXML in Office 2007, and its lack of support for the other ISO standard format, ODF.

— Vista also broke lots of hardware with missing drivers. And please don't tell me that "XP did the same thing when it came out." After five years of development, I somehow thought things were supposed to be more compatible, faster, and better. For example, I lost both an old and a new HP laser printer for over a year. Talk about being bummed. Yet those open sourcers were able to hack up a Linux driver in about three weeks.

— Microsoft itself was never clear on whether we should get new hardware for Vista. They slapped 'Vista-capable' stickers on systems that were not. That did wonders for goodwill, and brought the inevitable lawsuit from consumers. They could have easily sold a demo/test CD for €1 to see if Vista worked on your old system like Linux does with its Live CDs.

— So far, I don't see the "outshining" MrCrispy, as Windows is actually losing desktop market share to OS X and Linux. Microsoft never loses desktop market share. But with Vista Microsoft is finally losing customers. And according to that same Forrester Research Report, Windows enterprise adoption declined 3.7% and Vista only accounted for just over 6% of business/enterprise clients to date.

________________________________________________
(2) It may not be sexy, and it has a bit of design-by-committee, but the features are put in after extensive user testing, not because some dev coded an overnight effect that looks good on youtube.

— Okay, you're talking about Compiz here, but something most of those YouTube 'Compiz' videos don't show is how it works among desktops you establish as you work. For example, you can create a set of programs that work within one 'desktop' — say, graphics, or database/spreadsheet/data analysis, or coding, whatever — keeping that workspace clean and segregated from things like surfing, burning, gaming, etc. The flash and zazz on the videos are just effects, and hide its utility.

— I'll grant you that Microsoft did at least deliver Aero (along with several fantastic fonts) after dropping WinFS, which was originally announced as one of the three "pillars" of Windows Vista — the other two being the new Windows Presentation Foundation (Avalon) user interface layer and the Windows Communication Foundation (Indigo) web services layer. File systems on Linux are its core attraction for stability, no need for defragging, and since everything is a text file, they last forever, and I don't have WGA, Windows Update, or OGA checking my computer at every boot.

— Despite years of development, unprecedented and broad alpha and beta testing by many, many Windows power users, Vista wasn't ready for release at the end of Jan. 2007. SP1 is acceptable. Even Microsoft didn't make a big deal of Vista's rollout, and you'd hardly know they just released Windows Server 2008.

— Windows Explorer could not have been designed by committee. Nor could Vista's Control Panel labyrinth. Nor could UAC. Nor could the way that Vista drains laptop batteries. The list is long.

— And then there's that nasty Windows Home Server data corruption problem (marketed on Microsoft.com for Small Business Server Networks). Corrupting data is an absolute compromise (KnowledgeBase listing). When run on servers with more than one hard drive running Windows Home Server can destroy your data if you use any of nine programs: Windows Vista Photo Gallery; Windows Live Photo Gallery; Microsoft Office OneNote 2007; Microsoft Office OneNote 2003; Microsoft Office Outlook 2007; Microsoft Money 2007; SyncToy 2.0 Beta; Intuit QuickBooks; and uTorrent. To be fair, Windows Server 2008's Hyper-V virtualization is freaky good. But the whole point of a server OS is to serve files, not corrupt them. Who tested that at Redmond? Seriously. Not even ed bott can spin that. Just install Linux and Samba on the PC of your choice that you want to be your server and save yourself the cash and heartache.

________________________________________________
(3) Windows (Server or Home?) 2008 lets you mix and match what you want to run, so e.g. you can run it without a GUI. So I have hopes for reduced resource usage as well.

— Would you be willing to run Windows without a GUI? (I think you would because at your level, you'd be an expert on any OS, not just Windows.) But for my level, I couldn't.

— Reducing resource demand would be a new, welcome direction.

— Win7 is rumored to be subscription and possibly modular. But once software goes subscription, I'm outta there. I saw they floated a price of $33/month for Office 2007! Much like gasoline, I can't afford to drive with Microsoft anymore. Therefore, GNU/Linux best serves my economic and data interests.

f0dder · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2008, 01:40 PM »

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

File systems on Linux are its core attraction for stability, no need for defragging, and since everything is a text file, they last forever,

That linux filesystems should not need defragging is a goddamn lie. It's true that they generally don't fragment as badly as, say, FAT filesystems, but they sure as hell do fragment. (Oh, if you follow the "never use more than 80% of a drive" the fragmentation issues aren't as bad, but that's damn lame advice).

But they do fragment. How badly depends on filesystem type and usage. And what's your option then, to defragment? General advice is to "make a new filesystem, copy all files there, erase old filesyste, copy back". I don't know of any decent defrag applications for linux - there's some experimental thing for ext2, and for XFS you can hack up a command pipeline but it essentially uses single-file defragmenting, and isn't as comprehensive as tools available for windows.

Yet linux users keep propagating the misconception (or even outright lie) that linux is fragmentation-resilient. I dunno if it's simply because there aren't defragmentation apps available that this ignorance hasn't been debunked, or if it's because linux users have simply gotten used to sub-par performance...

Edvard · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2008, 04:09 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong (and somebody usually does...), but it's not whether Linux does or doesn't need fragmentation, but how any particular filesystem deals with the inevitable fragmentation. Any multi-user, multitasking operating system should not benefit greatly from defragmentation (ntfs included...) and there are valid arguments against defragging such a system.

Linux adherents have been sold the mantra "no need for fragmentation" because the guys who designed the filesystem designed it from a multiuser multitask standpoint from the first.

It's not a lie, it's a misconception of the nature of the problem.

If the msdos and fat filesystems had been designed this way from the first, we wouldn't even be asking this question.

I know this is old, and concerns mainly the ext2 filestystem, but it's a very good technical explanation of the situation from the wtfl-lug mailing list:
http://www.salmar.com/pipermail/wftl-lug/2002-March/000603.html
Here's a perl script for checking fragmentation:
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/96989/index.html
...and an non-techie ascii-art explanation of linux filesystem fragmentation here:
http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

f0dder · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2008, 04:25 PM »

Edvard: try maintaining an Arch linux setup for a while - eventually, the speed of "pacman" (lovely name for a package manager

) slows to a crawl... because of fragmentation. Fragmentation is inevitable, you can do a lot of heuristic to try and avoid it, but it eventually ends up happening.

And it does impact performance, no matter what people say. Claiming it doesn't is pure and simple ignorance. NTFS fragments as well, by the way, so I'm not claiming it's a linux issue - it's an issue with all filesystems.

Obviously, how bad fragmentation affects performance depends on a lot of different figures - but it all boils down to fragment size and the nature of the storage system (transfer speed, seek speed, ...) - Microsoft's Vista defragmenter guesstimates that with current storage systems, you're generally OK and don't lose too much performance as long as each individual fragment is at least 64 megabytes in size.

But blanket-statement claiming that fragmentation is a non-issue and that it doesn't happen on linux - well, sorry, that's either ignorance or outright lies.

Dirhael · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2008, 04:44 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on April 25, 2008, 04:25 PM

Edvard: try maintaining an Arch linux setup for a while - eventually, the speed of "pacman" (lovely name for a package manager ) slows to a crawl... because of fragmentation.

pacman -Sc; pacman-optimize; sync

f0dder · « **Reply #60 on:** April 25, 2008, 04:59 PM »

Quote from: Dirhael on April 25, 2008, 04:44 PM

Quote from: f0dder on April 25, 2008, 04:25 PM
Edvard: try maintaining an Arch linux setup for a while - eventually, the speed of "pacman" (lovely name for a package manager ) slows to a crawl... because of fragmentation.
pacman -Sc; pacman-optimize; sync

...which wouldn't be necessary if the claims about "fragmentation isn't an issue" were true.

Dirhael · « **Reply #61 on:** April 25, 2008, 05:03 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on April 25, 2008, 04:59 PM

Quote from: Dirhael on April 25, 2008, 04:44 PM
Quote from: f0dder on April 25, 2008, 04:25 PM
Edvard: try maintaining an Arch linux setup for a while - eventually, the speed of "pacman" (lovely name for a package manager ) slows to a crawl... because of fragmentation.
pacman -Sc; pacman-optimize; sync
...which wouldn't be necessary if the claims about "fragmentation isn't an issue" were true.

I'm not going to argue that, I was merely pointing out how to resolve the issue you referred to in your previous post.

Edvard · « **Reply #62 on:** April 25, 2008, 07:05 PM »

OK, I'm going to sidestep the flow here and say fragmentation is the least of my worries running Linux.

Wikipedia says it pretty well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation

Besides, Ext4 will have built-in defragmentation, so there.

zridling · « **Reply #63 on:** April 26, 2008, 11:59 AM »

Thanks for the correction, and the links, Edvard!

f0dder · « **Reply #64 on:** April 26, 2008, 04:54 PM »

Edvard: just because it's on wikipedia doesn't make it correct...

MrCrispy · « **Reply #65 on:** April 27, 2008, 09:21 PM »

Zaine, you make some valid points and I'm not going to try and defend Vista. My comments were more about the general philosophy behind Windows as a whole and different expectations when your customer base is very different from other OS vendors (OSX - consumers, Linux - power users).

I've posted many times on my personal thoughts about Vista - it was a clusterf**ck, to put it mildly, in the way the whole project was managed and how the feature set alienated both consumers and developers.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— This doesn't account for MS-OOXML in Office 2007, and its lack of support for the other ISO standard format, ODF.

This is a purely political decision, not technical. If Microsoft supported ODF, it would be tantamount to them saying there was no need to invent OOXML. But thats a separate discussion

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Vista also broke lots of hardware with missing drivers. And please don't tell me that "XP did the same thing when it came out." After five years of development, I somehow thought things were supposed to be more compatible, faster, and better. For example, I lost both an old and a new HP laser printer for over a year. Talk about being bummed. Yet those open sourcers were able to hack up a Linux driver in about three weeks.

Sorry, I'll have to say its the hw manufacturers fault. Precisely because it took so long, they had plenty to time to write good drivers (hell any driver). Microsoft is not responsible for making sure your hardware works, although as a customer it'd be nice! They try very hard to test and certify all kinds of hardware, beyond that what can they do?

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Microsoft itself was never clear on whether we should get new hardware for Vista. They slapped 'Vista-capable' stickers on systems that were not. That did wonders for goodwill, and brought the inevitable lawsuit from consumers. They could have easily sold a demo/test CD for €1 to see if Vista worked on your old system like Linux does with its Live CDs.

Linux is free and the $1 livecd is not demo or test, it IS Linux. Obviously MS cannot do that (or for that matter any commercial OS vendor). 'Vista-capable' is very different from 'Vista-certified'. Ever since the DOJ slapped them, Microsoft has been even more hesitant to tell OEM's what they can and can't do to their systems - hence the bloatware you see on Windows pc's.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— So far, I don't see the "outshining" MrCrispy, as Windows is actually losing desktop market share to OS X and Linux. Microsoft never loses desktop market share. But with Vista Microsoft is finally losing customers. And according to that same Forrester Research Report, Windows enterprise adoption declined 3.7% and Vista only accounted for just over 6% of business/enterprise clients to date.

The lack of adoption in the enterprise is I'm sure a big concern to the executives. Rather it would be if they were not trying to waste $50B (!!!!!) trying to buy a company with no benefits to them

The 3rd quarter results for MSFT were not good.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Okay, you're talking about Compiz here, but something most of those YouTube 'Compiz' videos don't show is how it works among desktops you establish as you work. For example, you can create a set of programs that work within one 'desktop' — say, graphics, or database/spreadsheet/data analysis, or coding, whatever — keeping that workspace clean and segregated from things like surfing, burning, gaming, etc. The flash and zazz on the videos are just effects, and hide its utility.

Isn't that just virtual desktops though? Spaces in Leopard. And its still not included in Windows (except for the useless little power toy)!

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Despite years of development, unprecedented and broad alpha and beta testing by many, many Windows power users, Vista wasn't ready for release at the end of Jan. 2007. SP1 is acceptable. Even Microsoft didn't make a big deal of Vista's rollout, and you'd hardly know they just released Windows Server 2008.

Microsoft didn't make a big deal of Vista's rollout ??!! That's news to me! Server 2008 is not a consumer product so probably not much in the mainstream media, but there wa splenty of coverage in mags like 'IT Week', 'Network World' etc.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Windows Explorer could not have been designed by committee. Nor could Vista's Control Panel labyrinth. Nor could UAC. Nor could the way that Vista drains laptop batteries. The list is long.

I'm not sure if I made myself clear. Design-by-committee is a BAD thing. Very bad. All the things you list are perfect examples. I'm sure you've read the horror story of the Vista start menu power options.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— And then there's that nasty Windows Home Server data corruption problem (marketed on Microsoft.com for Small Business Server Networks). Corrupting data is an absolute compromise (KnowledgeBase listing). When run on servers with more than one hard drive running Windows Home Server can destroy your data if you use any of nine programs: Windows Vista Photo Gallery; Windows Live Photo Gallery; Microsoft Office OneNote 2007; Microsoft Office OneNote 2003; Microsoft Office Outlook 2007; Microsoft Money 2007; SyncToy 2.0 Beta; Intuit QuickBooks; and uTorrent. To be fair, Windows Server 2008's Hyper-V virtualization is freaky good. But the whole point of a server OS is to serve files, not corrupt them. Who tested that at Redmond? Seriously. Not even ed bott can spin that. Just install Linux and Samba on the PC of your choice that you want to be your server and save yourself the cash and heartache.

Simple answer - it was not tested. Inexcusable. Microsoft is too big and there is a lack of communication between teams. This was why we had the horrendous Vista file copy bug which would throttle file transfers when you play audio.

But, WHS is not a server product by any means so don't hold it to the same standards. And it does far more than Linux+Samba.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Would you be willing to run Windows without a GUI? (I think you would because at your level, you'd be an expert on any OS, not just Windows.) But for my level, I couldn't.

I wouldn't

But the non-GUI install (Server Core) is meant for servers, not desktops, and server admins who live and breathe cmd line magic. It would be right at home with the Linux crowd!

— Reducing resource demand would be a new, welcome direction.

Quote from: zridling on April 25, 2008, 06:09 AM

— Win7 is rumored to be subscription and possibly modular. But once software goes subscription, I'm outta there. I saw they floated a price of $33/month for Office 2007! Much like gasoline, I can't afford to drive with Microsoft anymore. Therefore, GNU/Linux best serves my economic and data interests.

I hear you. I don't like the trend that all software is moving towards a license+activation model rather than me owning it. Its one of the things Apple gets right - one version, you install it, you use it. Done. I don't lease my cars

But again, its meant mostly for enterprises. And in THAT market, hosted services are HUGE. For businesses, the attraction of never having to purchase/install/upgrade/maintain something is the deciding factor. Why do you think Microsoft is doing this? Because they are threatened by Google Apps/Zimbra etc! And its a way to ensure a steady revenue stream.

As a consumer, there are many things about Vista I don't like. Apple has a much better user experience but I refuse to pay the AppleTax. I seriously doubt that Linux is ready for the desktop and would not want to inflict it on my parents, for example. Modern computing is complex, but at least with Windows its the devil I know

housetier · « **Reply #66 on:** April 28, 2008, 09:23 AM »

f0dder, so how do you solve the fragmentation issue without swear words? I know ~~I am a goddam liar~~ have a different opinion, but this interests me.

Edvard · « **Reply #67 on:** April 28, 2008, 03:14 PM »

Quote

Edvard: just because it's on wikipedia doesn't make it correct...

What? The wikipedia article says you're right.

Quote

A true defragmentation tool does not exist for ext3.[10]

That being said, as the Linux System Administrator Guide states, "Modern Linux filesystem(s) keep fragmentation at a minimum by keeping all blocks in a file close together, even if they can't be stored in consecutive sectors. Some filesystems, like ext3, effectively allocate the free block that is nearest to other blocks in a file. Therefore it is not necessary to worry about fragmentation in a Linux system."[11]

Irrespective of the above (subjective) statement, file fragmentation can be an important issue in server environments such as in multi-media server applications. While it is true that ext3 is more resistant to file fragmentation than FAT filesystems, nonetheless ext3 filesystems can and do get fragmented over time. Consequently the successor to the ext3 filesystem, ext4, includes a filesystem defragmentation utility and support for extents (contiguous file regions).

Further examples in which lack of defragmentation in some Linux filesystems (such as ext3) is a serious issue, includes server applications where rapid, concurrent and random file creation, update or access occurs. Such systems include large-scale carrier grade voice mail systems, Media-Messaging Service Centers (MMSCs) and SMS/SMSCs (Short Message Service Centers) servers. Media servers such as large scale voice mail and UMS servers are required to stream hundreds of voice or video streams concurrently to hundreds of users in near real-time conditions. These types of applications are particularly susceptible to file fragmentation; access delays during playback of a voice (e.g. voice mail) or video file, due to multiple fragmentation in the media file, can lead to playback interruption or distortion. As fragmentation increases over time, service capacity of these systems degrades because of increased CPU and I/O overhead resulting from fragmentation induced disk thrashing.

Personally, on my humble desktop system, I haven't noticed 'subpar performance'.
If I was maintaining a server farm, I would definitely be concerned.

Lashiec · « **Reply #68 on:** April 28, 2008, 10:48 PM »

The fragmentation situation with ext3 is more or less the same as with NTFS, it does not hurt to defrag the drive once in a while, but don't expect any marvels, as long as you have enough free space, you'll get good performance. I defragged my drives for the first time after almost a year since I bought the computer, and didn't notice much improvement, with FAT32 it was a far different situation.

Of course, like the article mentions, servers do benefit from it, though some people claim this is snake oil as well. Then again those are the same that say that defragging is actually bad for your drives, because it wears them, with the head relocating blocks all over the platters, which is more stressful than the drive head reading scattered blocks here and there. A huge flame war usually ensues afterwards.

I think we're going increasingly offtopic

zridling · « **Reply #69 on:** April 29, 2008, 03:36 PM »

Quote

MrCrispy: Microsoft is not responsible for making sure your hardware works, although as a customer it'd be nice! They try very hard to test and certify all kinds of hardware, beyond that what can they do?

Excellent point. What say we give GNU/Linux the same benefit of the doubt, since this has always been a hit against its adoption.

Quote

MrCrispy: The lack of adoption in the enterprise is I'm sure a big concern to the executives.

Vista just arrived about a year late. By late 2006, companies knew that 2007 would likely not bring better profits, and as we know, IT is never a priority. For the majority, they had upgraded and spent their money on XP and Office 2003, and for their needs, they were satisfied. Nothing wrong with a happy customer. I think Win7 will be a big hit in the enterprise sector by 2011 because that's the far side of their software half-life.

Quote

MrCrispy: Microsoft didn't make a big deal of Vista's rollout ??!!

I meant "compared to Windows 95." I should have stated that. I may be wrong, but I think SP1 takes Vista to an XP-SP2 level of solid performance and security tweaks, and when we look back at Vista-SP1 in 3-5 years, it will be seen as pretty solid.

Quote

MrCrispy: WHS is not a server product by any means so don't hold it to the same standards. And it does far more than Linux+Samba.

Fair enough. Distinction noted.

Quote

MrCrispy: I don't like the trend that all software is moving towards a license+activation model rather than me owning it.... Modern computing is complex, but at least with Windows, it's the devil I know.

You're right: Microsoft has long had a subscription-type licensing model for business clients, and I hope they don't apply it to home users. If I want to use XP until 2010 or Vista until 2015, I should be allowed to do so (without support, of course).

And yes, modern computing is complex. Can you imagine if you introduced a computer to a 30-year old today? Wait, it's not 1990. Kids grow up as familiar with the computer as I was with the telephone in my youth (1960s-70s). So maybe not. This is why I want programmers to think about design and UI first, and then go write their program around it, rather than the other way around, which results in a lot of fugliness.

Thanks.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #70 on:** April 29, 2008, 05:21 PM »

Quote from: zridling on April 29, 2008, 03:36 PM

Quote
MrCrispy: I don't like the trend that all software is moving towards a license+activation model rather than me owning it.... Modern computing is complex, but at least with Windows, it's the devil I know.
You're right: Microsoft has long had a subscription-type licensing model for business clients, and I hope they don't apply it to home users. If I want to use XP until 2010 or Vista until 2015, I should be allowed to do so (without support, of course).

And there's the rub. If MS do go down a subscription route they will HAVE to provide support to subscribers otherwise they will find subscriptions cancelled. Under current models OEM users don't get support full stop and even full price purchasers get precious little support even when the problems are clearly bugs that MS haven't fixed.

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #71 on:** May 09, 2008, 02:54 AM »

I was able to get Compiz up and running on Xubuntu 8.04 today (have to start it twice, but its worth it). In a word, it is astonishing. I am clicking options on and off and dragging my slow-mo wobbling windows through a cover-flow style alt-tab interface with reflections and shadows following along. I haven't had this much fun with an OS in a while

I think I'll be using Xubuntu a little more than Vista now

Josh · « **Reply #72 on:** June 13, 2008, 01:20 PM »

So, does anyone have any new input on this product? Does it run well on many distros?

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #73 on:** June 13, 2008, 09:32 PM »

It runs great on mine, with closed-source official ATI drivers. Only problem is I have to run it manually at every boot via a command, but I could just add it to my Autostart list and let the computer do the work.

Works fine on Xubuntu with the proper setup - 5/5

LordDaMan · « **Reply #74 on:** June 16, 2008, 05:27 PM »

Quote from: Lashiec on April 24, 2008, 12:19 AM

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

Look at any aero glass window. You'll see it's translucent, not transparent. That's a pixel shader in action right there.

I really believe the directx9 class card was more a requirement for the other parts of vista. If you have a directx9 class card, then you have full WPF acceleration. If you have a directx9 class card, you can accelerate movie playback. i think those had more to do with the requirements then a pixel shader used on each window