PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave and Windows Vista



windbane
05-22-2006, 08:48 PM
Will LW be compatible with the Windows Vista Aero 3D theme or will users have to use the basic 2d windows theme in Vista?

Captain Obvious
05-23-2006, 07:10 PM
If I ever run a 3D app in Vista, the first thing I'll do is switch to the plain UI. I like to save my VRAM for my 3D app, thank-you-very-much. ;)

ShawnStovall
05-23-2006, 07:18 PM
If I ever run a 3D app in Vista, the first thing I'll do is switch to the plain UI. I like to save my VRAM for my 3D app, thank-you-very-much. ;)

:agree:

zapper1998
05-23-2006, 07:22 PM
:agree: :agree:

iconoclasty
05-24-2006, 06:59 AM
:agree: :agree: :agree:
It looks pretty and all, but do we need to devote more system recources to a (surely) less stable OS? Count me out.

Ivan D. Young
05-24-2006, 09:50 PM
Don't be too quick to not want the Fancy interface just yet. vista at somepoint is suppose to be able to view 3d objects in a viewer just like images and be able to open .U3D objects. This could make business of interoperability much easier. or not, it is Microsoft. We will have to wait and see.

Captain Obvious
05-26-2006, 06:29 AM
Don't be too quick to not want the Fancy interface just yet. vista at somepoint is suppose to be able to view 3d objects in a viewer just like images and be able to open .U3D objects. This could make business of interoperability much easier. or not, it is Microsoft. We will have to wait and see.
Pardon my asking, but why is opening U3D in a built-in app in Windows important?

Edit: And what does it have to do with the 3D user interface?

JML
05-26-2006, 07:28 AM
Pardon my asking, but why is opening U3D in a built-in app in Windows important?

Edit: And what does it have to do with the 3D user interface?


I'm sure (I hope) that they will support more 3d file format.
just like you can view thumbnails of jpeg,tif,psd,etc...
I hope we will be able to view lwo objects and other 3d file format, not just u3d.
and if they don't support other 3d file format, somebody will add it anyway for free.

Captain Obvious
05-26-2006, 07:37 PM
You mean thumbnails in Explorer, like with images?

Yeah, generating dozens of thumbnails of objects consisting of hundreds of thousands of polys will work really well. Especially when you have to render all those millions of polygons AND the entire user interface on the video card. Got less than half a gig of VRAM? Prepare to buy a better card!

But still, what does this have to do with the GPU-accelerated GUI in Vista? Previewing 3D models would be just as possible in the old "2D" GUI.

JML
05-26-2006, 08:42 PM
there are some programs that already preview 3d file format,
of course on some big objects, it take longer to make the preview, but it works. and it's very useful.
they could do it as thumbnails, filmstrip,etc..
having it inside the os itself would be great because it would be
faster than having another application doing it, also faster because it would be in the core of the OS.

I will definitely use the Aero, unless it really kills performance.
until Vista comes out, nobody knows how fast/slow it will be with 3d apps.

JML
05-26-2006, 08:47 PM
and the same thing goes for osx,
osx is slower than os9 (UI),
does that mean pros are still using os9 because the UI is faster ?


anyway people will have the choice, if they want to quick winNT look
or the nice areo look.
choose what you want, and I will choose what I want.

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 10:16 AM
having it inside the os itself would be great because it would be
faster than having another application doing it, also faster because it would be in the core of the OS.
This is a common misconception. Having something wired into the core of the OS does not automatically make it faster. And I still don't understand what it has to do with Glass/Aero/whatever. Having previews generated of 3D object files is not related to having the entire GUI drawn on the GPU.





and the same thing goes for osx,
osx is slower than os9 (UI),
does that mean pros are still using os9 because the UI is faster ?
It depends on how you measure. 9's GUI is faster because it does less work. Window resizing, for example, is often not live in 9, and even when it's live, the content does not automatically resize with the window. It doesn't redo the layout until you drop it. In X, on the other hand, the content is redrawn and re-layed out several times per second. It makes the window resizing more choppy, of course, but it also means you don't have to stop pressing the mouse button to see how the new content layout.

So the disadvantage is that it's slower, but the advantage is that it lets you "work" faster. When Mac OS X was new, hardware was really too slow for this to be useful, but 10.4 is a lot faster than 10.0, and a Core Duo iMac is a lot faster than a 500MHz G4...

tischbein3
05-27-2006, 10:24 AM
If I ever run a 3D app in Vista, the first thing I'll do is switch to the plain UI. I like to save my VRAM for my 3D app, thank-you-very-much. ;)
:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:

JML
05-27-2006, 10:36 AM
So the disadvantage is that it's slower, but the advantage is that it lets you "work" faster. When Mac OS X was new, hardware was really too slow for this to be useful, but 10.4 is a lot faster than 10.0, and a Core Duo iMac is a lot faster than a 500MHz G4...

sigh, and the same thing goes for the pc plateform, mac/pc all computer become faster and faster which let OS become more powerful and do more stuff.
(XP on a P3 350 mhz would be a bad idea)

the same way you think 'the' window resizing is worth the performance loss,
what makes you think aero won't be worth some performance loss ?


why do you keep bitching about that os anyway, you did not try it yet and you probably won't even install it.

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 11:10 AM
sigh, and the same thing goes for the pc plateform, mac/pc all computer become faster and faster which let OS become more powerful and do more stuff.
(XP on a P3 350 mhz would be a bad idea)
I was just answering your question regarding OS X/OS 9. It really has little to do with the debate at hand.




the same way you think 'the' window resizing is worth the performance loss,
what makes you think aero won't be worth some performance loss ?
Completely live window resizing has a number of real workflow advantages. What real advantages does the new Vista GUI offer? Having transparent windows isn't a real advantage, in my opinion.

JML
05-27-2006, 11:30 AM
it seems that not everybody will have aero.
aero will only come in 4 of the 6 version of vista. (see below)

from pcworld,
"The much vaunted Aero interface, with its semi-transparent frames and glistening progress bars, will only appear on PCs with sufficiently robust hardware that run either one of the two corporate-focused versions--Vista Business and Vista Enterprise--or one of the top-of-the-line consumer-oriented Vista Home Premium and Vista Home Ultimate. Microsoft also says that Aero will be more reliable than XP's user interface."

Lord Snarebotto
05-27-2006, 07:29 PM
I'm finding this all rather amusing, because I can do most of that right now using WindowBlinds on XP.

Transparent windows can be advantageous, it depends upon how many tasks you do at once, how many monitors you have, etc.

Lightwolf
05-27-2006, 07:34 PM
What real advantages does the new Vista GUI offer? Having transparent windows isn't a real advantage, in my opinion.
No, it isn't. But besides the graphical glitz there seem to be some nice workflow improvements as well (accessing stuff, explorer, etc...). But who knows, those might still be present if you turn of the glitz (would be nice).

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
05-28-2006, 03:04 AM
I'm finding this all rather amusing, because I can do most of that right now using WindowBlinds on XP.
Of course, but with a performance hit. Doing the compositing on the GPU has a number of advantages, as proven by OS X's Quartz Extreme.




Transparent windows can be advantageous, it depends upon how many tasks you do at once, how many monitors you have, etc.
Sure, there are some advantages with it. For example, I usually have my terminal windows semi-transparent. However, I fail to see how having transparent window bars is advantageous.

Lord Snarebotto
05-28-2006, 11:04 AM
Of course, but with a performance hit. Doing the compositing on the GPU has a number of advantages, as proven by OS X's Quartz Extreme.


Actually, WindowBlinds 5 does use the GPU, and the transparent window technology used in Vista is the same technology, written by the same guys. They are, in fact, bragging about it (and rightly so). There is no significant performance hit from using these features.

To wit: My main thrust is musical. Pro audio is the most demanding real-time application I can think of. If things aren't working fast enough, your audio starts clicking and popping or simply freezes.

I can run WindowBlinds while using my DAW and I see no performance hit as a result.

:cool:

Lightwolf
05-28-2006, 11:11 AM
I can run WindowBlinds while using my DAW and I see no performance hit as a result.

Yeah, but unlike audio apps, 3D apps do tend to use the GPU as well, as do most video apps nowadays (which are even more taxing to the system).

So it might now slow down your CPU... but your GPU.

Cheers,
Mike

Lord Snarebotto
05-28-2006, 12:26 PM
So it might now slow down your CPU... but your GPU.

Cheers,
Mike


Very true. In the end, I don't use WB all that much anyway, as it's really just eye candy.

oDDity
05-28-2006, 01:16 PM
Yup. tried a few leet looking windowblind skins for a few weeks once, soon got bored with them, and I always, and have always used good old windows classic. Zero frills.
I'm sure I'll do exactly the same in Vista.

Heh, it would be very ironic if you had to install an app like windowblinds in Vista, just to get back the plain old windows classic look.

peter66
05-29-2006, 03:27 AM
XP on a P3 350 mhz would be a bad idea
TAKE THAT BACK! I have XP on a Celeron400 and it's... running. Maybe I should upgrade it to Vista?

JML
05-29-2006, 08:56 AM
TAKE THAT BACK! I have XP on a Celeron400 and it's... running. Maybe I should upgrade it to Vista?

that's good to hear, I have win98 on my old celeron333, never thought it could handle xp.
I guess I'm spoiled with todays Ghzs computers :)

stevecullum
05-29-2006, 05:41 PM
IMO there is no point in upgrading to a new OS unless you have to. When XP first came out, it had its problems and some co's are still using good ol' 2000.

From what I've heard about Vista, its going to be a draw on system/GPU resources and if everyone is saying they will run in classic mode, whats the point in upgrading in the first place?

tischbein3
05-29-2006, 05:48 PM
From what I've heard about Vista, its going to be a draw on system/GPU resources and if everyone is saying they will run in classic mode, whats the point in upgrading in the first place?

For example: try to run premiere elements on win2k...
:D

I don't have any illusions that very soon xp will get very soon "to old" to
support certain applications.

same game we had with previous versions....

stevecullum
05-29-2006, 06:05 PM
If that was the situation, then my first sentence applies - but until that time, I'll hold on, by which time M$ might have fixed the leaks and cracks. (Although they are still doing that with XP, judging by the number of security patches that are installed on my computer:D )

tischbein3
05-29-2006, 06:16 PM
(Although they are still doing that with XP, judging by the number of security patches that are installed on my computer:D )

my recomendation: win98... not safer,
but much too old for most of the exploits / viruses etc.... :D

nlightuk
05-30-2006, 06:32 AM
I personally think that MS will have to make Vista jaw-droppingly impressive to drag me away from making Directory Opus (http://www.gpsoft.com.au) the very first thing that I install on a Windows Box (after windows itself, of course!)

I actually find using a windows box without DOpus utterly frustrating now...can't recommend it highly enough. Those who come from an Amiga platform may remember it from way back, and it pretty much rocked then too :rock:

Lightwolf
05-30-2006, 06:38 AM
I actually find using a windows box without DOpus utterly frustrating now...can't recommend it highly enough. Those who come from an Amiga platform may remember it from way back, and it pretty much rocked then too :rock:
Hehe, I remember it ... and considered it clutter then as well ;)

Then again, I've always loved the CLI, so it surely is one of those YMMV things :D

Cheers,
Mike

lwaddict
05-30-2006, 08:17 AM
Don't be too quick to not want the Fancy interface just yet. vista at somepoint is suppose to be able to view 3d objects in a viewer just like images and be able to open .U3D objects. This could make business of interoperability much easier. or not, it is Microsoft. We will have to wait and see.

Yo Ivan...
you don't have to run all the fancy looking interfaces to get the previews to work. Just like XP with it's cute round ballon buttons and whatnot, it'll still do still shot previews even if you cut it back to the look of old Win2k.

And uh, the prevew utilities have been around for awhile.
They load into your browser for quick previews of your 3d objects...
"Whip" is one, but there are about ten others I just can't think of right now...
it's too early for this much thinking.

JML
05-30-2006, 07:28 PM
(Although they are still doing that with XP, judging by the number of security patches that are installed on my computer:D )

I think that will still happens in vista and future windows versions.
if it's popular enough, no matter how secure it is, people will find a way to break in.

just my thoughts..


all this security in internet explorer is starting to annoy me, every time I download something it asks me do I want to execute that script,etc..
I could turn it off but sometimes it does help..

JML
05-30-2006, 07:35 PM
Yo Ivan...
you don't have to run all the fancy looking interfaces to get the previews to work. Just like XP with it's cute round ballon buttons and whatnot, it'll still do still shot previews even if you cut it back to the look of old Win2k.

people have different taste, so it's good that you will be able to
turn it On or Off .

Red_Oddity
05-31-2006, 02:09 AM
all this security in internet explorer is starting to annoy me, every time I download something it asks me do I want to execute that script,etc..
I could turn it off but sometimes it does help..

That's why we run Firefox, with the Adblock and NoScript extensions, and offcourse, turning on cookies only for sites you trust and visit often helps aswell.
(Also, when running NoScript, it becomes obvious how Google is becoming the 'Big Brother' of the internet, so many sites run Google-Analytics and other marketing scripts)

Now, if only InternetExplorer got removed from the Windows core, i'd be a happy camper (that must be the biggest security hole ever, and a bad idea, as i like to connect to computer through the adress bar by typing the respective computers UNC name, one little typo, and vooom, your off to some MSN or other friggin search site)