but I have a fairly modest PC and I couldn't tell you the last time I said "Man, I wish I could render these 64 JPEGs in 4 seconds instead of this lousy 7." As far as I'm concerned, text and image rendering hasn't noticeably changed in 10+ years. But, I suppose you have to have something to make up for alienating your userbase with an interface designed for a machine it's not running.

Over the years I've knocked Microsoft quite a bit. But I have to say that after 2 years of using Windows 7 I am still happily pleased. I've had one crash with blue screen of death. And very few problems outside of trying to run iTunes.

So let's be a bit fair. Heck, Windows 7 crashed less than my OS X experience of the same amount of time. Not saying it's perfect. But on decent hardware with good drivers, it's pretty darn good. And a lot better than anything Microsoft did in the past.

In Gnome,(Meacity) and other xwindow managers use of composite extentions and other stuff has been long and painful, full of fuck ups.
Something tells me pain for windows users has just began!

We only use money because, although it sucks unbelievably badly at helping us distribute scarce resources, it does so better than anything else we've been able to come up with.

Jesus, these initial comments bore the hell out of me.

Here's the way I see it: Microsoft has finally gotten off their asses and recognized that efficiency really does matter when dealing with power efficient mobile GPU's. Given that Metro's ethos is stark simplicity, it'll be entertaining to watch how developers exploit the new capabilities. If the result is silky smooth navigation in nearly all apps, that'll be a big win. If the result is a rebirth of gradients, glows, glass, and other crap, I'll be pretty disappointed.

Hats off to Microsoft for focusing not just on Metro speed, but speed for all apps.

You do realize that the less time the CPU or GPU has to spend doing something the more time it can spend idling, thereby consuming less power and producing less heat, so even if the end-result is not visible to the eye it is still a beneficial effect nevertheless. Especially on mobile devices any improvements to battery-life directly translate to end-user satisfaction and better useability.

Do you understand what happens when you give applications direct access to the hardware? The #1 source of crashes on the NT line has always been video card issues. Windows 8 will have the same problem. These idiotic moves will destabilize the OS until they can patch it in Windows 8 SP3.

And why do you give a shit about hardware acceleration on a desktop computer in business? Do your Office fonts not load up fast enough? Is that 336% faster going to help you? From my experience, the only thing that matters for speed in business settings is antiquated hardware, database settings, and network speeds.

Are you trying to imply rendering things in less time than before and more efficiently with a GPU produces more heat than the previous method of using more time to render the same thing less efficiently on the CPU? You might wish to rethink that.

Suppose you've just downloaded a couple of hundred images from your camera-- Wouldn't it be nice if you could quickly scroll through the images and decide which ones are worth keeping, and which are not? Or perhaps you've photographed some library books, page by page, and it occurs to you that one particular article is more immediately useful, and you don't remember if that's IMG_209--IMG_215, or IMG312-IMG_334. If Windows renders the images quickly enough, it's very simple to flip through the images. If not, you'll be waiting for the images to load.

Maybe it's a pdf from archive.org that needs thumbing through.

Those areas aren't really where hardware acceleration is important. We've got overpowered CPUs with cores just waiting for jobs.

Why would I care if text renders in 100 microseconds or 300? There has always been some 2D acceleration for text and scrolling and such. Not everything has to be a video game with graphical effects.

As for DirectX 11.1, just fuck off. Very few games even bother to overlay a few DirectX 10 or 11 effects for those who qualify. No, they use DirectX 9, because Microsoft has alienated previous versions of Windows (and the consoles use DX9 too of course)

A boring, crippled user interface with a seriously insulting attempt to lock people into their application store. THAT is what I see in WIndows 8. I very much despise it and I will actively fight against it.

Enlighten us, what areas are more important then?

You may not care, but anyone with a mobile device with a battery will; the less time the machine spends active the more time it can spend in idle which quite obviously results in less heat and power consumption.

I was a Linux guy for many years, ran RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian... all on servers and all on the desktop. I am more satisfied with Windows 7 than I was any of those OS's. They were good, and when I was in the Linux server business, they were vital for remaining integrated with my servers. But anymore, Windows 7 has better apps available (OMG you have to PAY for them?! OMG!! yes who cares they're good) and is plenty stable. I no longer have to reboot every day. I reboot when its needed for an update or something else, but not because "windows is acting weird, I had better reboot."

The truth of the matter is that I am impressed with MS's bounce back from Vista, moving forward with a nice stable OS that is easy to use and easy to work on, too. I look forward to Windows 8, although I'm nervous about the huge paradigm shift and what it'll do for computing at large. I've had the start menu for almost 20 years, I'm kind of used to it. But, times change and we've got to change with them, like it or not. The hardware acceleration is about time, IMHO. They've apparently streamlined it enough that they can start optimizing for every day tasks. I wish them the best, because frankly, like it or not, the Desktop OS's run throughout the world, are Windows based. Anyone who is still waiting for the "year of the Linux Desktop" will be waiting for a long time.

you mean hardware has outpaced software, right? this is true, though instead of providing unique, useful and NEW functionality in a sane footprint, today's software is bloated up with a bunch of 'experience' aesthetics and rearrangements that, in many cases, hinder workflow for the sake of looks. proper software is functional first, intuitive next, and pretty last.

Dude, get out. This is 2012. All the intelligent commenters have fucked off already. If you ever find one, please be a sport and send up a flare so I can find them too.

I bet most of the people still here weren't even born when MS-bashing was still cool.

fuck animations.. they're just a song and dance the user has to wait for EVERY time he clicks something. that metro menu is an abomination. all that work just to start an application?

Try to find a SINGLE modern GPU that cannot e.g. accelerate Direct2D or DirectWrite. Those have been around for atleast a decade now. So the answer to your question is quite obviously "yes." The functionality that relies on DX11.1 won't be accelerated for now, but it won't take long before the next-generation Intel and AMD - processors will ship with DX11.1 - compatible integrated GPUs at which point even DX11.1 - based acceleration will matter.

Why do you assume you need a high-end GPU for this?

I could also suggest computer graphics theory courses to you.

Usually doing something faster DOES indeed mean it being over in less time. I have no idea what other kinds of "faster" you know of.

You're complaining about performance improvements. That's like complaining about your new car going faster and using less gas than the previous one.

Then you should have complained about that, but no, you complain about increased performance.

There, FTFY.

Compiz handles rendering the whole window AFTER the window's contents has already been rendered by other subsystems. Compiz has nothing to do with the rendering of the elements inside the window itself, like e.g. in GTK+ - applications GTK+ handles the rendering of the contents. The article in question here, however, talks about rendering those contents and it has nothing to do with compositing, ergo your comparison with compositing managers is pointless.

Use an 10 years old computer with todays web-browser, and you will notice HOW SLOW the rendering is. The point is: software gets slower but the computers get faster a bit more: visual apps like a browser get a bit faster, but essentially bloated software is increasing and more ineffecient. My suspicion, to be honest, is the use of object oriented programming which abstracts too much and leads to inefficient use of resources (memory and cpu cycles), and because everything became so fast, inefficiency has gone under the carpet.

I welcome increase of decoding speed of images, if it's due more efficient use of hardware or new algorithms or using existing hardware more efficient (multi-core decoding the same JPEG portion-wise) etc.

In a corporate environment? HELLO?! If your shop is so small, that you actually can look at the desktop environment without your networking, then it's not really a corporate environment.

Yeah, your point may be factual and correct but in the real world, it's mighty useless...

Crap. Window is the best because Microsoft offer a complete suite of products catered to integrating all the common back office functions. Directory, file, print, email, proxy, database, web and Office (and a whole bunch of other stuff too long to list here) all integrates seamlessly out of the box. I've seen plenty of MS haters attempt to replicate this functionality with a bunch of bespoke home brew 'free' solutions that are undocumented, unreliable and impossible for another employee to figure out what is going on.

For me it's -

Windows for games
Linux for getting stuff done

Wow, this is probably the first honest and thoughtful yet believable post I've seen on the tubes actually giving win7 the praise it deserves. I also was running xp at home and linux at work until win7 came out, and now I have it in both places. Just can't justify the "hassle" of setting up and configuring linux - which always takes a lot of time for *me* (maybe not a more leet haxxor) because win7 really does just work in a very non-annoying fashion.

I use Linux (fedora/ubuntu), OS X (personal rMBP), and Windows (7 64bit ultimate at home, 32bit professional at work).

I have always wanted to "hate" windows, and "love" Linux, and in the past I have wanted to "love" mac os too.

in the past I have had plenty of reasons to hate windows, but by XP sp3, it was less, thoguh now that I am on 7, i actually HATE xp.

I was probably one of the few people that didn't hate Vista. Maybe because i used the 64bit version, I dont know, but it was stable if not particularly spectacular. It got the job done.

Windows 7 is a phenomenon in comparison. Together with the SSD, it just worked. Being able to send movies to my TV with a right click on the file, and without installing anything. Windows 7 just works, and although i do have a dual boot Ubuntu partition on my computer, i rarely use it. My chief annoyance is its inability to read any file systems on USB Mass Storage other than FAT/FAT32, and is the real remaining evilness of MS (forcing manufacturers of devices such as cameras to support FAT and pay their "tax" to MS)

OSX, is pretty, but not necessarily better than 7. It is not more easier either (keyboard shortcuts are more extreme). OSX is just different in my books. It too has some evilness such as the restriction on supporting TRIM only on Apple approved SSDs. It also has in some ways less application support (excluding BSD)

Linux is the OS i prefer to use for development, and also servers. However, I still spend way too much time configuring it than I have time for. When I was younger, and have time, it was fun. These days, I am married, a professional, and simply don't have time.

Stop redoing the ui
Stop redoing the ui
Stop redoing the ui