Home » News » Software News » Vista SP2 In April? Windows 7 Accelerated CPU Graphics? » Comments

Comments for Vista SP2 In April? Windows 7 Accelerated CPU Graphics?

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Steve

9:13 AM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Steve. Show Details Hide Details

As long as SP2 fixes the problem with the way Vista handles data I'll be happy. I defragged my new laptop at the weekend and it took over 6 hours! It would have taken around 10-15 mins under XP. Also copying data to and from Vista machines is a pain and deleting large volumes is even more time consuming. How on earth did this happen? :-\

Score:

Name withheld

Alexa08

10:08 AM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Alexa08. Show Details Hide Details

CPU accelerated graphics has got to be the most boring innovation for a long time. I can't wait for GPU accelerated programs! Where are they?

Score:

Name withheld

Beaky69

10:29 AM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Beaky69. Show Details Hide Details

...Or how about a fast, stable, small-footprint operating system too...oh hang on, they've already got XP!

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

10:48 AM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

@steve, Also copying data to and from Vista machines is a pain and deleting large volumes is even more time consuming. How on earth did this happen? :-\

One word, DRM. :) I've the same problem, copying data onto even a USB stick and gets stupid rates. grrrr. Come on M$ copying/deleting/moving files is meant to be one of the main areas of the OS. And talking about defrag, can't they sort out NTFS to look after itself?, a very low priority thread keeping the file system in prime condition is'nt that much to ask, and not these stupid scheduled defrags either, that decide to kick in while playing CS. :)

Score:

Name withheld

Steve

11:51 AM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Steve. Show Details Hide Details

Wasn't Vista meant to ship with a new file system? I'm sure it got canned.

But copying and moving data in Vista absolutely ridiculous.

Score:

Name withheld

life

12:55 PM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore life. Show Details Hide Details

Offloading graphics to the CPU? That's software graphics acceleration - what a brilliant and unique innovation!

Oh wait, it's 2008, not 1988.

I read a benchmark figure about WARP the other day, and DX10 rendering on a high end Core 2 Quad was able to push about 7fps on Crysis at only 800x600... sure, no sane man is going to be running Crysis via software rendering, but it shows just how slow and inefficient this concept is in comparison to utilising even a low-mid range contemporary GPU.

GPUs are seriously cheap/powerful these days, even the integrated laptop chipsets are decent enough, it makes absolutely no sense to push everything onto the CPU because it'll just max out your CPU cycles rendering objects that are far more trivial for specialised hardware, the GPU, to manage.

To me, this is just another sign of the Wintel monopoly rearing its head. Intel have a bug up their collective exhaust pipes about having their CPUs eat up the GPU market (gee, I wonder why...), but right now with the technology we have, there are very few benefits for the end user in this approach, and a lot of drawbacks. It's a step backwards if anything.

@ Steve - yes WinFS, it was one of the few really interesting features announced during the early Longhorn development days, and it got dropped pretty fast when they realised that it would actually involve some serious work. There's still no mention of it appearing for Windows 7 as far as I'm awre either. It's a real shame because NTFS is, quite frankly, complete pants.

Score:

Name withheld

Xiphias

2:02 PM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Xiphias. Show Details Hide Details

I can't say I've noticed any problems with file transfer rates, I don't transfer a lot of data but vista's certainly perfectly capable of maxing out my USB drive's transfer rate.

@life: Eh? Intel are going to be the ones most threatened by this as they have the biggest share of the integrated graphics market, right now they're selling both the CPU and GPU for a system, microsoft could be removing the need for those intel GPUs.

This development is one where the devil is in the details. We may find out that the CPU is only faster than the GPU for older GPUs, in which case it's not a threat to anyone and assuming the CPU requirements are fairly low will help more people run Seven. This is supported by the fact that the graphics tested must have been an X3100 or even GMA950 since the X4500 will get more than that in crysis. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2327142,00.asp

Score:

Name withheld

Greg17b

5:43 PM on 2 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Greg17b. Show Details Hide Details

WinFS is not a file system, but a means of accessing the data through libraries. It was however indeed dropped for Vista, but IS in 7 (it is in the betas now).

Score:

Name withheld

life

7:59 AM on 3 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore life. Show Details Hide Details

@ Xiphias - Look over Intel's horizon with products such as Larrabee and Ibex Peak (and their prior purchase of Havoc), they are attempting to shift more graphics processing tasks away from full blown nVidia/AMD style GPU card implementations and closer to their core (pun definitely intended) market, i.e. the CPU. If you have been along to any of their conferences in the last couple of years, you can see exactly where their focus is here.

Yes, Intel currently sell IGPs like the GMA family that crop up on every other laptop and budget mobo, but this is not their bread and butter and they do not compete with nVidia/AMD in the mid-higher end of the spectrum. It's certainly an important area for them, but it is all in support of their processor business rather than in competetion with it.

More than just Intel, zoom out a tad and take a peek at the wider industry. nVidia are moving along quickly with CUDA and PhysX, and AMD/ATI are peddling (Fire)Stream... these companies are intentionally bringing a lot more emphasis onto the GPU at the expense of the CPU. This development here seems very much like a geared response to attempt to prevent this potential evolution of the GPU from taking on tasks (and thus, product value) that have traditionally been within the processor domain.

I think AMD smelled this coming some time ago, or at least saw the potential was there, and is no doubt why they felt the need to take the risk on the ATI acquisition. Arguably, that still has yet to produce the results they were looking for, but you have to wonder what position they would be in for this impending future if they had stayed outside of the graphics arena.

As for Microsoft and Intel, they historically have a very clear symbiotic relationship, though this will always be superficially played down due to their phobia of (more!) anti-trust lawyers hounding them. Both are certainly individual companies, but, particularly where MSFT is concerned - it's a strong case of "better the devil you know".

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.