M-Dollar

September 19, 2005 @ 1:29PM - posted by Ken Fisher

Pouring cold water on the Vista graphics FUD

Being hyped about something and reporting it with spirit usually makes good news, but not when reporters spin things into a ridiculous mess. Sadly, that's what has happened in the case of recent comments made by Nigel Page, a strategist with Microsoft Australia. Page pointed out the big graphical change with Windows Vista, namely the move from bitmaps to vectors. Bitmaps are digital definitions of images that are essentially like your TV: tons of little mapped dots, which from a certain perspective, come together as a picture. If you've ever zoomed in on a circle (or been too close to your TV), you've probably seen that in detail, images are not as smooth as they look at a distance. That's bitmaps for you! Vectors, on the other hand, don't use dots and maps to define an image; rather, they use mathematical expressions, which render smooth and gorgeous lines at whatever resolution.

Page, in talking about all of this, apparently said that while 128MB of video RAM would be OK, 256MB would be better, and "I expect that video card memory will go up a lot when Longhorn is released." The full quote follows:

"The GPU will need a plenty of room to operate in Vista. The more memory you put on a video card, the better, really. We want the least dumping back to main memory because that's slower than graphics. If you have 128 MB, that's good; if you have 256 MB, that's better; but I expect that video card memory will go up a lot when Longhorn is released."

This last bit has given some sites the urge to basically blow the entire thing out of proportion. Let's get the fact out on the table: the Longhorn Display Driver Model (LDDM) is a big step forward, and it's going to make a lot of people happy. The one thing it's not going to do is make people with video cards sporting 64MB of video RAM miserable. Such claims are simply out of touch with reality.

First, let's be clear: more RAM is almost always a good thing, up to a certain point. If you have a video card with 256MB, you're a lucky punk. It's hardly a requirement, though. To claim that "256 MB is a happy medium" is just ridiculous. And Page's claims that video RAM sizes will increase after the launch is like stating the obvious: most shipping RAM configurations increase every year on account market factors.

More importantly, as we've covered more than once before, the graphical experience in Vista will be tiered. Now, how many times will we hear this FUD over the next year or so? And keep in mind that big, scary vector-based display models have been on weaker hardware on OS X for a few years now.

Reader Comments

I'm pretty sure Ars target audience knows the difference between bitmap and vector graphics.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 1:53PM by Wrink
So how will this affect people running on board graphics? Since it uses system memory could they actually have a better experience than someone with an old GF2 with 32MB of video ram?
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 1:58PM by Caesar
Ian Rees: Well, the people who wrote in to me with the story didn't. I thought a little info wouldn't hurt.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:26PM by steveftoth
How many people who don't work with 'vector' graphics on a daily basis really understand what the difference is? I don't think too many.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:26PM by Muriac
I was under the impression that properly done vector graphics took less space than bitmaps on disk and in memory until they were rasterized, at which point they took the same amount.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:29PM by JohnDeHope3
Also, the Sun will rise when Vista ships. Film at '11. 2011 that is.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:32PM by shannim
Since a display (I'm thinking LCD) is comprised of discrete pixels, doesn't the gfx card have to convert the image back to a bitmap-type signal anyways? (Call me clueless)
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:32PM by JohnDeHope3
" I was under the impression that properly done vector graphics took less space than bitmaps on disk and in memory until they were rasterized, at which point they took the same amount."
I dunno. Computationaly is it more expensive to read a lot of bitmap data from disk and dump it to memory, or to read a little vector data from disk and render it to memory? Once either of those chores is done, the memory targeted will be cached. At that point it won't matter how you got there, eh? So I don't see a difference memory-consumption-wise.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:34PM by JohnDeHope3
"Since a display (I'm thinking LCD) is comprised of discrete pixels, doesn't the gfx card have to convert the image back to a bitmap-type signal anyways? (Call me clueless)"

Well yeah but if the resolution changes, it'll re-render. So instead of just blowing up a 32x32 icon to 128x128 pixels, it'll re-render at the 128x128 resolution and look hella better. So yes at the end of the day you have pixels. But you have pixels rendered at the proper resolution, not zoomed in on.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:39PM by -= A T O M O =-
None of this will matter. When the GUI of your OS (vista) looks like crap going into your 512MB GPU, it will look like crap going out.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:54PM by method|one
quote:
None of this will matter. When the GUI of your OS (vista) looks like crap going into your 512MB GPU, it will look like crap going out.

Well seeing as how we haven't even seen the final look of the Vista UI, saying it looks like crap is a bit presumptuous.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 2:54PM by 88
Wrink the person with the GF2 wont be able to use the hardware accelerated UI only DX9 hardware will be able to.

From this article there is a bit of info on how the LDDM driver works and basically if you have a GPU with a LDDM driver then you won’t have any trouble it will take care of handling the resources needed and it will be transparent to the user.

However if only a basic compatibility driver is provided then performance could suffer as it's not as efficient as the LDDM.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:02PM by JohnDeHope3
"Well seeing as how we haven't even seen the final look of the Vista UI, saying it looks like crap is a bit presumptuous."

Well all we can say for sure is that it looks like crap right now. I'm curious, Mac people, did the early OSX stuff look like crap and then turn out pretty? Or were the early OSX shots as pretty as Aqua ended up shipping?
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:07PM by jonabbey
Linux is moving to Cairo just fine without needing to bump up video card memory at all. Why is it that doing 2d vector graphics should require anything special in the video card at all, again?
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:12PM by -= A T O M O =-
NATO: It looks like crap right now. Why are they showing off their crappy interface and telling me its the way of the future? Presumptuous perhaps on my part, but I say it's well founded presumption. More RAM on your vid card won't fix bad UI.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:17PM by method|one
I'm sorry but it's pretty well known that the UI Vista is sporting right now is not final, it's just a preliminary thing.
quote:
Many of the innovative end-user features and user-interface (UI) changes for Windows Vista will not be included until the release of Windows Vista beta 2.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/VistaBeta1FS.mspx
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:18PM by Kevin Lowe
ATOMO: Perhaps you have some specific criticisms you'd like to share? More detailed than "it's crap", hopefully?
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:22PM by -= A T O M O =-
Well NATO, that sounds like an excuse for "We can't make anything look pretty, but hopefully someone (Apple?) will show us how to do it before we release the final version"
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:47PM by -= A T O M O =-
Kevin Lowe: (this isn't really the forum for this, but you asked)

• Excessive use of transparency on windows, to the point that overlapping windows create a muddy mess behind them. Just because you can use transparency (pending a capable vid card), doesn't mean it looks good.

• In the 3D business, when you can't make something pretty, you make it shiny

• Flip3D? Please, how fast are people going to turn this feature off (if you can). And they're adding a new key to the keyboard for this?

• Graphic design of the icons is appalling. Does no one at MS look at the icon-building community and borrow a few ideas?

• Interface is so cluttered with gradients and buttons and alternate ways to view things. I like options, but i think they should be a bit more organized. Don't throw the information at me. Let me decide what i want to see, when I want to see it.

• Glowing roll-overs on close and min/max buttons. Again, just because you can do it, doesn't make it pretty, and they're too small

• Supposedly the sidebar is coming back. Why? So my already cluttered desktop can collapse on its own weight?

• Did any of the MS UI designers pass a color theory test?

On a positive note, at least everything isn't name "My this" and "My that," although they'll probably bring that back...
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:52PM by ahz01
From http://OpenGL.org/ :

"Microsoft's first technical beta of Vista layers OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an an application runs using a high-performance OpenGL ICD - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. Write to your preferred software developer, hardware developer and video card manufacturer and tell them to make sure Microsoft solves this problem before release and fully supports OpenGL ICDs within Aero. Hardware and software vendors listen to developers. Don't be passive - send those emails and keep the topic in the foreground"
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 3:54PM by method|one
quote:
Well NATO, that sounds like an excuse for "We can't make anything look pretty, but hopefully someone (Apple?) will show us how to do it before we release the final version"

You seem determined to hate it. I can't tell you if it will be pretty or not, since no one has seen the final version. The sensible thing would be to wait and see, but you've made up your mind already it seems.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 4:06PM by -= A T O M O =-
I'm not determined to hate it, but I have very little faith in Microsoft's ability to deliver a pleasing and functional UI. The WindowsXP default appearance has grown on me, so I may change my tune. I just hope they have something good for us to make Vista worth the wait.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 4:22PM by DGlue
I've been harping that "It's no the final UI!" for many months now, but this video interview (http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=114694) with one of the Aero designers has me concerned, specifically that they feel they're "pretty much done" with the UI (paraphrased).

Now, if he means UI elements and design of Explorer that's ok - however there is another video with the shell team which should cover that arena.

I agree, right now it's hideous, and the defence of "It's a beta!" are growing thin. MS knows every shot of Vista will be plastered all over the web, why not spend a couple of days to just get some consistent elements and a theme that's half as good as any posted in perpetual desktop thread in the Windows software forum?

And yes, the transparency so far is ridiculous. Heck, even without windows layering it stil makes it hard to read the title on an app.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:02PM by issor
Well, hopefully they'll let the user decide. I can make my Linux box much more hideous, with transparency and sidebars in abundance, but I don't have to keep it that way. I think they're basically showing off what it CAN do, not how it has to be, but we'll see.

This reminds me of friends who say 'I have to get a good video card because I need to be able to watch DVDs and edit video on my PC' so they go out and drop $300 on a nice 3D accelerator not understanding that a $50 64 meg card would perform just as well on anything but 3D gaming.

The new version of Gnome is done with vector graphics and seems to be quicker in rendering than the previous version, on the same hardware, my integrated intel 900 series video with 8mb. Even using DirectX 9.0 features I don't see how they could manage to have problems on a 128MB card.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:11PM by Chuckstar
JohnDeHope3: Unfortunately, Apple ended up shipping almost exactly what the early Aqua screenshots looked like. Yes, its pretty, but in a lot of ways it is terrible interface design.

Regardless of my opinion of Aqua, Apple said the early screeshots were what they were going to ship ... and then that's what they shipped. Microsoft has said that the UI is not done. Maybe both have been open about their interface design process.

DGlue: I can't watch a video at work, but I'm wondering if he meant "we're done and soon we'll release the updated UI for everyone to see" or "we're done and you've pretty much seen what it looks like"?
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:14PM by method|one
Oh and for the record, I find beta 1 to be hideous as well, and I certainly hope it looks better for the final. But of course, we'll see.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:17PM by Avalon
I saw this 128MB+ "requirement" as well and I don't understand it at all (and I've read through all the WinHEC and meltdown slides). What is actually taking up that 128MB+? It sounds to me like some marketing guys at Microsoft said "Well, the cards that support shader 2.0 have 128MB of VRAM or more, so therefore Aero requires that much."
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:28PM by sdk
Disclaimer - I'm a typical programmer, meaning I don't give a crap about fit and finish (Wink) but...

Icons, colors, transparency, etc. = non-fixed themeable properties.

I could care less about how it looks now, because it's not going to look like that once I've found a third party theme I like.

I'm more interested in the interaction model - but then, I'm a Windows user, so I'm obviously not worried about color-matching my OS's UI with my favorite beret and iPod cover. Or my favorite pizza-stained ThinkGeek shirt that I wear in my Mom's basement. I'm sure there's some other stereotypes I could use here.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:41PM by SleepDirt
I'm sure Vista's theme will change but I highly doubt the basic UI elements will and that's a major problem. I get a headache trying to decode a Windows Vista mentally. Too many icons, too much clutter, too many colors, too many translucent boxes, too many ballon tips, etc. It's a mess.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 5:59PM by zee_jay
quote:
So I don't see a difference memory-consumption-wise.

With the "deluxe experience", in addition to RGB, everything on the desktop's got an Alpha value now, probably. That's 33% more VRAM needed, right there. Then, I'd tend to think more VRAM would be needed to composite lots of graphics with Alpha channels (multiple windows), as opposed to just resolving for visibility, like in the old days. I'm not an engineer though.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 7:13PM by dobrien75
What's the big deal. Obviously the beta UI is just showing off what effects are possible. I would think that the final release will be far more sensible.

I've never understood the "XP is hideous" cry. It looks fine, it's not as though you are trying to colour match it to you curtains or anything.
Posted September 19, 2005 @ 10:53PM by Nicky G
OK OK, not to start a flame war or be too trollish, but -- Mac OS X runs "OK" w/ 32MB VRAM, and even less frankly. At least for a lot of the things most people use their computers for (light web browsing, email, word processing). And every version has pretty much gotten quicker than the last, on the same old hardware. Admittedly, 10.3 to 10.4 was not really speed increase on slower Macs from what I have seen, for most tasks. But come on -- even 128 at the low end strikes me as out of touch with reality. I guess M$ can count on selling enough licenses through the big PC manufacturers to not bother doing anything that might encourage users of older PCs to upgrade...
Posted September 20, 2005 @ 12:00AM by melgross
Well, MS's lockstep with the box manufacturers is upgrade the OS upgrade the hardware. That's whay they grumble when the OS is late.

You'll find that when it finally comes out, an upgrade hardware cycle will begin again.

I don't think there's much choice. Adding major features always seems to require more hardware. If you try to keep it down, you just have to eliminate things. Despite how we complain, we all want more.I t also keeps the box people happy, they sell more stuff.
Posted September 26, 2005 @ 3:05PM by Magnus Dredd
Actually I liked how the beta version of Windows XP looked. It wasn't spectacular, but it was workable.

I absolutely hate the fischer-price "made for a 3 year old's idea of pretty" look of the default XP theme. The first thing I do to an XP install is to turn all of that crap off, and kick it back to a decent Windows 2000 look. Personalized menus suck. They confuse the hell out of the average user. If you (the developer) have so many items in a menu that they scroll off the bottom of the screen, you should be sent back to GUI-design school, cause you obviously slept in class.

My thinking is that if XP's beta looked ok (actually kinda nice), and turned out crappy, then two inferences can be drawn. 1) They figure if they make a nasty looking beta, people will be relieved when the shipping product doesn't look like crap. 2) The XP pattern will repeat, and the shipping product will be the UI equivalent of Quasimodo.
Posted September 26, 2005 @ 3:26PM by Magnus Dredd
M$ has fixed most of my major feature requirements with XP Pro. It's fairly stable, has VNC-ish service, firewall (not bad), decent networking, and better support for older apps than 2000. It doesn't require reboots for as many dumb things, and has a more service oriented setup (which is good).

There is still tons of room for improvement, and while adding some higher order features to the GUI could make it more usable, there are far too many other things that are going backwards. I probably won't be using it.

The OpenGL thing is among the biggest issues. If my OpenGL games run like shit, Microsoft can shove that OS someplace uncomfortable. I'll recommend people avoid it like the plague. One of the major reasons that M$ has so much support is that the gamer crowd has always bashed (myself previously included) those platforms with weak game support (Macs, Linux). This is because M$ supported gamers by working to make sure the platform ran games really well. This gamer for one won't take this stab in the back lightly.