Beryl on Linux Runs Cool Effects on Intel 915 - What has Microsoft Done to AERO?

[infra_red_dude]

Guys i know the technology lies the same.i think if yöü keep on creating the os and softwares For the existing hardware,what the use? Think of this,they keep building things for 4 year old system, then we would surely not have heard words like core 2,quad,etc,

The thread is about a chipset being just 1 year old and still not being able to run the specified feature.

Ok one question?
Can linux still be used by all ,just out of the box?

YES

Ok i think its not the os which pushes the limit,the real culprits are games.what say guys?

Games are the biggest culprits, Vista is only second to them

The fact that a patched Vista runs fine even on a system of 256mb RAM proves the point.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

^true patched vista works fine, And fast..
Expecting vista compatible softwares ,and may be,if any next gen softwares for vista.until then will give a try to linux.

 

[bikdel]

@ HIH.... must say uve put it really well.....
softwares are not exclusively prepared for a hardware and 100 % efficiency acnnot be possible, 100 % optimazation cannot be made... not even close to it.....


and guys wanna tell one thing.......

Its ont the END USER's HAnd to choose whatever he wants ... isnt it?
purchasing, installing and using software isnt much different that doing the same on hardware....

Not everyone has a Quad core simply because its expensive and because many including me dont need it.....
in the same way not everyone needs the god damn VISTA... there are hell lot many alternatives... linux is there for FREE and for gods's sake XP still works!!!
let me give an analogy:
im not that savvy and stupid.. i wont shell out money to buy things if i dont need it.....
i dont play latest games no i dont need latest GFX card...
and i know no-one will notice the difference between 25 fps and 250 fps in games....

So it all depends on end user's choice.........

sorry for gettin off topic but i desperately wanted to say this...


((((and @ infra red dude...

You say patched vista will run fine on 256 MB ram? i mean will it gve the performance of XP in 96/128 MB?))))

 

[Quiz_Master]

OK I was not going to post anything but so interesting discussion is going on...
I hope I will not go offtopic if I do, I am sorry for that.
The questions was :
Beryl on Linux Runs Cool Effects on Intel 915 - What has Microsoft Done to AERO?

First my Experience with both OSs (Vista and Ubunto 7.10)
My test-system :
Mobo : Gigabyte 8LD533 (Intel 845)
Ram : 512 MBs DDRI (hynix)
Proccy : 2.6 PIV
Hdd : 40 GBs PATA (Fully defragmented)

1.) Ubunto : Everything ran fine and without crashing. I was able touse it out of box... I mean just after installation.
Vista :- Installation was a little quirky. At first my system hanged. After a restart it goes smoothly. But I was not able to fully use it out of the box. I installed winamp, yahoo massanger and M$ office to make it usable. Ubunto wins.

2.) I play games rarely. Vista wins here. The 3D chess game is sure entertaining. Playing games in Ubunto isn't easy. (Finding GOOD games for Linux itself isn't easy.). Vista wins.

3.) After some tingling Vista hanged, 'restart time'. But in Ubunto I did so much tingling it never hanged. Ubunto wins.

4.) I was missing my dear old Winamp and few other softies in Ubunto... Vista was able to run Winamp and other (ofcourse) so Vista wins.

5.) A friend came and asked to make two copies of CDs. Darn! Nero 7 hanged between 20-30% in Vista (thrice ).. ghrrr.. Waste of 3 CDs. Atlast I burned the Discs using Ubunto. Ubunto wins.

6.) In my stone-age system Vista runs just like XP or more like windows 2000 with classsic skin. Ubunto runs with special effect glory. Ubunto wins the war of eye candy.

So 4 time wins for Ubunto.
I am still not saying linux is BEST. Both OSs has long way to go. Still I think for the end user Vista is not giving us what we actually want.

Operating System is not exactly about eye-candy interface its about functionality. Now I need atleast 512 MBs ram to install Vista and to run it smoothly I need atleast 1 Gig. Why? When I can still do all the stuff possible in Vista in my Linux with just 512 MBs Ram.

For a end user like me.... we don't need eye-candy we need functionality.
Both Vista and Linux is giving that functionality, BUT Linux is giving that in almost no cost and no hardware upgrade.

(Imagine you have to buy a High end PC just to run a OS, when all you wanna do is listen to songs, make presentation, watch DVD movies or write some text in Word etc. Naah... I am better off wih Linux Or XP).
_______________________________

I AM NOT A LINUX SUPPORTER.
_______________________________

 

[praka123]

I think all got the point.there is no need to upgrade to Vista becoz it is new "windows",except for gamers for DX10.Vista doesnt Justifies the h/w upgrade it needs.If eyecandy is what ur upon with older h/w,Linux distributions have it easy.Distributions means it bundles almost all needed softwares except proprietary plugins for multimedia which distros cant legally carry with it.
exceptions are linux-mint or freespire or some custom made distros.OSS gives lotta options!

 

[FilledVoid]

Just to add my 2 cents to the topics. I doubt how it will add any more value to it as pretty much everything needed to be said has already been said. But here goes anyway .

Vista as far as i know is a os of the future just like xp when it came years back

When XP came out I recall it being a disaster. In my opinion Vista will pretty much cause problems for alot of folks till they install whatever SP comes out. yes I know XP is good and all but it was XP that truely made it worth its value if I recall correct.

Dude,You cant just dump a system that does the job reasonbly well just cos M$ decides to launch a new OS.

Sure you can, you just need to have the "I'm filthy rich syndrome" . But in a more vast view I think that the cost definitely outweighs its benefits. Considering an average persons income I definitely would keep away from Vista , XP or whatever (provided I dont sort to piracy)

Oh ... wait before anyone says this about Aero vs Beryl yadda yadda yadda ..... here goes.

I upgraded my system for Vista and hopefully Aero. Installed it and it ended up crashing frequently on a brand new copy of Vista which my Uncle bought from US. After spending that much money I was so angry that i started finding Open Source alternatives, and I did. Prakash sent me a copy of Ubuntu AMD64 . I saw and used some of the Eye candy in Vista and may I say Vista doesnt even come anywhere close to what Im having on Ubuntu especially when what the both can do on "old hardware".

For games , Ill give Vista a point there. There are much more games for Vista then there is for Linux at the moment. Although Cedega, Wine, etc provide a solution to some of the games and stuff .

My conclusion. If you want to have an inexpensive system that suits your needs and has eye candy on old hardware and you don't want to resort to piracy. On the other hand if you are one of those fortunate few who have one of the best graphic cards and configurations on the block and enjoy games. Definitely Vista.

 

[infra_red_dude]

My conclusion: Get a Linux OS Box, use Compiz Fusion for all eyecandy AND get a gaming console (Xbox360 is my fav. rite now! ). The Windows gaming PC will not last that long. There's a discussion going on in one of the other forums regarding this.

ATM the only reason one may need Windows is for games and to run some legacy windows apps. I'm sure cedega/wine will soon give 99.99% compatibility (hope it does). In that case you'll never need a windows box. MS needs to worry a lot about this now. Their own product (XBox) is a threat to Windows now (may not be significant but the effect will soon be realised in a couple of years).

I know sooooooo many people who've shifted to Linux for their daily work. It provides then almost everything including eyecandy with Compiz. They've bought gaming consoles instead of upgrading for Vista. They are as happy as they can be

 

[praka123]

^m not a gamer.but gaming freaks get a console for the price of visita afterall Xbox nd visita ultimate costs almost the same

 

[bikdel]

^^^ point to be noted

 

[ray|raven]

My conclusion: Get a Linux OS Box, use Compiz Fusion for all eyecandy AND get a gaming console (Xbox360 is my fav. rite now! ). The Windows gaming PC will not last that long. There's a discussion going on in one of the other forums regarding this.

Thats the best thing to do AFAIK.
You can spend the money for upgrades on games then.

ATM the only reason one may need Windows is for games and to run some legacy windows apps. I'm sure cedega/wine will soon give 99.99% compatibility (hope it does).

I dont know,might not happen,
both wine/cedega will keep evolving but so will windows(DirectX),
so AFAIK there will be that certain gap of features between them.
The other way IMO is that game developers should create openGL versions,
so linux users can play the game.
Some of the recent games do have an option of openGL.
WoW has this and is supposed to run decently on Wine/Cedega.

Regards,
ray

 

[infra_red_dude]

I dont know,might not happen,
both wine/cedega will keep evolving but so will windows(DirectX),
so AFAIK there will be that certain gap of features between them.
The other way IMO is that game developers should create openGL versions,
so linux users can play the game.
Some of the recent games do have an option of openGL.
WoW has this and is supposed to run decently on Wine/Cedega.

Regards,
ray

I'm not talking about games here. All the gaming requirements are handled by the gaming console. I'm talking about application software which are exclusive to windows.

 

[mediator]

I kinda disagree here. I have seen linux games like tremulous and they have very nice graphics like unreal tournament etc. But saying that if u need to play games then use gaming console is like saying if u wanna listen to music then get a cd player or if u wanna watch a movie then get a DVD/VCD player.

Linux does need rise in the gaming world n I guess it only needs developers to come forward now for this field! But yes I do agree that buying a console is better than spending huge sums on a crappy OS known for testing its users.

 

[bikdel]

^^^ well i kinda agree with you

 

[infra_red_dude]

Thing is, whether Linux has games in future or not is not the point. Even if Linux goes the Windows way when gaming is concerned it'll ultimately be the same thing: Upgrade every 6 months to run that latest game at the highest quality levels. This is avoidable in case of a console.

For your other basic needs: office work, surfing, media center + eyecandy a normal not-so-powerful Linux PC is more than enough.

 

[mediator]

Thats rt, but for gaming phreaks they need the latest graphics card n music phreaks like me, we need the best sound n hence fine speakers, amps, strings etc !

The other basic needs, like u said, can be dealt with using DSL distro too n fine tuning it on a 266 MHz, 32 MB RAM system. Why use duo cores or P4? Yea its stewpid to release an OS that suddenly demands huge resources n 1GB RAM to work (recommended) like Xp asked for 128 but worked flawlessly on 512 MB RAM.

So upgrade is not an issue for gamers. But I feel choice should be there. Windows VISTA needs a fine graphic card to run aero n 1 GB recommended while linux needs 256 MB RAM to run beryl. So if developers can develop n we can experience more out of box candy then windows users on a mere 256 MB RAM that we have been experiencing for some 1+ year now, then why cant they develop games that may utilize 512 MB RAM to deliver awesome/highest quality graphics that can run again => for 1+ year? Its not unrealistic is it?

I keep on experimenting with games too rarely, but in the last 2 years the linux games quality has improved a lot but my system's RAM remained the same. I must say I didn't find any noticeable deterioration in the speed of the games!!