I recently red someones (random user) posting telling this would be “Beryl for Windows”, which made me try it. And I can only say no way dude, no way. Whoever claims this, has clearly never used the real thing. This solution is slow, while Beryl reacts like Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider games - fluently and organic, if you know what I mean. I’m not even talking about the lack of features, this is really “just a cube”, nothing else. But even here, dragging the cube with the mouse shows there is no real 3D movement, just a rotation around one axis. This sole fact gives it a very different feeling. There’s no need to discuss the other countless visual options Beryl has.
Don’t get me wrong, this is only about the statement “Beryl for Windows” which strikes me down. This tool is actually quite impressive, so cudos to the author - he does the (not small at all) deed proving, that every Windows OS could easily be equipped with true 3D effects/features using DirectX 9 and therefore having no need for Vista at all (I’m sorry, although 3D effects aren’t important for actually working with the PC, it’s remains to be a big point for many users). Especially when looking at the incredible small file size of 1,9 MB for the whole thing. Which simply shows how ridiculous many PR statements by a major company were (and are). It’s a look through the rabbit hole, how reality could be. Same effects with Windows 2000 (!) and without new graphics hardware (for DX10). This inconvenient truth tells us, that everything, which was designed (for the sole purpose) to force everyone to move to Vista and DirectX 10 (and to expensive new DirectX 10 graphics hardware), is actually totally unnecessary and could easily be realized under XP (even 2000) but with no additional expenses (which is why…). Even XP offers Shader 4.0 with OpenGL. Ahhh, should be clear what I’m saying, I’m just so very disappointed, because so few people notice this and even fewer actually protest - which should totally be the case. Being forced to buy new stuff for no benefits (for the users) at all? This is the reality we are facing here. Of course it’s not the first time this happens, nor the last, but was it ever SO obvious?
May 18, 2007 at 5:01 am
You don’t need to test Yod’m to certify that every Windows could have this feature, because it’s has been proved with Beryl itself: with the same hardware that can run Win2k you can have a fully featured Gnome with Beryl and running flawlessly, and without needing DX10…
May 18, 2007 at 5:18 pm
That’s true, but showing it on windows itself is more “meaningful” IMHO, because otherwise the inevitable argument “Linux works so very different that it can’t be compared” comes up.
June 1, 2007 at 10:33 pm
It’s obvious you know nothing about vista. Microsoft has re-written from the ground up their graphics API for vista so that windows graphics are now vector drawn, much like OS X, and XGL versus bitmapped. This will allow much better, desktop visuals, and 3d effects. Which is why this statement: “Vista and DirectX 10 (and to expensive new DirectX 10 graphics hardware), is actually totally unnecessary and could easily be realized under XP (even 2000) but with no additional expenses” is totally wrong and unsubstantiated.
June 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I think you missed the point of my nice rant.
Besides, how Vista’s GUI is drawn has little to do with why DirectX was only developed for Vista and how the GUI is drawn has also little to do with how DirectX applications are drawn when the GUI isn’t visible (like in a fullscreen app like a GAME).
June 18, 2007 at 4:38 pm
@someguy: it’s obvious you haven’t understood this article. It’s not about new wonderful vector drawn desktop visuals and 3d effects in marvellous vista. It says, that if someone want to have 3d effects and desktop visuals, can have them on his 3-year old computer and 6-year old windows xp, without need to buy brand new, shiny windows vista ready computer for 2000$ and brand new, shiny directx10 capable geforce8800 gtx.
So why convince people to waste money on something, they don’t actually need, or can have with hardware they already own?
June 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Btw: I’m a linux user for over 7 years, and I have beryl with aiglx installed, but also windows xp. I use both systems, linux for normal everyday work and studies, windows for games, fl studio etc. I also own windows vista (both legal), but i’m not going to install vista, unless it becomes absolutely essential.