Graphics card all important in next Windows OS

By Derek Sooman on January 13, 2005, 2:37 PM
There is a whole section of the computer using community that does not care anything at all about their graphics card - and why should they? A user who has no interest in games or multimedia, and instead wants 2D application only such as internet browsing, word processing and so forth really does not need the kinds of graphics cards featured often on this site. But this is about to change with Microsoft's next generation operating system.

The new Microsoft OS currently code-named "Longhorn" will feature a graphics subset called WGF (Windows Graphic Foundation) which has the main objective of unifying 2D and 3D graphics on the Windows desktop. Nowadays, 3D is done using a Direct X subset, but all of this will change with "Longhorn."

Longhorn will also use 3D menus and 3D interfaces and will require at least Shader 2.0 compliant cards, so it will make the graphics card an important part of your PC. Believe it or not, your Windows performance will depend on the quality of graphics card you have. A faster card might draw something faster than a slower mainstream or entry level card, meaning that even some Office software might perform better if you have a faster 3D card.




User Comments: 15

Got something to say? Post a comment
guyver1 said:
It'll be a cold day in hell before i use a GUI interface that uses as much GPU as a gamei still use classic look on XP with the look set to performance.i want my desktop to be as fast as possible, couldnt give monkeys about looks per se.but if looks comes at the cost of speed, no chance, i'll take speed any day of the week.I'll keep the eye candy for my gaming thansk very much.hope to god all the 3D bullshit in longhorn is optional else i'll be on XP for a LONG time
shnig said:
Guyver1 you sound very naieve. Have you seen the estemated system specs needed to run longhorn without even taking graphics into account? There is going to be some monster GPUs out by then and the desktop GUI (not GUI interface as you said which translates in to Graphical User Interface interface) needs will be but a blip in the radar of what these things will be able to do (can anyone say virtual reality?).
Mictlantecuhtli said:
CoreImage, Quartz Extreme, anyone? ;)
---agissi--- said:
My dad is just like you guyver, he refuses to even use wallpaper, just a solid color.
smtkr said:
Longhorn sounds like another resource hog from microsoft.
Kaleid said:
Exactly. And there's absolutely no reason to make an OS that requires a fast graphiccard. I bet it will "eat up" plenty of RAM as well.
Phantasm66 said:
The GUI of the OS requires a fast graphics card because of the move to 3D accelerated vector graphics on the desktop. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for this that augment the user experience. And a modern OS needing more RAM is inevitable.
shnig said:
Couldnt agree more phant
Nic said:
I think all the naysayers will eat their words when they see all the possibilities/improvements that will emerge as a result of moving to a 3D accelerated vector graphics based desktop. This is progress. How many users would prefer to go back to using Windows 3.10? Not many I'd imagine. Also, even *low end* onboard graphics of new PCs that will be available when Longhorn eventually ships will come with appropriate hardware. Its already happening now...[Edited by Nic on 2005-01-15 05:39:48][Edited by Nic on 2005-01-15 05:40:07]
Kaleid said:
Nothing more than bloatware.
Phantasm66 said:
[b]Originally posted by Kaleid:[/b][quote]Nothing more than bloatware.[/quote]That's pretty dismissive. Can you explain exactly what the changes from XP are, and how exactly they can be described as bloatware? Computer OS evolve to demand more hardware resources, that's always been the case.
Kaleid said:
The jump from windows 98 to XP is nowhere near as large as I expect from XP to Longhorn.The first I did after my first XP install was to shut down all unnecessery and slow animations and went back to classic mode. I need a solid, stable, fast OS which is not very demanding on resources since I want to it all available for programs I'm going to use.
Phantasm66 said:
You'd be surprised, Longhorn technologies constitute many changes to what has come before. The problem is, how many of them will be in Longhorn, and how many will be in Blackcomb, the Windows after that?? Microsoft are notorious for chopping and changing things, and you may indeed be right that Longhorn is not much different from XP. However, know that there are a number of biggish changes coming, most of which will require a more powerful machine, but will be worth it probably in the end.Just as an aside, really the changes you are talking about between 98 and XP actually occurred when 2000 appeared. XP is largely just Windows 2000 with some added extras, not unlike the relationship between 95 and 98. 2000 was the real change.
Kaleid said:
Yes I'm aware that 2000 was to first consumer product to be built on NT technology. I didn't mind that. At last we get some stability.I was talking about the GUI. Shutting down animations, themes and such can improve performance a lot, and it seems to me that the need of a good 3d card will give us pretty much only a more nice looking OS...
Seatown87 said:
Does anyone know when this Longhorn OS is going to be on the market for purchase by consumer???
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.