[News] New XGL Goodness: Motion Blur

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 26141

Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur

,----[ Quote ]
| Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely unedited.
`----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs

And that's a _low-quality_ video...

Gubo Dangle · External Since: Aug 04, 2006 Posts: 76

It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely unedited.
> `----
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>
> And that's a _low-quality_ video...

And there's a point to this feature?

Jerry McBride · External Since: Sep 05, 2004 Posts: 533

Gubo Dangle wrote:

> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely unedited.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>
>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>
> And there's a point to this feature?

Just one more thing that windows doesn't do...

--

Jerry McBride

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

[H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>
>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>> | unedited.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>
>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>
>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>
> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>

And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
wider variety of hardware than Aero does.

Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

yttrx wrote:

> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>
> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.

Just not the hardware that anybody cares about.

See, in case you didn't know, MS is a software business. They sell -
profitably, very profitably - to the masses. The masses run x86 systems.

Linux/OSS, on the other hand, is a software hobby. They generally don't
care about making money - and that's a good thing 'cause they usually don't.
Linux gets ported to whatever architecture somebody wants and has the
ability to port it to: Motorolas and MIPS and PowerPC and sparc and arm,
etc. If a financial ROI was *required*, it would never happen.

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 26141

__/ [ yttrx ] on Sunday 17 September 2006 15:03 \__

> [H]omer <spam DeleteThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>
>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>
>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>
>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>
>
> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>
> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.

....Hardware, _as well as_ operating systems. Being 'compartmentalised', you
could, in due time, fit Compix/XGL on top of OS X, BSD, etc.

Same scanario with X, GNOME, KDE and so forth (e.g., KDE has just gotten
packaged for OS X). These are services that are not 'glued' or nailed down
to a core using deep function calls and opaque decencies that make
maintenance impossible, especially for new developers (or ones that took a
long vacation) to embrace. The distributed nature of OSS (and Linux), joint
with establishment of API's has actually become a huge strength that
Microsoft can only envy. Without openness and protocols, communication and
modularisation is compromised.

Windows may (for the time being) have 'market share', but its momentum has
sunk to zero. If it doesn't revise all that code, things are bound to get
worse. Vista will have been under testing for _almost one year_! What new
stuff does it have to justify this? And why does it take months, as opposed
to hours, to issue and release patches? It's because the code has become a
games of Jenga < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga >. Move or change one
line of code and the whole core will collapse in unpredictable ways.

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 383300k used, 652884k free, 79568k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> __/ [ yttrx ] on Sunday 17 September 2006 15:03 \__
>
>> [H]omer <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>>
>>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>>
>>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>>
>>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>>
>>
>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>
>> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.
>
> ...Hardware, _as well as_ operating systems. Being 'compartmentalised', you
> could, in due time, fit Compix/XGL on top of OS X, BSD, etc.

It already works with BSD:

http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=39615

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

DFS <nospam DeleteThis @dfs_.com> wrote:
> yttrx wrote:
>
>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>
>> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.
>
>
> Just not the hardware that anybody cares about.
>

No one cares about ATI?

Hey AMD, theres this guy here, DFS, see, and he thinks your buyout
was lame because no one cares about ATI. Yeah. Yeah thats right. I
don't know who he is either. I'm pretty sure hes not an MBA. Yeah.
No, I just thought i'd mention it. You don't care what he thinks? Ah..
Sorry to trouble you. No. No my apologies. Yeah. Ok, see ya.

> See, in case you didn't know, MS is a software business. They sell -
> profitably, very profitably - to the masses. The masses run x86 systems.
>

I'm not sure what your point is, but it doesnt seem to have anything to
do with what I typed.

> Linux/OSS, on the other hand, is a software hobby. They generally don't
> care about making money - and that's a good thing 'cause they usually don't.
> Linux gets ported to whatever architecture somebody wants and has the
> ability to port it to: Motorolas and MIPS and PowerPC and sparc and arm,
> etc. If a financial ROI was *required*, it would never happen.

So?

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

yttrx wrote:
> DFS <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>
>>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>>
>>> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.
>>
>> Just not the hardware that anybody cares about.
>
> No one cares about ATI?

Platform architectures, you pedantic blowhard, not brands.

You're borrowing the lameness of Kelsey Bjarnason: whatever market Linux
supports that MS doesn't (watches, supercomputers) is suddenly just as
important as desktop PCs/x86, despite being dwarfed in size 100,000 to 1,
and revenue $100,000,000 to $1.

>> Linux/OSS, on the other hand, is a software hobby. They generally
>> don't care about making money - and that's a good thing 'cause they
>> usually don't. Linux gets ported to whatever architecture somebody
>> wants and has the ability to port it to: Motorolas and MIPS and
>> PowerPC and sparc and arm, etc. If a financial ROI was *required*,
>> it would never happen.
>
> So?

That's it.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

yttrx.RemoveThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:

> [H]omer <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>
>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>
>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>
>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>
>
> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.

Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering.

>
> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx

--
"All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory..."
(By Larry Wall)

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

Hadron Quark <qadronhuark RemoveThis @geemail.com> wrote:
> yttrx RemoveThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>
>> [H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>>
>>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>>
>>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>>
>>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>>
>>
>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>
> Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
> source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering.

Whoops, works on ATI:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=739758
http://swik.net/Xgl+ati
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4fRYvaTRow

Doof.

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:

> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>> yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>
>>> [H]omer <spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>>>
>>>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>>>
>>>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>>>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>>>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>
>> Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
>> source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering.
>
> Whoops, works on ATI:
>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=739758
> http://swik.net/Xgl+ati
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4fRYvaTRow
>
> Doof.

http://www.google.de/search?q=ubuntu+opengl+hw+acceleration+not+workin...tart=0&

Some : but mostly not.

>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx

--
What's this script do?
unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep
Hint for the answer: not everything is computer-oriented. Sometimes you're
in a sleeping bag, camping out with your girlfriend.
-- Contributed by Frans van der Zande

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:

> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>> yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>
>>> [H]omer <spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>>>
>>>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>>>
>>>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>>>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>>>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>
>> Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
>> source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering.
>
> Whoops, works on ATI:

I decided to recheck. These links are useless.

>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=739758

This thread is over 70 pages long : hmmm. What does that tell us?

> http://swik.net/Xgl+ati

LOL :

,----
| First make sure you have 3d acceleration available in a normal gnome session.
| There are lots of howtos for this , Google if you need any help with that.
| So if glxinfo shows direct rendering: yes , then you are good to go.
| If not xgl and compiz wont work!
`----

Doh!

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4fRYvaTRow
>
> Doof.
>

Doh!

XGL running as a video isnt really what was intended ....

>
>
>
> -----yttrx

--
Do not remove tag under penalty of law.

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> yttrx.DeleteThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> yttrx.DeleteThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>>
>>>> [H]omer <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>>>>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>>>>>> | unedited.
>>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
>>>>> much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
>>>>> already wipes the floor with Aero.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>>>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>>
>>> Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
>>> source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering.
>>
>> Whoops, works on ATI:
>
> I decided to recheck. These links are useless.
>

See, no wonder you cant get anything to work, then you come around here
whining and begging for help. You refuse to RTFM. Its all there,
idiot.

>>
>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=739758
>
> This thread is over 70 pages long : hmmm. What does that tell us?
>

The info is on page 8, as you would have seen if youd simply read
it.

>
>> http://swik.net/Xgl+ati
>
> LOL :
>
> ,----
> | First make sure you have 3d acceleration available in a normal gnome session.
> | There are lots of howtos for this , Google if you need any help with that.
> | So if glxinfo shows direct rendering: yes , then you are good to go.
> | If not xgl and compiz wont work!
> `----
>
> Doh!
>

Whoops, you have to RTFM again.

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4fRYvaTRow
>>
>> Doof.
>>
>
> Doh!
>
> XGL running as a video isnt really what was intended ....
>

Ummm...thats a video of a live XGL session running on an ATI card, you
dickhead. Thats exactly what you said doesnt exist:

"Less actually, since one of the market leaders, ATI, doesnt provide open
source drivers which work properly with openGL HW rendering."

See? You were wrong, I showed you you were wrong, and now youre once
again being a whiny little girl about it.

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

DFS <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
> yttrx wrote:
>> DFS <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>> yttrx wrote:
>>>
>>>> And also, since its rooted in OpenGL calls, works on a much, much
>>>> wider variety of hardware than Aero does.
>>>>
>>>> Whoops, looks like Linux supports more hardware than windows.
>>>
>>> Just not the hardware that anybody cares about.
>>
>> No one cares about ATI?
>
> Platform architectures, you pedantic blowhard, not brands.
>
> You're borrowing the lameness of Kelsey Bjarnason: whatever market Linux
> supports that MS doesn't (watches, supercomputers) is suddenly just as
> important as desktop PCs/x86, despite being dwarfed in size 100,000 to 1,
> and revenue $100,000,000 to $1.

Ah. I'd better call IBM and tell them that you think they made a collossal
mistake then.

Maybe ill stick it in my signature:

"DFS is smarter than IBM"

Hmmm...you don't still work there, do you? Why not?

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

yttrx wrote:
> DFS <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> Platform architectures, you pedantic blowhard, not brands.
>>
>> You're borrowing the lameness of Kelsey Bjarnason: whatever market
>> Linux supports that MS doesn't (watches, supercomputers) is suddenly
>> just as important as desktop PCs/x86, despite being dwarfed in size
>> 100,000 to 1, and revenue $100,000,000 to $1.
>
> Ah. I'd better call IBM and tell them that you think they made a
> collossal mistake then.

I don't think that, and I didn't say or imply that.

But since you're going to call them anyway, ask a couple questions for me:

* how many unit sales of Windows Server vs. Linux each year the past 3 years
* how their internal desktop migration to Linux is working out

TIA

> Maybe ill stick it in my signature:
>
> "DFS is smarter than IBM"
>
> Hmmm...you don't still work there, do you? Why not?

I left a contract position there (Skill Dynamics) in 1993 over money issues.
I wanted more - they wouldn't pay.

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

DFS <nospam DeleteThis @dfs_.com> wrote:
> yttrx wrote:
>> DFS <nospam DeleteThis @dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>> Platform architectures, you pedantic blowhard, not brands.
>>>
>>> You're borrowing the lameness of Kelsey Bjarnason: whatever market
>>> Linux supports that MS doesn't (watches, supercomputers) is suddenly
>>> just as important as desktop PCs/x86, despite being dwarfed in size
>>> 100,000 to 1, and revenue $100,000,000 to $1.
>>
>> Ah. I'd better call IBM and tell them that you think they made a
>> collossal mistake then.
>
> I don't think that, and I didn't say or imply that.
>
> But since you're going to call them anyway, ask a couple questions for me:
>
> * how many unit sales of Windows Server vs. Linux each year the past 3 years
> * how their internal desktop migration to Linux is working out
>
> TIA
>

Yeah, I already have access to that information. I don't care about either
to be honest. And neither has to do with anything being discussed.

I am waiting for windows to come out with Server Somethingorother that's
capable of running on a multiple petaflop cell-processor based IBM supercomputer.
You think that'll happen soon?

>>
>> Hmmm...you don't still work there, do you? Why not?
>
> I left a contract position there (Skill Dynamics) in 1993 over money issues.
> I wanted more - they wouldn't pay.
>

Oh, contract position. So you didnt really work there. Smile

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

yttrx wrote:
> DFS <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> * how many unit sales of Windows Server vs. Linux each year the past
>> 3 years
>> * how their internal desktop migration to Linux is working out
>>
>> TIA
>
> Yeah, I already have access to that information. I don't care about
> either to be honest. And neither has to do with anything being discussed.

That you won't reveal them means you don't have access to that info.

Apparently IBM isn't interested in sharing it, either.

> I am waiting for windows to come out with Server Somethingorother
> that's capable of running on a multiple petaflop cell-processor based IBM
> supercomputer. You think that'll happen soon?

Very doubtful, but you just never know
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/sysreqs.mspx

> Oh, contract position. So you didnt really work there. Smile

I sort of did; I showed and hung around from 8 to 5, and talked with other
employees, and did the same thing some of them did, and IBM paid me.
Full-time supplemental employee while I was in grad school, then several
full-time contract positions. Total nearly 3 years. Never a regular
employee.

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 18:34 \__
> >
[snip]

> Just face the fact that Vista is vapourware.

Sounds more like your opinion than any sort of fact.

> I know very well why I ditched the 'Windows series'
> some time after Windows 98.

I'm not sure what you think you may know but the reason was to move
away from the "DOS codebase" and onto the "NT codebase" with real
memory protection, real multi-tasking, Unicode and etc. Win9x did some
of this but not very well.

> That's just where they peaked. Or maybe it was 95.

I was there from 96-98 and Microsoft was certainly flying high at that
time. Money was coming in every which way from Win95 and Win98 sales
not to mention that Office was really starting to become the defacto
standard at that time as well. Things are still good but I don't think
they'll ever be that 'great' again.

> Many advocated in COLA are degraded to the level of sounding like parrots,
> but it's amazing how many things Windows sticklers simply refuse to accept.
> They think with their heart so to speak, rather than observe simple facts.

Strange because the same statement could be easily applied to you. (No
disrespect intended... just based on reasoning and facts.) Is Microsoft
in some sort of tumbling freefall and on the verge of collapse as your
"heart based" wishfull posts seem to indicate? Not at all if you look
at the simple facts.

In 1997 Microsofts profit margin was 28.8%
Today (2006) Microsoft has a profit margin of 28.5%

In 1997 Microsoft had a net profit of $3.454 Billion dollars
In 2006 their net profit is $12.599 Billion dollars

In 1997 their sales were $11.936 Billion
In 2006 sales are $44.282 Billion

In 1997 Microsoft was a Fortune 100 company
In 2006 they are the 3rd largest company. (Behind Exxon and GE)

So when you say that people are reasoning with their hearts instead of
looking at the simple facts, I believe that when someone does look at
the actual *facts* it is you who is reasoning with your heart and
ignoring the facts.

Because several features were dropped from Vista is completely
meaningless. It's happened several times before (search for "Microsoft
Cairo" someday) and the overwhelming majority of computer users have no
idea what was dropped from Vista nor do they care.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in message news:a5ivt3-659.ln1@sky.matrix...
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>
>>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>>> | unedited.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>>
>>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>
>>> And there's a point to this feature?
>
> I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
> much Vista's *only* selling point,

False premise, so your conclusion is flawed.

[...]
>> http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/MyDeskTop-Jun-22-2005.gif
>
> That's a more honest perspective of what you're actually getting in
> terms of functionality, when you buy into Microsoft's
> indoctrination.

More honest than what?

> That's the picture people see when they remove their
> rose-tinted glasses.

I disagree, but of course this is unverifiable either way.

[...]
>
> I find it amusing that any Windows advocate can criticise the
> development of visual enhancements in an OS, when the only thing
> generating *any* interest in the forthcoming update to Windows, is
> eye-candy.

I wish you would not make factually false statement like these.

- Oliver