Did you know: All GDI apps render slower under Win7?

By MS Bob 11
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Max Norris

Posted
Posted
What?? GDI and the Win32 API's are official. The Direct*D API's are not a requirement to build Windows GUI's. You do know that right?

Uh yea they are if you're wanting to build against Direct2D, what you were whining about being so difficult in the first place, hence "refusing to use the APIs"?

Contributor

england_fanboy

Posted
Posted

What?? GDI and the Win32 API's are official. The Direct*D API's are not a requirement to build Windows GUI's. You do know that right?

MSDN clearly says one should no longer use GDI for Windows programs:

Technologies that are obsolete and should not be used in new applications.

This is what MSDN says about GDI (legacy graphics).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee663279(v=VS.85).aspx

Grand Master

Max Norris

Posted
Posted
And why would I want to build against Direct2D when I'm coding in C?

And round in circles we go. Oh I don't know, programming new projects for current technology appropriate to the platform versus legacy/depreciated stuff that's getting phased out maybe? If your tools of choice aren't up to the job, it might be time to consider switching to something more appropriate to the platform.

MSDN clearly says one should no longer use GDI for Windows programs:

This is what MSDN says about GDI (legacy graphics).

http://msdn.microsof...e663279(v=VS.85).aspx

Link's busted, fixed it for you. MSDN

Community Regular

Joey S

Posted
Posted

MSDN clearly says one should no longer use GDI for Windows programs:

This is what MSDN says about GDI (legacy graphics).

http://msdn.microsof...e663279(v=VS.85).aspx

Ignoring the fact that that page won't load, I, as a developer, wish to target both XP and Windows 7, so GDI is the best solution because it's supported on both platforms, unlike Direct2D. It's built right into the Win32 API, unlike the Direct*D interfaces, which are separate and use COM (horrible to use from most language bindings).

Contributor

england_fanboy

Posted
Posted

Ignoring the fact that that page won't load, I, as a developer, wish to target both XP and Windows 7, so GDI is the best solution. It's built right into the Win32 API, unlike the Direct*D interfaces, which are separate and use COM (horrible to use from most language bindings).

There is absolutely no excuse for sticking to plain C Win32 API any more. The whole world is moving on. C++/C# is the way forward. Plain C is simply not good enough for today's complex programming needs.

Community Regular

Joey S

Posted
Posted

There is absolutely no excuse for sticking to plain C Win32 API any more.

That's what 99% of WIndows programs use lol.

The whole world is moving on. C++/C# is the way forward. Plain C is simply not good enough for today's complex programming needs.

No thanks. I prefer patent unencumbered programming languages like Python, Java, Perl to C#. As far as C++ goes, If I want to use a OO design pattern, again, i'll use Java or Python. I really don't see a use for C++ these days.

Contributor

england_fanboy

Posted
Posted

That's what 99% of WIndows programs use lol.

LOL! Are you living in 1993? Almost no Windows programs are written in plain-C any more.

No thanks. I prefer patent unencumbered programming languages like Python, Java, Perl to C#. As far as C++ goes, If I want to use a OO design pattern, again, i'll use Java or Python. I really don't see a use for C++ these days.

C# is the most elegant programming language in the world. That's why its popularity is rising exponentially. If you prefer native code instead, C++ is great. But Java is the worst programming language in the history of mankind. It's a complete mess, a lot like Android.

Community Regular

Joey S

Posted
Posted

LOL! Are you living in 1993? Almost no Windows programs are written in plain-C any more.

The Win32 API, not C. Reading comprehension?

C# is the most elegant programming language in the world.

Cool story. Bro.

That's why its[C#] popularity is rising exponentially.

Really? From what I've read, It hasn't made an impact. This could be attributed to the fact that it's locked down to Windows of course. I prefer to write portable code.

If you prefer native code instead, C++ is great. But Java is the worst programming language in the history of mankind. It's a complete mess, a lot like Android.

Java is the language of choice for Android, Nuff said.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

...

It's built right into the Win32 API, unlike the Direct*D interfaces, which are separate and use COM (horrible to use from most language bindings).

Uh, COM and Direct2D (And DirectWrite/Direct3D/etc.) are part of Win32.

Veteran

Aethec

Posted
Posted
No thanks. I prefer patent unencumbered programming languages like Python, Java, Perl to C#. As far as C++ goes, If I want to use a OO design pattern, again, i'll use Java or Python. I really don't see a use for C++ these days.

Don't tell me you've never read Gosling's explanation about how they had to patent everything at Sun, and how they made contests of who got the most stupid patent?

Fact: If someone tells you his creation is not patent-encumbered, that doesn't mean it isn't. Look at Android and WebM.

Really? From what I've read, It hasn't made an impact. This could be attributed to the fact that it's locked down to Windows of course. I prefer to write portable code.

*cough* dotGNU *cough* Mono *cough*

Also, http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

Community Regular

Joey S

Posted
Posted

*cough* dotGNU *cough* Mono *cough*

Also, http://www.tiobe.com...tpci/index.html

Both of which have fallen into disuse and have questionable compatibility with Microsoft's implementation, as evidenced by Canonical's recent decision to exclude Mono from future Ubuntu releases.

  • 1 month later...
Explorer

pcunite

Posted
Posted

Thanks for this post, I thought I was the only one noticing this.

I use a certain application maximized on my Windows 7 x64 workstation having upgraded from Windows XP. The application shows objects, about 200 of them on screen, and when I go to scroll, it is noticeably slower and somewhat flicky under Windows 7. Since the developer must support XP I doubt I'll see any improvement for a long time. Would be better for MS to fix this.

Grand Master

Brandon H Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

@Joey S and @Tilt090

not to sound rude (unlike Tilt sounds from my perspective)

but grow up and stop living in the past. Things change, in the world of technology you need to learn to adapt

Grand Master

Brandon H Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

So if I get this straight, an application must use D2D/DW or suffer a major performance drop on post-XP era Windows?

where are you getting the "major" from? as has been stated, it's a barely noticeable performance drop under most hardware
Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The most important GDI operations are hardware accelerated under Windows 7, so the majority of users wouldn't notice any slowdowns.

The main problem with using GDI rendering is that it's pretty crappy, the speed has nothing to do with it.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

so its decided win7 is slower eh.. and since people will continue to develop for gdi its a no brainer to move to the faster os ... snicker snicker...

And consider how old GDI is.

GDI goes back to 9x/NT4 - and was optimized to GDI+ in ME/2K Professional.

GDI+ is a crapton faster than GDI - and that was merely in ME and Windows 2000 Professional. GDI+ had one major issue (which it still has) - backward-compatibility issues with GDI-only displays.

How many GDI-only applications are there today?

And isn't that reality still the case with those GDI-only applications that exist today? (Backward-compatibility with older versions of Windows.)

The only GDI-only application I even know of is *Opera* - which is designed with WayBack compatibility first and foremost. (Even Mozilla isn't GDI-only, and hasn't been on Windows for a while.)

Not one messaging client is GDI-only. (That includes Facebook Messenger, by the way.)

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

GDI+ is a software version of GDI that can do AA (One big difference), it's often quite slower than GDI.

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

Adding software AA to stuff makes it slower on ANY kind of hardware. the difference is wether you hardware is fast enough for you not to notice or not.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

*Often quite slower* on what hardware?

On low-end- non-accelerated onboard graphics of the G41 (Intel) or earlier sort?

The GPU doesn't come into it since GDI+ runs on the CPU, you could have a GTX 570 or a simple framebuffer device, GDI+ will still be slower in most cases (GDI+ might win when it comes to 32bit textures, but only because GDI doesn't support them "well" :laugh:)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing