Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009


Recommended Posts

The DWM has to keep a full bitmap copy of every window in memory.

And, also from Wikipedia:

So DWM/Glass does in fact use more system memory and doesn't take advantage of the video memory thereby lowering the amount of free system resources available for the user to make use of. Even if the amount of memory used by DWM is small for some people or huge for others, those are just the simple facts that it does lower the amount of free system memory.

You can turn aero off...

dwm doesn't seem to use all that much memory.I've never seen it go much past 26 mb.

screenshotyk7.th.png

You can turn aero off...

dwm doesn't seem to use all that much memory.I've never seen it go much past 26 mb.

Obviously. I'm just trying to point out that one of Vista's major benefits has not so obvious side effects. If you were to tell someone that the desktop of an OS is now hardware accelerated like Vista, they would presume that less system memory would be used, that the graphics card would store all the stuff in its memory so as to make it even faster for the graphics card to get the data to draw, that performance would not be degraded in GDI because of a decision MS made to move the display drivers while we're seeing the complete opposite effect.

I've seen it much much higher than 26MB. My friend's laptop which came preloaded with Vista was idling at ~100MB for DWM after a system startup. I noticed the same high usage, 75MB or so at times, when I was running Vista.

Obviously. I'm just trying to point out that one of Vista's major benefits has not so obvious side effects. If you were to tell someone that the desktop of an OS is now hardware accelerated like Vista, they would presume that less system memory would be used, that the graphics card would store all the stuff in its memory so as to make it even faster for the graphics card to get the data to draw, that performance would not be degraded in GDI because of a decision MS made to move the display drivers while we're seeing the complete opposite effect.

I've seen it much much higher than 26MB. My friend's laptop which came preloaded with Vista was idling at ~100MB for DWM after a system startup. I noticed the same high usage, 75MB or so at times, when I was running Vista.

umm why would hardware acceleration assume less use of system memory. Hardware acceleration has much bigger advantages that more than compensate for the slight use of memory you won't even notice. a single FF tab pretty much use more memory.

Hardware acceleration has much bigger advantages that more than compensate for the slight use of memory you won't even notice.

Tell that to MS. They hardware accelerated the desktop but at the same time degraded GDI/GDI+ performance, stuff that most apps use all the time, by moving the driver from the kernel to userland to prevent display driver BSODs but with the effect of having some stuff from GDI/GDI+ being processed by the CPU/software instead of the GPU/hardware, or as MS like to call it, they "internally remapped" them.

umm why would hardware acceleration assume less use of system memory.

I am not assuming it would use less memory in general, but why isn't the graphics card's memory being used to lower system memory usage and to make it even faster for the graphics card to get the data to draw instead of using system memory for all that.

Edited by Swift33

I think debating DWM should be left for another topic, particularly when you are going into technical details and posting links to benchmarks, etc. This is about Windows 7 and, despite the topic title, the possibility that it will be released late 2009 or early 2010.

I think debating DWM should be left for another topic, particularly when you are going into technical details and posting links to benchmarks, etc. This is about Windows 7 and, despite the topic title, the possibility that it will be released late 2009 or early 2010.

Oh I know theyarecomingforyou. However, someone brought up a point about performance and Vista compared to XP and I just pointed out, with a link to an article, that that isn't really true in some pretty common areas and that's where it all started.

WHQL is there for a reason. If people load a driver that is WHQL certified, then they assume that the driver has gotten far more testing into it to match a certain quality level and would not be prone to some of the issues in regular non-WHQL or beta ones.

You misunderstand the purpose of WHQL. It's a "logo program" - which means it has a set of requirements that a driver must meet. So long as it meets those requirements, it gets the WHQL logo. Manufacturers are very good at tuning their drivers to meet the requirements. That doesn't mean it's a better driver.

Besides, tons of people run non-WHQL drivers because they're newer/faster/whatever. Could you imagine the backlash if WHQL were required for a driver to load?

So DWM/Glass does in fact use more system memory and doesn't take advantage of the video memory thereby lowering the amount of free system resources available for the user to make use of. Even if the amount of memory used by DWM is small for some people or huge for others, those are just the simple facts that it does lower the amount of free system memory.

The buffer is kept in both video memory and system memory, for a variety of reasons. It's usually a very small amount of system memory that is used (obviously it grows with the number of windows you have open, the size of windows, resolution, etc). But that resource usage is well justified by the higher quality display output and user experience.

Tell that to MS. They hardware accelerated the desktop but at the same time degraded GDI/GDI+ performance, stuff that most apps use all the time, by moving the driver from the kernel to userland to prevent display driver BSODs but with the effect of having some stuff from GDI/GDI+ being processed by the CPU/software instead of the GPU/hardware, or as MS like to call it, they "internally remapped" them.

BSODs aren't the only reason why GDI is no longer accelerated. And as I said, you'll never notice the difference anyway.

(even if drivers caused BSODs for some people in XP, I highly doubt it would be a huge majority of people

As I already said, the number as a percentage of all BSODs is huge. Truly, mind-bogglingly huge.

Edited by Brandon Live

That's cool, I wasn't singling anyone out.

NEway, I hope that Microsoft that has learnt from the mistakes during Vista's development. With someone new in charge that did well with the Office brand I have more confidence and if Microsoft can get back to basics and put performance and usability at the top of their agenda (as we've seen with Office 2007) then Windows 7 could prove to be a hit. Security has been a success story with Vista and now they need to change their focus. I'd rather see smaller, more focused releasing like Apple has done with OSX than monolithic releases like Vista - that way users can skip a release and still be in a good position, rather than Microsoft wanting to force people off the previous version immediately (like they have with XP).

If Microsoft doesn't do well with Windows 7 then I hope that OSX makes a move to the general PC market or another serious competitor steps forward as the consumer currently has little in the way of choice.

Thanks for the info Brandon though I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that WHQL doesn't take it a step further to resolve those major issues. Of course it'd be crazy if people couldn't be allowed to load non-WHQL drivers in Windows, but just that I was expecting WHQL to be a bit more stringent against the hardware developers and the drivers coming out that are WHQL would run without those issues. Perhaps it's time to add some tougher tests or changes to WHQL?

Also remember that those driver developers can sometimes be sneaky.

If they have a particular piece of code that isn't 100% stable, they can disable it with a registry check or something, and ship the driver off to Microsoft, who will never encounter that particular instability because the installer they have doesn't activate that key.

Then, when Microsoft signs the binary, they can just turn the key on with their installer, gain an extra 2% of performance, and possibly hurt stability.

I remember reading something about this, I think it was on an MSDN blog, but I can't remember.

Is it not really obvious to anyone else that they will release Windows 7 in their 25th Anniversey year. Likely the fall of that year which is 2010, that would be perfect timing and what a way to take Windows to the next step and come out with a bang on such a celebration. You couldn't plan it any better. Vista has put some great groundwork in with security, network etc. They could pull this off well with Windows 7 for a Fall 2010 release.

I must say, that's an interesting theory.

Certainly makes sense. "For our 25th anniversary, we thank you by releasing Windows 7, etc etc"

Either way, by the time 7 releases, I'll need a new PC so I'll hold out, just hope it's soon enough so I don't have to go on an upgrade path to Vista (extra costs, considering 7 may be soon)

3. Vista runs faster than XP on modern machines. If you don't HAVE a modern machine, stick with XP until MS stops mainstream support for it next year.

I think you're right about this one. I bought a notebook approximately one year ago. It is only capable of running Vista Home Basic. However, my dad bought a notebook nearly six months ago. Similar specs, and everything, except it can handle Vista Ultimate. If technology is changing this much, I'm glad I'm into Web development more than systems programming. That may change, but not nearly as quickly as the underlying technology. :s

I have a fast machine and Vista definitely runs slower, in games and on the desktop. I use it as my primary operating system because I like the features but I really wish performance was close to or better than that of XP.

Why is this thread turning out to be about Windows XP?

For those who love the Windows XP VS Windows Vista argument...

...I don't care, most sensible people don't care what you use or what you prefer. But stop sabotaging threads like this which are meant to be about Windows 7 and spewing out self righteous, unproven futz about how great XP is.

/end

^ True. This thread is turning out to be about how good XP is.

Sure XP is/was good ! Actually, XP is like an old shoe, worn-in, cozy, comfortable, which no one wants to discard ... yet ! Over a period of time, (what 6 years?), its been patched, patched and patched to make it what it is today ! Dependable !!

Vista today is just like XP was 6 years ago. People are whining and saying that Vista is the worst thing that has happened ! While Vista, like a new shoe is biting some ... :D

The point is: If you are happy with XP. Stick to it. Its a personal choice. If ypu plan on an upgrade from XP, do so to Vista ... SP1 release is a good time to do so. Dont wait for Windows7. Its still in the future. And best not to believe the rumour mills who work overtime, spewing half-lies and half-truths, purely with the intention of attracting hits !

I must say, that's an interesting theory.

Certainly makes sense. "For our 25th anniversary, we thank you by releasing Windows 7, etc etc"

Either way, by the time 7 releases, I'll need a new PC so I'll hold out, just hope it's soon enough so I don't have to go on an upgrade path to Vista (extra costs, considering 7 may be soon)

Microsoft will be celebrating 35 years in 2010.

No, we have Windows Vista. XP is an outdated operating system.

ZOMGZ, CAN I HAS UPDATEZ?

Technically, it's not out dated, as updates for XP are still being released, so as an operating system, it is still up to date.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.