3D based desktop?

The place to bring up any design issues, or post your own creations

Moderator: Moderator Team

.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

3D based desktop?

Post by .aart3k »

Hi
I finally estabilished XGL on my Slackware and some reflections came.

I was wondering how MS made their Aero.
We, open source have XGL but this is an X server and Windows design has GUI implemented in the kernel right?
Is this able (not on this stage ofc) to make an window manager, based (maybe) on XGL, optionally based on DirectX for ReactOS?
Is it a must to put it into the kernel?

Radhad
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:09 pm
Contact:

Post by Radhad »

I don't think that this is a "must". I personally don't know why I should use a 3D desktop because there is no really advantage and it doesn't looking better from point of view.

frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 »

First you have to understood, that open source don't mean everything is possible or reasonable.
On the one side is Unix serie with window server/client, on the other side NT serie with a graphical subsystem.
Both have advantages and disadvantages, but fact is that x window is based on old ideas, is technically outdated and hacked a lot to add natively unsupported features.

And when you speak of "XGL" you mean "Compiz". XGL (Novell) and AIGLX (RedHat) are both modified X server (and "glue" code). The window manager is "Compiz" which effects you may have gaze at. All of the mentioned projects are only useful for Unix alike systems. Or if you want to run an x window server on NT (which is of course possible, but only reasonable in some rare cases).

Current 3D powered GUIs don't add much (if anything) to usability, but confuse in some cases even the users. The only benefit is for eye-candy and hardware vendors.

Current operating systems, have the 3D desktop (navigation is still 2D, because the lack of general purpose 3D human interface device) only us a optional feature which runs on a minor range of hardware.
IMHO, it will take another 3 years until a next upcoming 3D desktop generation will add real benefit.

The ReactOS project has currently a lot more important things to solve.

etko
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by etko »

However completely different thing would be ability to use OpenGL/DirectX acceleration for classic 2D operations on normal desktop, like blits bitmap drawing etc. Or are these things already accelerated by basic display drivers (then why does Aero require DirectX anyway?)?

I would prefer OpenGL as workhorse under the hood as it is more "open" than DirectX will ever be (even when implemented de nuovo by ReactOS devs) and basic subset of functions doesn't change that much like DirectX. With current OpenGL versions supporting non power of 2 texures and pixel buffers and frame buffer objects, this might be possible. The question is however how OpenGL subsystem is designed on windows (I guess there is some nasty hackish thing going on with windows ICDs), and whether it could be called within kernel by windows GUI kernel driver win32k.sys.

The second thing is that you need to be or need to find someone who is able to code this, because main devs have other things to do and will completely ignore requests like these at this stage of development.

.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

I did not say about making things such like that at the moment in ReactOS.

Ok, but (now big IMHO):

1. It's a big jawdrop when i show ROS to my friends with 3d desktop (marketing etc.)
2. I'd bet that some of XGL (which is an X server) or AIGLX (module for xorg 7.1) code can be reused
3. Compiz provides only basic window operations, rest like burning windows and sticky edges are plugins.
4. Working with: rotatable desktop cube, all windows lookup (by resizing) and alt+tab with thumbnails is very comfortable.

I read also that basic window operations dont cause processor effort in 3D desktops

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

etko wrote:However completely different thing would be ability to use OpenGL/DirectX acceleration for classic 2D operations on normal desktop, like blits bitmap drawing etc. Or are these things already accelerated by basic display drivers (then why does Aero require DirectX anyway?)?

The question is however how OpenGL subsystem is designed on windows (I guess there is some nasty hackish thing going on with windows ICDs), and whether it could be called within kernel by windows GUI kernel driver win32k.sys.
In Vista, Microsoft is translating OpenGL calls into DirectX calls. Unfortunately, they're only implementing an older version of OpenGL. Basically, the Microsoft implementation of OpenGL for Windows is a joke. My personal hope is that if and when ReactOS implements OpenGL, it can be transferred to a Windows machine as well, thus providing a proper implementation of OpenGL for Windows.

TiKu
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Unterföhring, Germany
Contact:

Post by TiKu »

Z98 wrote:In Vista, Microsoft is translating OpenGL calls into DirectX calls. Unfortunately, they're only implementing an older version of OpenGL. Basically, the Microsoft implementation of OpenGL for Windows is a joke.
Well, Vista's native OpenGL support is still better than XP's. XP comes along with OpenGL 1.1 without hardware acceleration. Vista at least has OpenGL 1.4 and although it is implemented on top of Direct3D, it's probably still faster than XP's native OpenGL, because Direct3D is hardware accelerated.
And last but not least NVIDIA and AMD/ATI may still provide there own OpenGL ICDs which don't use Direct3D and don't turn off Aero Glass in window mode.

So OpenGL support on Windows is still not the best, but it has improved.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

3d desktop that works on Windows.

https://lg3d.dev.java.net/

Its problem is that you can only use looking glass apps in Windows.

No X11 GLX/AIGLX like interface to take Windows and allow looking glass to display them how they see fit. Vista appears to have interfaces like that. Those interfaces documented and provided would see a new start.

Other problem Looking glass is extremally heavy 1.5Ghz processor to turn it over nicely and a 1G of ram and a reasonable 3d card. Most likely because its completely built in java.

TiKu Nvidia and ATI will both be providing direct Opengl for Vista. So if you have hardware to accelerate you will most likely have company provided Opengl.

Note Microsoft Vista Beta's still ships with 2D only Nvidia drivers. Only comes good after you install the Nvidia ones. Also Opengl 1.4 preforms worse in frame rate that Opengl 1.1/1.2 Ie default is contains some bits of opengl 1.2 not all of them on XP without Direct X drivers installed.

At least Vista is done two a spec point.

Sniper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:55 am

Post by Sniper »

Z98 wrote:In Vista, Microsoft is translating OpenGL calls into DirectX calls.
No. It' is not true.

Anyway, talking about XGL/Compiz here is a link for it http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fXgl
where we can see the line
"Xwgl Server running on Windows (WGL) - 0%"
then anyone can start porting it to the win32 platform %))

wiki page about XGL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGL

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

Sniper wrote:
Z98 wrote:In Vista, Microsoft is translating OpenGL calls into DirectX calls.
No. It' is not true.
You're right. I just double checked and realized Microsoft issued a correction on that.

TiKu
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Unterföhring, Germany
Contact:

Post by TiKu »

Z98 wrote:You're right. I just double checked and realized Microsoft issued a correction on that.
Do you have a link?

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

http://blogs.msdn.com/kamvedbrat/archiv ... 37624.aspx

I guess I should rephrase that. It's from the MSDN blogs, but I'm assuming this information is authentic. Otherwise I think OpenGL supporters would still be raising hell about the issue, especially CAD people.

TiKu
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Unterföhring, Germany
Contact:

Post by TiKu »

MSOGL - this is an implementation of OpenGL 1.4 that uses Direct3D under the covers to hardware accellerate the application.
So I just misunderstood Sniper and you. After Sniper's post I thought Vista's default OpenGL implementation would not use Direct3D at all.

Cross
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:18 pm
Contact:

Post by Cross »

In regards to 3D desktops:

I have found in my own experience, that they tend to have a great "shock" factor at the beginning. Then they become tedious, especially when there is work to be done.

Most people want a straight-forward desktop. One they can use to do what they want to get done and get out.

3D desktops also tend to have a steep learning curve, limited to how much a user knows how to manipulate the system.

3D environments are good for specific applications, not for the backbone of a system.

Even with the high-end systems of today, memory and system resource consumption is still an issue. The more the OS uses the less there is for what you really have the system for...applications.

The whole point of an OS is to make a system usable. The more complex the OS is, the more people are going to be alienated from it, like Linux.
Look beyond the surface... Subliminal Visions

.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

i'll write this post after some time of using xgl + beryl

i don't play computer games at all, i use computer mailly for php programming, films etc.
and i just have to say that xgl itself doesn;t make any advantage (except fonts antialiasing), but some beryl plugins like Scale (like MacOS'es Expose), Show desktop (access to desktop by moving mouse to one of corners of screen), Zoom and some others are very useful, even when there's work to be done ;)
Some unimportant tasks that took me too much time to do like switching windows, desktops now takes this time a little less.

and i do not agree that it needs some super hardware - my r9550 + duron 1600 are working well. benefits to usability? look at MacOSX with its composite based Quatz engine.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests