Microsoft's internal e-mails show just how desperate Intel was to water down the requirements for Vista performance, as the performance of its top integrated graphics chipset was "barely" acceptable to Microsoft executives.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.
Add this feed to your online news reader
all, Apple seems to do fine with the same hardware...
That said, this chip runs compiz great, and I don't know what you're fussing about.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, look into iphone security and you'll see the reason why the government/enterprises/large corporations/banks *Will Not Allow* their associates to use iphones or macintosh computers. (though of course, they may at home as they please, but cannot access any company information or perform any work on any apple products).
Apple might have to consider upgrading something if they marketed to anyone who was cost-minded ^.~. But if they actually upgraded anything really significant, you can bet they probably would have to upgrade the hardware specifications.
than "barely works."'
While probably true in fact it need not be if basic OS
functionality wasn't programmed assuming overwhelming power
was available.
Want to play advanced games - get a top end graphics processor
Want to view some photo's or edit a document - get a better OS
If Microsoft cannot bring themselves to write code to be compatible with existing hardware, the fault lies with Microsoft. Beryl/Compiz can run even more powerful and intensive graphic effects than Aero Glass could ever hope to, yet it operates without a hitch on the 945 chipset motherboard.
Transparencies and other effects put into Aero are running right now on my 945 chipset mobo under Fedora Core 8 - no sweat. Meanwhile, all reports indicate that Vista would choke on the same hardware.
Methinks the problem lies with Vista, and its creators... not the hardware that has been out before Vista's RCs and betas have been. I'm thinking that the signal to Redmond from Santa Clara was more along the lines of "fix your bugs already" than "say it works anyway". MSFT is merely looking for a scapegoat to spin the disaster of an OS version they've launched, and your article is helping them with it for some odd reason.
/P
Microsoft is the only one who gets to write the Vista OS code... not Intel.
Microsoft is the arbiter of what is and is not WHQL compliant... not Intel.
If Microsoft cannot bring themselves to write code that is compatible with existing chipsets in widespread use, that is Microsoft's fault... not Intel.
/P
Video Ram of 128 for 1024*768 to >1600*1200 and 265 for > 1600*1200
Driver that supports the new video api.
Thats what was needed to bring all the effects.
This is Intel's fault because they are behind the times on integrated graphics or graphics at all. Frankly, I would like Intel to just admit defeat, start licensing AMD/ATI's or NVidia's graphics chipsets, and use them.... not even BOTHER anymore trying to make their own, because they are JUST NOT GOOD AT IT!
From what I?ve gotten from my friend the rumor is the 945 won?t run Aero unless you have a gig of ram. That would explain why some people with 945s can run it, and others can?t. However, that?s just outdated rumor at this point. Someone is going to have to test it. How do you feel about dropping your ram to about 512 meg?
Also, the Wikipedia entry was a bit confusing. I couldn?t tell if there were two different versions of the 945 or not. It looked like there may have been a 945 GMA in the 950 line and an older 945 that wasn?t. However, I?m really too tired to be reading right now. If it?s true though, that would end a lot of confusion.
Every single knock against Vista was done when XP came out as well. Some people just don't like the fact that when you make something have more features, it necessarily takes up more memory in the machine that you are using and more power from that machine.
While I feel sorry for the people who bought machines in 06 that they were misled perhaps maliciously into believing would support Aero, I don't think that this should discourage people from buying machines with Intel newer integrated solutions like the X3100, which not only support Aero, but are supposed to be able to support HD support.
Anybody of any reasonable knowledge knew that integrated graphics have historically been painfully slow for any type of 3d graphics. Even the X3100 is only going to have basic support for current game titles.
At least for the those who bought desktops the solution is pretty easy: buy a cheap graphics card. Virtually everything on the shelf at your local Fry's or comparable retail store will work provided that it is the right slot. Microsoft and some of the vendors that participated in the program should fess up and just give anyone who bought one of these machines $50. It won't help those that bought laptops in the vast majority of cases, since except for those with MXM slots they can't really upgrade the graphics, but at least it demonstrates that they acknowledge that they were wrong in misleading customers.
Quite honestly I don't expect Intel to make their integrated solutions too much better because doing so would increase the cost of the board and encourage low end vendors to switch to non-Intel chipsets.
Intel has been rumored to be getting back into the dedicated graphics market, so I doubt that they would make the integrated solutions too good otherwise, Intel would be hurting the sales of the dedicated cards. Intel acknowledges that high end users are going to use high end dedicated cards and that is why they have motherboards like the X38 and the X48. If you want high end graphics boards, Intel has a board for you, so as long as it is an Intel board I don't think Intel cares that some people hate their integrated graphics solutions.
If you've used any Vista laptops packing AMD CPU's and ATI graphics cards, you have likely noticed their decidedly lousy performance in graphical applications compared even to the intel X3100 graphics equipped models, let alone the even AMD CPU, Nvidia Graphics equipped models.
Don't get me wrong, I rather like AMD... just not in laptops (at all!). I have yet to see a laptop running better than a 64Mb dedicated ATI graphics card in a laptop for less than $1000 in a mainstream retailer's store. Plus, AMD's are *VERY* power hungry compared to intel's Core 2's that get more processing done per clock cycle than comparable AMD's running at faster clockspeeds using more power and generating more heat. All the way around, I've been dissapointed with AMD where it comes to laptops and mobility, their current offerings simply don't do well. Even in the $1200-$3000 market range of laptops, the situation doesn't improve for AMD/ATI platforms, as the performance/cost ratio decreases drastically and both the battery life and functional longevity of the systems decrease significantly.
But to me, this is expected until AMD takes mobility more seriously and regears for the mobile market like Intel has. This is why Intel is eating AMD alive right now, Intel sports a positive in every facet over AMD save graphics (and even there it is not very big for ATI, as their better graphics chipsets, like Nvidia, are only available in higher end systems that do not work well with intel chips/chipsets since Nvidia of course doesn't support ATI products so well). So until ATI can convince some of the major consumer computer manufacturers to use Asus motherboards in laptops, ATI is stuck with power-hogging AMD's compared to their significantly more efficient, battery friendly intel counterparts with very little if any decrease in performance.
All around, AMD seems to have dropped the ball and invested poorly the last year or two. All that said, I do still hope that they will "pull an apple" and come up with something genuinely creative that is simply impossible to ignore and that will give them an edge again. In the meantime, I'm afraid AMD has nothing but tough times ahead with their Phenoms also being trashed in all respects by the Core 2 Quads by a minimum of 20%ish with the new 45nm versions being closer to 40-50% on average over the still pre-production phenoms slated to be released in october. =(
The evidence is clear from Business Week and even from AMD's side by side videos.
AMD video v Intel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcJojNMtmE
BusinessWeek: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2007/tc2007081_108723.htm?chan=search
- AMD versus Intel on Vista (on tape)
- by truthteller33 March 2, 2008 3:11 AM PST
- AMD created video showing side by side the capabilities on Vista. Looks much like the issues on the 150 page documents.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- As usual , intel sux...
- by AppleSuxLeo March 3, 2008 3:39 PM PST
- Intel and gaming just don`t work well. Go AMD !!
- Like this
-
(33 Comments)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcJojNMtmE