From: Gary Britt 

OK Maybe Vista does use a GPU in some ways, and what I've read previously
wasn't correct.  I'm still not convinced however for several reasons.

1.  The article you cite reads like the under NDA Windows 95 garbage and
deliberate misinformation that MS was shown to have deliberately lied about
with Windows 95 architecture at the time of its release.  It reads more
like a reprint of some MS marketing materials for writers and mag editors
than a real investigation of the facts pro and con.

2.  NT 3.1 had the graphics driver outside ring 0 kernel level.  NT 4 moved
it into the ring 0 kernel level to INCREASE performance.  Now that mag
article you cite just whips out the statement (without offering any
explanation or investigation or substantiation) that moving the graphics
driver back outside the ring 0 kernel level will somehow magically make the
graphics driver perform better.  Have the laws of physics changed since NT
4??

3.  The article gives a very basic broad brush look at how supposedly VISTA
talks to the GPU directly but fails to compare that and explain why its
better or worse than having a ring 0 kernel driver let the GPU do the work
directly with the GPU or why its better than letting applications deal with
the driver and the GPU.  It does nothing but repeat the MS marketing
materials about how wonderful the new Vista driver model is without
investigating whether that model is faster or slower than the older model,
and while mentioning the wonderful everything will be DirectX and vector
graphics marketing hype does not consider or address whether this is just
yet another way for Microsoft to try and lock everyone into another
Microsoft proprietary format.

4.  Finally, there is no consideration paid to how the new Vista graphics
hardware and driver requirements will or could result in cards without the
ability to run Linux or other operating systems full speed (maybe even XP
and Win2K not full speed) and that they might result in new cards without
the ability to have decent XP, Win2K, or Linux drivers.

I'm afraid the article you cite Richard isn't up to your usual quality
standards for citation, which is usually quite excellent.

Gary

Richard Gauszka wrote:
> ?? - Vista uses the gpu of the video card.
>
> http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_gpu.html
>
> Windows Vista™ is the first Windows operating system that directly
> utilizes the power of a dedicated GPU (graphics processing unit).
> NVIDIAR GPUs are essential for accelerating the Windows Vista experience
> by offering an enriched 3D user interface, increased productivity,
> vibrant photos, smooth, high-definition videos, and realistic games.
>
> --
>
> Good Vista video article at
>
> http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6031406.html
>
>
> Gary Britt wrote:
>> Its not just a matter of using DRM content or not with Vista because
>> Vista wastes a lot of CPU power making sure the DRM is not messed
>> with.  Things like Vista requiring a video card without a GPU and that
>> video processing that used to be done by the GPU on the video card is
>> now done by the CPU. These kind of downgrades affect the total system
>> performance for everything from powerpoint to non DRM'd content to
>> whatever.  It affects the whole system and that's what can't be refused.
>>
>> If Vista didn't suck the performance down of the whole machine and
>> didn't require poor performing hardware and drivers then it would be
>> just a matter of DRM take it or leave it, and I wouldn't mind that.
>> Its the degradation of hardware performance that's the issue.  Having
>> the CPU do video processing instead of offloading to a GPU is what...
>> going backwards 20 years?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5