Underlying Longhorn is the Windows Graphics Foundation, or WGF. The first version, prosaically dubbed “WGF 1.0” will incorporate DirectX 9.0c as its primary interface. Longhorn will also have the next-generation 3D API also built in at release. You can think of it as “Direct3D 10,” but it’s currently called WGF 2.0.
The Future of Windows’ Graphics Technology
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
If you don’t agree with me, you are blind.
Great. 😀
Nice try chief. Can you look at the two and honestly see NO difference?! Honestly. If so, then I am sorry and completely understand why you are arguing the side you are, and do not blame you for it. There IS a difference though. This I CAN prove beyond a doubt.
“If you can’t see the difference in rendering between those 2 screenshots however, you are quite blind and shouldn’t be paricipating in this discussion of fonts.”
Did I say I saw no difference ? I see no difference worth noting overall from a day to day usage perspective.
I displayed both and switched back and forth. I first noted that on first sight, globally, no difference jumped at me.
Then, one difference did: the regular, non-bold text is a little fuzzier in the cleartype version. That’s why I also posted magnified versions, and since the extra blurriness is visible, then yes, it’s relevant.
You have a point that indeed, some characters don’t look good in the freetype screenshot.
For the bold characters, they are indeed more bold in the freetype version. All it says is that one of the implementation or perhaps both isn’t getting the boldness right, but it’s not necessarily freetype.
I find the bold characters roughly as fuzzy in both versions.
Bottom line: there’s some good point and bad points in the two renderings, and IMHO no clear winner. And certainly nothing that would warrant freetype rendering to be deemed utterly crappy compared to cleartype.
Oh, and by the way, since I just only now read the posts between the one I answered from linsux and now, I’m still talking about LCD monitors, not CRT.
I didn’t know that other people started debating about screenshots comparisons as well
Well most people already agreed that CT is clearly superior on LCD. It was mainly an issue of CRT as well.
Now, it’s sort of hard to tell with your screenshots because of the different sizes of the Non-Client areas of the windows, and other things that are distracting. So take these 3 images, lay them on top of each other EXACTLY and switch between them.
FreeType: http://weakmind.org/upload/files/osnews_ft.png
ClearType: http://weakmind.org/upload/files/osnews_ct.png
ClearType2 (my settings): http://weakmind.org/upload/files/osnews_ct_mine.png
ALL of them are readble, and look pretty good. However, with the FT version, a few things stick out to me that really bug me. I am very picky when it comes to things like that, and I can’t help it. It makes it less readable to me (though still readble). My point is simply that ClearType rendering is better overall. More crisp and as a result [more] readable.
Also, here is a shot of the difference between the “s” with each rendering type.
The way the s looks really bugs me and slows down my reading as I constantly notice it.
http://weakmind.org/upload/files/diff.png
“My point is simply that ClearType rendering is better overall.”
“Except, it looks like crap compared to ClearType. If you can’t admit ClearType beats FreeType, you are so unbelievably delusional, that I almost feel bad. What a joke.”
“Fonts on linux hurt my eyes and I can’t use it for long periods of time. I develop on Linux sometimes and it drives me crazy after a while. Yes, I’ve tried all the options, sub-pixel rendering, BCI, etc.”
I disagree. What CT seems to get better is the shape of the characters. However, FT is more crisp.
So, which one look best to someone largely can be variable. The less good looking character shapes of FT don’t bother me as much as the slight fuzziness of CT.
Since it seems to be the other way round for you, it’s apparently very subjective.
ralph: Those statements are consistent.
1. I say CT is better
2. I say CT beats FreeType. I do say FT looks like crap COMPARED to CT, which I personally think is true, but I do realize some peoples eyes are not are sharp and picky as mine
3. I say that I personally cannot use linux for long periods of time because it bothers my eyes, which does not contradict the pervious 2 statements.
What exactly is your point?
MORB:
Fair enough. Maybe it’s our monitors, which still seems odd to me though.
One thing I will admit is that initually enabled ClearType on Windows, or using an OS w/o CT then looking at CT, it DOES look fuzzy. It actually bothers me at first. After a few minutes however, your eyes should adjust to it and it becomes more crisp and clear (at least, thats what my eyes do. Please don’t tell me my eyes are just crazy
).
So you wanna see my screenshot (to view best settings for my monitor on your monitor, and there you’ll draw your decision????).
God, what a dumb f***.
Even if I’d post it to you, my preset is based on best setting for 1680×1050@15,4″ (with specifics that come with that LCD) for my notebook.
You know how low is possibility that my best setting would actualy look good on your monitor??? What will you ask next? To post a screenshot of my color calibrations, and then check on your monitor if I view right colors?
btw. yeah, I know about web based cleartype settings. Still sucks.
p.s. I do use bitcode interpreter enabled on my computers. If you know what this means?
Actually, it’s bytecode interpreter. tehehe. Yeah, You obviously know what it is an I don’t… “dumb f***”
Most people already agree CT is better on LCDs, so if you’re using an LCD, you probably shouldn’t bother chiming in. I asked for screenshots from people using CRT monitors. Resolution has no impact on the font rendering. Color calibration does a bit, but most newer monitors should be pretty close to each other with that.
Do you know what an argument is? I’m beginning to suspect not, as all you’ve offered up is bald assertions.
In any case, you claimed that the video game market is larger than the movie industry, yes? Well that claim sheer nonsense. It’s wrong like a four-sided circle, which is say that there is absolutley no wiggle room on this one, no space for interpretation, it’s just palin false!
You continue to malign the license scheme used for KDE, but have yet offer even the slightest glimpse of why you think Trolltech’s choice’s have harmed the future prospects of KDE. You’ve not even ventured the vaguest hint of evidenc which would show that KDE has, in fact, been hindered by the QT license(s).
I’ve asked of you is that you at least attempt to account for the reasoning behind your outrageous claims, but charges of fanboyism are all that I’ve recieved in return.
Failing an appropriate response, I think we can all safely crank up that ass meter another couple of notches, putting you very close indeed to the status of total ass.
one product is free the other is not. sometimes crappy and free is a better choice when price of the alternative is unacceptable.
linux may never be the gui of choice. but if you want to run software raid-5 and use older scanner/printer combos because hp stopped supporting your hardware in xp, well…the price is hard to beat. Avalon may well surpass linux in many areas–except for one. And for cheap bastards like myself, well, what a deal!
Would post screenshot, but being at work I won’t bring here one of my 22″ Mitsubishi monitors (which are all at home, servers just simply don’t need monitor). But I can asure you I’m very satisfied with my fonts.
Color calibration does a bit, but most newer monitors should be pretty close to each other with that.
Now, I bet this was supposed to be joke.
And second. I don’t say CT or FT being better. It is simply case of monitor, settings and user. Some monitors work better with FT, some with CT. Unfortunatelly, all I can say is that my LCD sucks with CT (just as 2070SB Mitsubishi) if I compare it to FT. Here is a case for you. I don’t have 20/20 vision (more or less, far from that). CT makes middle of the s (and similiar lines) blurry or thiner (or in case of your screenshots, deformed and pixel cut like). My vision problem does have difficulties with this feature (and yes, it is present on your screenshots). You might say, that this is just me. Nope. Second bug in your screenshots is the variable weight trough words. While linux screenshot has equal weight notice how www seems thinner or how question mark gets almost lost.
But then again that is just me, my preference and my monitor.
Wrong again Mcfly
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-12-03-video_x.htm
and
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/16/60II/main533243.shtml
Dude, this is common knowledge. I was surprised too at first, but once again I’ve proved you wrong.
As far as KDE using Qt. Why do you think that Sun, RedHat, and Novell all chose to use an inferior Gnome/Gtk+ framework? Hint. It’s not because they are masochists. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now, and I’m sure I’ll say it many times again, if glibc had been straight GPL than another c standard library would be the norm these days.
The thing is, the open source Unix desktop is so miniscule that many people don’t even realize it’s an issue, but companies like RedHat, Sun, and Novell that have lots of money at stake and are betting on the future.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Novell had already bought Suse, which was the biggest KDE distro on the planet . What use would they have for buying Ximian if the Qt license was no problem.
WGF=We-Got-Fucked ……. by microsoft ?
is this a constructive informed objective statement? no it isnt, we can do better at osnews.
*Picks up Biff’s cane*. “Hello, is there anyone in there?!”
Why do you think that Sun, RedHat
For technology reasons, especially in the case of Sun. Have a read through earlier OSNews articles as to why – it’s been explained.
Red Hat like to feel in control of software, not just in terms of licensing (promotion of Jonas J2EE over JBoss). Whether they’ll get much further with that we’ll have to see, as it assumes that they’ll have the resources and an open source community willing to give up their resources to continue to push into the software they use.
and Novell
Novell don’t use GTK, they use Qt. Have a look at the Open Enterprise Server or the NLD. The installer is still written with Qt, the KDE desktop is there in full and YaST still has a continually developed KDE/Qt front-end.
When you’re able to tell me what percentage of Novell’s revenue Gnome, GTK and Mono are responsible for just don’t bother.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now, and I’m sure I’ll say it many times again
I’m sure you will – and things will continue to be different.
if glibc had been straight GPL than another c standard library would be the norm these days.
Yer, and you’re still wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and errrr wrong. Since this has been explained to you before I’m starting to assume that you’re a goldfish.
If Glibc was complex enough so that too many developer resources were needed to be put into it to make it good enough then you’d either see it either dual-licensed or closed source so that could be paid for. As it is, it isn’t that big a bit of software so the LGPL is realistic to allow development on top of it.
With development tools used to develop desktop environments and applications, those quite clearly need substantial investment. Just look at what Microsoft can afford to do. Unfortunately, that investment can’t be plucked out of thin air therefore the way Qt is financed makes perfect sense.
The proverbial is currently hitting the fan with GTK and Gnome development technologies as people realise they simply can’t develop them enough (and don’t have the finance or the resources) to get to where they want to go.
I’ve come to the definite conclusion now that you want to deride Qt because you know it’s the only thing in town that’s actually good enough. Nice one
.
It’s a common error which is widely repeated in the press, probably because Bill Gates has repeated it on a few occasions, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is plainly, and quite demonstrably, false.
The numbers which lie at the root of the error come in the form of a grossly misleading comparison: the overall size of the video game industries US market (console & portable hardware + console & portable software + computer game software) exceeeds the gross US boxoffice. This is true. The relevant numbers are as follows:
US gross boxoffice for 2004: 9.4 billion dollars
Aggregate video game market: 11 billion dollars
See the problem yet? The comparison is between one revenue stream (not even the largest one) of the movie industry and the aggregation of every revenue stream for the game industry. The numbers may be accurate, but they do not justify infering that the size of the game market has exceeded the size of the movie market.
To see just how misleading this comparison is, let’s look at a few more data points (all for 2004):
Total US market for video games: 11 billion
__Console and portable harware: 3.7 billion
__Game software for all platforms: 7.3 billion
__ __ Console games: 5.2 billion
__ __ Portable games: 1 billion
__ __ Computer games: 1.1 billion
US gross boxoffice reciepts: 9.4 billion
DVD + VHS sales and rentals: 26 billion (beginning to see the problem)
Consider also that we haven’t even touched global boxoffice receipts for US productions or ancillary licensing revenue streams.
Also, one quick look at the ratio of revenue coming from console games to computer games should be enough to indicate why gaming isn’t a significant obstacle for Linux desktops. It should also be noted that revenues from the sales of computer games have been slowly declining since 1998. Consoles not computers are the mainstream gaming platform.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Novell had already bought Suse,
Ahhh, I love the smell of crack cocaine in the morning
.
Novell hadn’t already bought Suse – that was there second, and most wise, purchase.
which was the biggest KDE distro on the planet .
Still is.
What use would they have for buying Ximian if the Qt license was no problem.
Because they were stupid? Honestly, it is perfectly obvious that Novell got conned into buying Ximian. You make it sound as if no company like Novell ever made a really daft purchase in their life. May be they thought they were buying the rights to an open source version of .Net.
The Qt license (whatever that may be) obviously isn’t a problem since Novell (yes, that would be Novell now) are continuing to use Qt to develop YaST and continue to use the KDE desktop in OES server (what will be their main revenue generator) and other major products.
You’re still frantically stirring round all the gears trying to find something license related, but there’s just no drive. I’ll re-iterate – people will not use shite software however favourable it’s license is. If licenses were really important, certainly, no one would be using Microsoft. I recommend you read one of their EULAs some time.
Stamp up and down like Steve Ballmer about the viral GPL license all you like, because no one is listening and no one cares. Qt is the only development tool good enough for Linux desktop development, and it has the business model to make that happen. It’s centred around the GPL
.
Don’t worry, I’ll be sure to remind people that the Qt license is an issue and you’ll continue to wish that the issue would just go away. You are so bitter and angry that Novell showcases Mono at Brainshare and there is nothing about work on KDE. It absolutely infuriates you that Novell bought Suse. I love it.
KDE is a dead man walking because of the viral GPL Qt
It was hilarious watching you embarrass yourself by not even knowing what Avalon was.
It’s a common error which is widely repeated in the press, probably because Bill Gates has repeated it on a few occasions, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is plainly, and quite demonstrably, false.
There’s the press, Bill Gates, the sources I gave you, and numerous other references if you would be bothered to google, but “it’s a common error” according to you. I’ll just take “your” word for it. Haha
CT makes middle of the s (and similiar lines) blurry or thiner (or in case of your screenshots, deformed and pixel cut like).
I don’t see what you mean at all. In fact, the middle of the S in free-type is WAY too thick and doesn’t match the rest of the S to me.
Second bug in your screenshots is the variable weight trough words. While linux screenshot has equal weight notice how www seems thinner or how question mark gets almost lost.I don’t see www in my screenshots anywhere?
Don’t worry, I’ll be sure to remind people that the Qt license is an issue and you’ll continue to wish that the issue would just go away.
I’ll let people make their own judgements, namely as to how good the software is.
You are so bitter and angry that Novell showcases Mono at Brainshare and there is nothing about work on KDE.
I was there at Brainshare, and their Mono showcase (laughs) was actually pretty embarrassing. There was certainly nothing useful demonstrated, apart from the fact that Visual Studio makes a nice IDE for Mono!
Meanwhile, all of the stuff that brings in revenue, OES and alike, all ran KDE and they used KDE applications like Konsole to demonstrate it. Can’t say I blame them as, if they’d used Gnome’s console application it would have barely kept the machine alive long enough to show anything!
Oh, and the Novell Client for Linux was also demonstrated with KDE.
KDE is a dead man walking because of the viral GPL Qt
Yawn….. Another one to chalk up – doesn’t understand the concept of dual licensing.
It was hilarious watching you embarrass yourself by not even knowing what Avalon was.
It was even more hilarious seeing you swallow hype whole with that big glass (or should that be bowl?!) of water again – as usual.
Avalon is exactly what it looks like. Flash Mark 2 masquerading as hype.
There’s the press, Bill Gates, the sources I gave you, and numerous other references if you would be bothered to google, but “it’s a common error” according to you. I’ll just take “your” word for it. Haha
Well, considering he also gave evidence to argue his side of things then it’s his word against yours. Further considering that he’s given hard comparable figures to back up his arguments that makes Eric the clear winner.
Just hasn’t been your day, has it?
Avalon is exactly what it looks like. Flash Mark 2 masquerading as hype.
That would be Aero Glass, buddy.
Then there is XAML.
Avalon powers both, but does so much more.
WOW, they made an App that can pull data from Amazon. WOW! Never been seen before. WHAT AN INNOVATION! DO YOU PEOPLE ERALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS? MS WILL RULE THE WORLD. THEY CAN PULL DATA OUT OF AMAZON!!!!!!!!!!!
Comon. Get a life lame MS fanboys.
was there at Brainshare, and their Mono showcase (laughs) was actually pretty embarrassing. There was certainly nothing useful demonstrated, apart from the fact that Visual Studio makes a nice IDE for Mono!
But Novell continues to showcase Mono/Gtk# apps, Nat Friedman and de Icaza demonstrating, and KDE guys are nowhere to be found. Oh, I guess they’re in some room brushing up on C# and gtk#.
Meanwhile, all of the stuff that brings in revenue, OES and alike, all ran KDE and they used KDE applications like Konsole to demonstrate it. Can’t say I blame them as, if they’d used Gnome’s console application it would have barely kept the machine alive long enough to show anything!
Haha, but Gnome terminal was used by de Icaza and Nat Friedman. You’re losing it now. Typical.
Yawn….. Another one to chalk up – doesn’t understand the concept of dual licensing.
Another one that doesn’t understand all the major players are Gnome/Gtk+ shops now. Oh wait, you do understand and you just don’t like it.
It was even more hilarious seeing you swallow hype whole with that big glass (or should that be bowl?!) of water again – as usual.
Avalon is exactly what it looks like. Flash Mark 2 masquerading as hype.
I would’ve thought that you would’ve at least googled for what Avalon is, but once again you embarrass yourself. Poor David.
Well, considering he also gave evidence to argue his side of things then it’s his word against yours. Further considering that he’s given hard comparable figures to back up his arguments that makes Eric the clear winner.
Just hasn’t been your day, has it?
Baha. He didn’t even give references, but typed in numbers.
Poor David. You see the writing on the wall for your precious KDE because they chose an encumbered toolkit and your in a state of mental meltdown.
Cites?
http://grumpygamer.com/5378171
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games#Popularity
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/28/news_6117438.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/feature_display.jsp…
Now, I do believe I’ve earned the right to tell you to get stuffed.
Nope, sorry you lose again. None of those cites backed up your claims. And you forget to mention worldwide and rentals of video games
Now you’ve deteriorated to flat out lying. Every single one of the numbers cited can be found in those articles, which cite back to the same industry research groups (I’m not about to pay for their reports in order to debate this point with you). I’ll leave it as an exercise for credible readers to enquire into the matter and come to the own conclusions.
And as for global markets, that only makes the gap between the games industry and the movie industry even wider. I choose not introduce that issue though as the numbers aren’t as easily cribbed from quick google searches.
And game rentals? That’s a difficult one, as I can’t find much in the way of hard numbers. It’s a very new area with little in the way of hard data. But, if you believe that games rentals amount to anywhere close to the market for movie rentals, please present the numbers. Also, I’ve found various analyses which credibly claim that there exist significant differences in the licensing models used for rentals by the movie industry and the gaming industry, with the end result that the gaming industry doesn’t manage to extract as much money as they could from the channel and most of it ends up in Blockbuster’s pocket.
But Novell continues to showcase Mono/Gtk# apps, Nat Friedman and de Icaza demonstrating,
Novell doesn’t demonstrate anything, it’s the two people you’ve mentioned and that’s about it. What they’re demonstrating that will be of any use to Novell is
and KDE guys are nowhere to be found. Oh, I guess they’re in some room brushing up on C# and gtk#.
Polishing up on GTK# and C# to program what? Oh yer, I forgot. Every Novell employee has a CVS or SVN account for F-Spot now and that’s what they spend their time doing.
Another one that doesn’t understand all the major players are Gnome/Gtk+ shops now.
What major players? Whoever they are, it’s obviously not making a blind bit of difference and that hurts you quite a bit. Mind you, it’s hurt quite a lot of people over the past few years so you’re not alone.
I would’ve thought that you would’ve at least googled for what Avalon is, but once again you embarrass yourself. Poor David.
Poor Lumbergh. Blinded by the hype. You’re in good company.
Poor David. You see the writing on the wall for your precious KDE because they chose an encumbered toolkit and your in a state of mental meltdown.
Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn……..my is that the time? Do you now understand that you can’t be a goldfish and come out with the same unsubstantiated statements when you’ve been taken to the cleaners?
God, I was so disinterested I cut off my first sentence above:
What they’re demonstrating that will be of any use to Novell is…
…anybody’s guess.
Nope, sorry you lose again. None of those cites backed up your claims.
It is customary to say why when you think something doesn’t back up someone’s claims.
And you forget to mention worldwide and rentals of video games
It’s hardly going to make any dent on what has been quoted is it? That last sentence is effectively an admission that he’s right anyway. Well done.
It’s always fun.