[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Project looking glass
From:       Janne Ojaniemi <janne.ojaniemi () nbl ! fi>
Date:       2004-07-06 12:11:37
Message-ID: 200407062332.40608.
[Download RAW message or body]

> Well, you may think it is the future, but it is just not practical at all
> for several good reasons. The big one is that there is no hardware around
> that can cope with a pure 3D accelerated desktop environment at the moment,
> that will also allow people to use many everyday applications, at the same
> time, and let people run stuff like games with acceptable performance.

Uh, yes there is. Modern 3D-accelerators have insane amount of performance. 
Have you seen any of the newer 3D-games that are out there? And those are 
couple of orders of magnitude more complex than 3D-desktop would be. And 
those games require constant fast framerate, whereas a desktop would not.

My vid-card has 128 Megs of RAM dedicated to just video. And that RAM has 
ungodly amount of memory-bandwidth at it's disposal. The GPU can pump 
humungous amounts of pixels on to the screen, and textures are not a problem 
either. Yes, it's a modern vid-card, but it's not cutting-edge. It's GeForce 
FX5900. The new 6800-series is over twice as fast while having twice as much 
RAM. 3D-desktop? Bring it on!

My vid-card would have more than enough horsepower to handle a 3D-desktop. 
Hell, even an older vid-card would be more than enough! Of course, if I would 
be playing games in this 3D-desktop, the desktop-stuff would be disabled. 
People seem to be playing 3D-games on MacOS just fine, even though the UI is 
rendered in the GPU. I fail to see how that would be different in Linux.

> Under no circumstance should you believe those Jonathan Schwartz
> presentations. What kind of hardware do you think is behind him there?

Do you think you need a Cray supercomputer in order to run a 3D-desktop? 
Modern PC is more than enough. Or are you saying that 3D-desktop would demand 
more from your computer than Half-Life 2 or Doom3 would???

> There is no way the hardware today, or even sometime soon, can cope with
> that.

The hardware that can cope with it exists today. And it has existed for 
several years already. And not in some supercomputers or hi-end workstations, 
but in ordinary PC's. 

> People are touting Linux desktops as a way of reusing old desktops, 
> so there is no way you can push a desktop environment that can't even be
> run on the stuff of tomorrow.

While some people are using Linux in old computers, it does not mean that 
everybody does it. The Linux-machine I'm typing this on is a 2.2GHz Athlon64 
with 1024MB of RAM. Just because you CAN run Linux on old hardware (although 
that depends. KDE does not run that well on really low-end hardware), does 
not mean that you are limited to old hardware. If there's someone running 
Linux on 500Mhz P2, he can just disable the eye-candy. Or he could just keep 
on using the software he currently uses. Or he could (heaven forbid!) upgrade 
his machine! You don't need to win in the lottery to buy a modern PC these 
days. And progress should not be held back by those luddites who refuse to 
use a modern computer. If we did that, we would still be using TWM!

Me? My computer has the performance, so I welcome all the eye-candy I can get. 
True, eye-candy does not necessarily make you more productive. But it makes 
the UI more pleasant to use. If I could choose between two equally effective 
UI's, but one of them was drop-dead gorgerous while the other one looks 
crappy, I choose the gorgerous UI. Every single time.

> Not only have I seen zoom added to the desktop mix, but I've also seen the
> concept of moving windows around as if they are in a 3D space with a mouse.
> This is a definite no, no usability-wise, because if you are talking about
> businesses taking this up people can just about get by on a 2D desktop as
> it is. A mouse is just not a good peripheral for doing 3D movements.

Those who are unable to grasp a concept of 3D-desktop, can just switch the 
3D-stuff off, and use the UI as a regural 2D-UI. No-one is in any shape or 
form forced to use this new system.

> You can do that now, without the overhead of a total 3D desktop.

What "overhead"? The stuff is done (at least it should be) 100% in the GPU, 
the CPU is free to do other stuff. Right now, everything is done in the CPU.

> It is clear when you bring a window to the foreground in a 2D desktop,
> because you can actually see it.

So that is a good enough reason to shun 3D-desktops? With attitude like that, 
we would still be using TWM.
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]