[News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition - Linux ; * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:08:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote: >> >> The virtual desktop program I use came with my Nvidia Graphics card. So >> did a bunch of other great ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 105

Thread: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

  1. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:08:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >> The virtual desktop program I use came with my Nvidia Graphics card. So
    >> did a bunch of other great utilities to tweak the display, color
    >> management, speed etc of the Nvidia card.
    >>
    >> Sorry...
    >>
    >> They don't work with Linux....

    >
    > No?
    >
    > Well, I don't need an nVidia utility to utilize virtual desktops. I have
    > been using them on Linux based systems for 10-ish years.
    >
    > As for nVidia tweaking utilities, I have...
    > XServer Display Configuration
    > Color Correction
    > XVideo Settings
    > Cursor shadow
    > Open GL Settings
    > Antialiasing
    > PowerMizer
    > Vibrance
    > Sharpening
    >
    > enough?


    Mush must be getting old. He keeps recalling last century's FUD.

    --
    You will be run over by a bus.

  2. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

    wrote
    on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:57:50 -0500
    :
    > On 2008-07-23, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order to
    >>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API calls
    >>>> to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to get
    >>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has been
    >>> around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.

    >>
    >> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >> application and use that. No different from the notion that

    >
    > ...and those would be?
    >
    > Of course you have no clue about this and are yet again
    > blathering on about things that you have absolutely no
    > actual knowledge or experience with.
    >
    >> linux/aix/solaris users that "want to save data to disk" need to write
    >> clever code to write to a file.

    >
    > Nope... all of that is already built into the default shell.
    >
    > It's kind of like X and virtual desktops.
    >
    > [deletia]
    >


    OK, now I'm extremely confused: just what is a "desktop"
    in this context?

    Granted, part of my confusion is my familiarity with X,
    which breaks up its world into the rough hierarchy:

    - X server (display)
    - X screen
    - X root window
    - X window

    No real "desktop" here, although the notion of a "session"
    and "session manager" was introduced some time later,
    along with the xsm daemon.

    I'm not sure a lot of X servers have more than one screen,
    though I'd be interested in seeing the Linux Xorg server
    be able to support more than one vt/screen using a single
    display for testing purposes. Xorg can already support
    more than one vt using multiple displays, and Xnest can
    support up to 3 screens, according to its manpage.

    (One neat hack: fire up Xnest, then start Gnome or KDE
    in it.)

    For its part Gnome has a few notions of its own,
    which I'd have to research the details of. I do see
    /usr/include/gnome-desktop-2.0/libgnome/gnome-desktop-item.h
    though. This appears to be roughly analogous to Windows'
    graphical shell in general functionality, as it has such
    routines as gnome_desktop_item_launch_on_screen() -- assuming
    I can get an item, or a list of such items.

    The notion of virtual workspaces in X is done by
    a number of clever window manager visual tricks,
    XMapWindow/XUnmapWindow, and fiddling with top-level window
    properties. (These properties can be seen by using a tool
    such as xprop.)

    I also note that "virtual desktop" is a bit redundant,
    as desktops are rather virtual beasties anyway;
    certainly a *real* desktop is made of wood or metal. ;-)
    But for better or for worse, the metaphor has stuck,
    and there's some sense in it, if one has multiple
    instances of a word processor, editor, picture viewer,
    diagram editor, or other such visual application open.

    As for saving data to disk, the shell can hand a fid
    to you. One can read from or write to that fid, if one
    likes, or perform operations such as fstat(0, &statbuf),
    lseek(0,...), or read(0,...) or write(0,...) -- though
    the last is probably not going to work, for stdin(0).
    One might even try mmap().

    If one invokes the application using e.g.

    $ application < file.txt

    then fstat(0,&statbuf) will return specifics on file.txt's inode,
    as opposed to applications' tty or pty [+]. For example,

    $ stty -a < /dev/modem

    will return specifics on one's modem, presumably using
    tcgetattr(0, &termiosbuf) or some such. (My version of
    stty also takes the -F or --file= option, which might make
    more sense to some.)

    $ stty -a

    will return specifics on one's own pseudo-tty, modem, or console.

    If one invokes application using

    $ application > file.txt

    the file file.txt is opened for write, and either
    created or truncated, permissions permitting. The
    fid in this case is stdout (1).

    If one does

    $ app1 | app2

    then app1's standard output (1) becomes a pipe, as does
    app2's standard input (0), and data flows from one to
    the other. The shell uses pipe() to construct the
    dual fids required, then fork()s twice. Each child
    most likely will close the half it doesn't need,
    though I'd have to look.

    One can even do stuff like

    $ application 3< file.txt 4> output.txt

    but the application would have to know to use fid 3 and fid
    4 in that case, and possibly that fid 3 is opened readonly.
    Since the shell uses fork() or a routine like system()
    that eventually calls same, it inherits copies of the
    opened fids, among other things, but it's the shell that
    opens them, prior to fork()/exec().[*]

    (Usually, one sees things like
    $ application > txt.log 2>&1
    which means txt.log captures output from both stdout(1) and stderr(2).
    Note that
    $ application 2>&1 > txt.log
    is quite different; stdout goes to txt.log, and stderr goes to what
    stdout used to be. Ordering is important here. ;-)

    Most applications, when saving a file, use open(), fopen(), or
    other such library-provided calls, either directly or indirectly.
    Not all that clever, really, though depends on what the application
    is interested in writing.)

    [+] in a GUI environment such as KDE or Gnome, the 'tty'
    command will return pathnames such as '/dev/pts/2'.
    The master side of that pseudo-terminal is managed by
    the terminal emulator, which sends keystroke events
    thereto; the slave side is what the shell and (by
    inheritance) tty are seeing. One can think of a
    pseudo-terminal as a weird soft of named pipe that
    can transmit signals and EOF indications as well as
    character data. All this is required from ancient Unix
    days when users dialed into modems, and the pseudo-tty
    workaround when X came into vogue in the mid-80's.
    [*] it is possible for the parent program to duplicate a
    file descriptor using F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC, or to use
    F_SETFD with the FD_CLOEXEC flag. After exec(),
    the child program will not be able to use that
    particular fid. I'd have to look but rather
    doubt Bash bothers with that flag.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux makes one use one's mind.
    Windows just messes with one's head.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-07-23, OK wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.codeplex.com/vdm

    >
    > ...I will have to try this one out (assuming I haven't already).


    Here's a good review of it:

    http://hotware.wordpress.com/2008/07...sktop-manager/

    * Dirk's Online Tips

    Vista/XP Virtual Desktop Manager

    July 6, 2008

    Unlike most virtual desktop managers, Vista/XP Virtual
    Desktop Manager is elegant and easy to use. Using Vista's
    new thumbnail window previews, Vista/XP Virtual Desktops can
    give you a full screen preview of all of your desktops.

    That's it. That's the review.

    Anyway, this one's a little more informative:

    http://mutable.net/blog/archive/2008...p-manager.aspx

    It's nice to see Windows catching up with old UNIX technology. Nice
    innovation, boys.

    --
    Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?
    -- Steven Wright

  4. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    >> Mentally-ill troll wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The virtual desktop program I use came with my Nvidia Graphics card.


    The testimony of a mentally-ill, fsckwitted troll is meaningless.
    AFAIK, there is NO decent virtual desktop for Windwoes.


  5. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On 2008-07-23, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2008-07-23, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >>> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order to
    >>>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API calls
    >>>>> to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to get
    >>>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has been
    >>>> around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.
    >>>
    >>> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >>> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >>> application and use that. No different from the notion that

    >>
    >> ...and those would be?
    >>
    >> Of course you have no clue about this and are yet again
    >> blathering on about things that you have absolutely no
    >> actual knowledge or experience with.
    >>
    >>> linux/aix/solaris users that "want to save data to disk" need to write
    >>> clever code to write to a file.

    >>
    >> Nope... all of that is already built into the default shell.

    >
    > And that is the difference. NT based systems support the concept of virtual
    > desktops - in fact, these calls are used a lot by services that need to
    > interact with the desktop environment... But, MS chose not to expose them in
    > Explorer.exe - the default windows shell. Nothing stops 3rd parties from
    > writing either shell extensions or replacement shells that fully support
    > multiple desktops... And if you look around, there are a few - ms powertoy,

    ^^^^^^^^^

    The MS version sucks particularly badly.

    > the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    > demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    > app fill this void long ago....


    Virtual desktops are one of those features that are hard to fully
    appreciate until you experience them for yourself. In the absence of
    a good virtual desktop manager most people aren't going to have any
    clue that it's something they would find useful.

    --
    Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
    attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
    the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
    events not in their control.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  6. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, chrisv claimed:
    >>> Mentally-ill troll wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The virtual desktop program I use came with my Nvidia Graphics card.

    >
    > The testimony of a mentally-ill, fsckwitted troll is meaningless.
    > AFAIK, there is NO decent virtual desktop for Windwoes.


    The MS Power Toy© does virtual, in a goofy, Erik-likes-it-because-it's-
    from-MS sort of way. But that's not anything approcaching "decent".

    There was a free one called yodm that simulate(s|d) the cube in compiz.
    It's actually not bad. (I still use it to make Windross less repugnant
    when I have to use it at work.) The guy developing it was bought out,
    though. So it's no longer free. And it might be called something else
    now.

    Funny that a company would buy something like that out when "nobody
    wants it" as we're regularly informed by the Windolts.

    --
    When I hear of a long time smoker dying of lung cancer I think 'That's
    too bad, but they made their choices'. When I hear about companies
    getting screwed by Microsoft I think the same thing.

  7. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
    >
    > wrote
    > on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:57:50 -0500
    >:
    >> On 2008-07-23, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >>> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order to
    >>>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API calls
    >>>>> to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to get
    >>>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has been
    >>>> around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.
    >>>
    >>> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >>> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >>> application and use that. No different from the notion that

    >>
    >> ...and those would be?
    >>
    >> Of course you have no clue about this and are yet again
    >> blathering on about things that you have absolutely no
    >> actual knowledge or experience with.
    >>
    >>> linux/aix/solaris users that "want to save data to disk" need to write
    >>> clever code to write to a file.

    >>
    >> Nope... all of that is already built into the default shell.
    >>
    >> It's kind of like X and virtual desktops.
    >>
    >> [deletia]
    >>

    >
    > OK, now I'm extremely confused: just what is a "desktop"
    > in this context?


    Really it's just a subset of the total workspace. Given this
    basic idea it really should be simple to implement in ANY OS.
    It seems to be unusually hard in Windows. The ms powertoy is
    particularly bad.

    The key thing in X is that each virtual workspace acts
    like it's own self-contained little desktop universe. It
    works as well as multiple copies of X running on different
    virtual consoles.

    Change the keybindings and you may be hard pressed to tell the
    difference.

    [deletia]
    > The notion of virtual workspaces in X is done by
    > a number of clever window manager visual tricks,
    > XMapWindow/XUnmapWindow, and fiddling with top-level window
    > properties. (These properties can be seen by using a tool
    > such as xprop.)
    >
    > I also note that "virtual desktop" is a bit redundant,
    > as desktops are rather virtual beasties anyway;
    > certainly a *real* desktop is made of wood or metal. ;-)
    > But for better or for worse, the metaphor has stuck,
    > and there's some sense in it, if one has multiple
    > instances of a word processor, editor, picture viewer,
    > diagram editor, or other such visual application open.

    [deletia]


    --
    Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
    attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
    the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
    events not in their control.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-23, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> On 2008-07-23, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>> On 2008-07-23, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >>>> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order to
    >>>>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API calls
    >>>>>> to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to get
    >>>>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has been
    >>>>> around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.
    >>>>
    >>>> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >>>> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >>>> application and use that. No different from the notion that
    >>>
    >>> ...and those would be?
    >>>
    >>> Of course you have no clue about this and are yet again
    >>> blathering on about things that you have absolutely no
    >>> actual knowledge or experience with.
    >>>
    >>>> linux/aix/solaris users that "want to save data to disk" need to write
    >>>> clever code to write to a file.
    >>>
    >>> Nope... all of that is already built into the default shell.

    >>
    >> And that is the difference. NT based systems support the concept of virtual
    >> desktops - in fact, these calls are used a lot by services that need to
    >> interact with the desktop environment... But, MS chose not to expose them in
    >> Explorer.exe - the default windows shell. Nothing stops 3rd parties from
    >> writing either shell extensions or replacement shells that fully support
    >> multiple desktops... And if you look around, there are a few - ms powertoy,

    > ^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > The MS version sucks particularly badly.
    >


    I agree with that, it is just one example though.

    >> the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    >> demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    >> app fill this void long ago....

    >
    > Virtual desktops are one of those features that are hard to fully
    > appreciate until you experience them for yourself. In the absence of
    > a good virtual desktop manager most people aren't going to have any
    > clue that it's something they would find useful.
    >


    I have used virtual desktops. I run linux as well. I hate them. Period.
    End of story. I love multiple monitors though!

    --
    Tom Shelton

  9. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>
    >> the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    >> demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    >> app fill this void long ago....


    "Desktop enhancements" are difficult to sell. M$ even gave up on
    their "Plus" packages, right? Plus, note JEDIDIAH's comment below.

    >Virtual desktops are one of those features that are hard to fully
    >appreciate until you experience them for yourself. In the absence of
    >a good virtual desktop manager most people aren't going to have any
    >clue that it's something they would find useful.


    Most users didn't know about them, so there was not a big "demand".
    But M$ not only knew about them, but knew that they were quite useful.
    Yet they did not implement them (sufficiently well), for whatever
    reason. Millions of users who could have benefitted did not.

    Sometimes it's the job of "the people with a clue" to push things out,
    rather than do nothing, with the excuse of "there was no consumer
    demand". I'm certain Windows has many things implemented that were
    not "demanded" by end users, but were known to be useful by the
    software architects.


  10. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, chrisv wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >> Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>>
    >>> the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    >>> demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    >>> app fill this void long ago....

    >
    > "Desktop enhancements" are difficult to sell. M$ even gave up on
    > their "Plus" packages, right? Plus, note JEDIDIAH's comment below.


    Exactly - because NO ONE WANTS THEM. Or at least in sufficient quantities for
    most people to make a living at it (with the exception maybe of StarDock).
    The fact is that these things have been around for quite sometime - I remember
    trying a virtual desktop manager for windows 95 - yet, the remain not very
    popular... Why?

    --
    Tom Shelton

  11. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > And that is the difference. NT based systems support the concept of virtual
    > desktops - in fact, these calls are used a lot by services that need to
    > interact with the desktop environment... But, MS chose not to expose them in
    > Explorer.exe - the default windows shell. Nothing stops 3rd parties from
    > writing either shell extensions or replacement shells that fully support
    > multiple desktops... And if you look around, there are a few - ms powertoy,
    > the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    > demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    > app fill this void long ago....


    Or maybe they had my experience -- tried the virtual-desktop power toy,
    liked it (to my surprise), but found it too unstable.

    The internal desktop support of NT does look pretty interesting. One of
    our guys had to deal with in a service he was creating. However, he
    couldn't make it work right (might just be his fault, though), and so he
    just went with an invisible window.

    --
    Bridge ahead. Pay troll.

  12. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-07-23, chrisv wrote:
    >>>> app fill this void long ago....

    >>
    >> "Desktop enhancements" are difficult to sell. M$ even gave up on
    >> their "Plus" packages, right? Plus, note JEDIDIAH's comment below.

    >
    > Exactly - because NO ONE WANTS THEM. Or at least in sufficient quantities for
    > most people to make a living at it (with the exception maybe of StarDock).
    > The fact is that these things have been around for quite sometime - I remember
    > trying a virtual desktop manager for windows 95 - yet, the remain not very
    > popular... Why?


    They're not implementable very well in Windows, would be my guess.

    Or maybe people just generally don't know about them. Most consumers
    really don't know much about their systems at all, from what I've seen.

    Maybe virtual desktops will get more traction in Vista.

    Microsoft put a crappy text editor (actually three of them) in DOS and
    Windows. I don't want any of them. They suck. But there they are!
    Same for most of the games that come with Windows.

    And I'll bet those crap apps didn't "sell any boxes", either.

    --
    Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.
    -- George Orwell

  13. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrng8es8u.bf4.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-07-23, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order
    >>>> to
    >>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API
    >>>> calls
    >>>> to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to
    >>> get
    >>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has
    >>> been
    >>> around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.

    >>
    >> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >> application and use that. No different from the notion that

    >
    > ...and those would be?


    There were and are several. Do you really think that nobody bothered to
    develop something like this for the most widely used desktop OS in the
    world? I used a couple but never cared for them (or the ones in linux) so I
    don't remember the exact name. One would be something like this:


    VirtuaWin is a virtual desktop manager for the Windows operating system
    (Win9x/ME/NT/Win2K/XP/Win2003/Vista).
    VirtuaWin is a freely distributed program and is licensed under the GNU
    General Public License.

    Copyright © 1999-2005 Johan Piculell


    http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/


    So yeah... this one version has been out for about 9 years now. And there
    were versions prior to this one and there are versions that came out after
    this one. Are you trying to make some sort of ridiculous claim that there
    weren't any virtual desktop apps available for Windows?


    > Of course you have no clue about this and are yet again
    > blathering on about things that you have absolutely no
    > actual knowledge or experience with.


    Of course. That's why I said something ridiculous as "mythical virtual
    desktops for Windows" or something stupid like that. Oh wait... it was you
    who is clueless and didn't realize that Windows does support virtual
    desktops. And it was me who listed the specific API calls that have been
    available in Windows NT since the very beginning. That would make *you* the
    clueless one that doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  14. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition


    "bugbuster" wrote in message
    newsan.2008.07.23.18.02.46.939831@nowhere.org...
    > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:48:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "bugbuster" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2008.07.23.17.04.34.736118@nowhere.org...
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:39:47 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Supported" means that it was supported directly by the OS. In order
    >>>> to
    >>>> use it people didn't need to write any clever code or hacks to get
    >>>> multiple desktops. From the very begining the API for Windows-NT
    >>>> implemented a full set of "desktop" API calls like CreateDesktop,
    >>>> CloseDesktop, EnumDesktops, OpenDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc. It was
    >>>> directly "supported" by the operating system and had documented API
    >>>> calls to implement multiple desktops.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> In other words in order to use it people had to write clever code to
    >>> get
    >>> multiple desktops. While end user support for multiple desktops has
    >>> been around for years out the box for Linux, AIX, Solaris.

    >>
    >> What a silly notion. Of course people who wanted to use virtual desktops
    >> didn't have to write any code to do this. They would simply run an
    >> application and use that. No different from the notion that
    >> linux/aix/solaris users that "want to save data to disk" need to write
    >> clever code to write to a file.
    >>

    >
    > Code must be written to use the API. Either the user has to write the
    > code or he has to find an application that uses it. The end user
    > interface to support virtual desktops is not available out of the box for
    > Windows while it is for Linux, AIX, and Solaris.


    Yeah. People have to download an app to do this. But that's not the same
    thing as your claim that in order to use virtual desktops users had to
    write their own code. The fact is that the API calls were in the Win32 API
    from the very start. Multiple desktops have been supported by the Windows
    OS from the very start. There are dozens of 3rd party virtual desktop apps
    available to do this with. But sure... because it's not installed by
    default then using 'linux logic' it's not supported.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  15. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-23, chrisv wrote:
    >>>>> app fill this void long ago....
    >>>
    >>> "Desktop enhancements" are difficult to sell. M$ even gave up on
    >>> their "Plus" packages, right? Plus, note JEDIDIAH's comment below.

    >>
    >> Exactly - because NO ONE WANTS THEM. Or at least in sufficient quantities for
    >> most people to make a living at it (with the exception maybe of StarDock).
    >> The fact is that these things have been around for quite sometime - I remember
    >> trying a virtual desktop manager for windows 95 - yet, the remain not very
    >> popular... Why?

    >
    > They're not implementable very well in Windows, would be my guess.
    >


    And why would you guess that? People have been and are writting complete
    shell replacements for windows (such as bblean) for a long time. Why
    shouldn't they be able to write a simple thing as a Virtual Desktop Manager
    well?

    > Or maybe people just generally don't know about them. Most consumers
    > really don't know much about their systems at all, from what I've seen.
    >


    Could be.

    > Maybe virtual desktops will get more traction in Vista.
    >


    Why? Vista still doesnt' come with them

    > Microsoft put a crappy text editor (actually three of them) in DOS and
    > Windows. I don't want any of them. They suck. But there they are!
    > Same for most of the games that come with Windows.
    >
    > And I'll bet those crap apps didn't "sell any boxes", either.


    I doubt anybody ever bought windows for notepad, edlin, or edit.com....

    --
    Tom Shelton

  16. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> And that is the difference. NT based systems support the concept of virtual
    >> desktops - in fact, these calls are used a lot by services that need to
    >> interact with the desktop environment... But, MS chose not to expose them in
    >> Explorer.exe - the default windows shell. Nothing stops 3rd parties from
    >> writing either shell extensions or replacement shells that fully support
    >> multiple desktops... And if you look around, there are a few - ms powertoy,
    >> the nvidia thingy, etc. But, to be honest, I don't believe there is a lot of
    >> demand for this. If there was, I guarntee you would have seen some commercial
    >> app fill this void long ago....

    >
    > Or maybe they had my experience -- tried the virtual-desktop power toy,
    > liked it (to my surprise), but found it too unstable.
    >


    I didn't like it. It was too limited, and sort of slow. I've had much better
    experiences with some other 3rd party vdm's - though, it's been a while since
    I've used one - because as noted, I really don't find the concept all that
    usefull.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  17. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> They're not implementable very well in Windows, would be my guess.

    >
    > And why would you guess that? People have been and are writting complete
    > shell replacements for windows (such as bblean) for a long time. Why
    > shouldn't they be able to write a simple thing as a Virtual Desktop Manager
    > well?


    You tell me. As I said, I'm guessing.

    As are you, frankly.

    >> Maybe virtual desktops will get more traction in Vista.

    >
    > Why? Vista still doesnt' come with them
    >
    >> Microsoft put a crappy text editor (actually three of them) in DOS and
    >> Windows. I don't want any of them. They suck. But there they are!
    >> Same for most of the games that come with Windows.
    >>
    >> And I'll bet those crap apps didn't "sell any boxes", either.

    >
    > I doubt anybody ever bought windows for notepad, edlin, or edit.com....


    But the point is that effort was put into this crap, instead of a real
    cool feature that /more people/ would want.

    --
    Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
    -- Indian proverb

  18. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>> They're not implementable very well in Windows, would be my guess.

    >>
    >> And why would you guess that? People have been and are writting complete
    >> shell replacements for windows (such as bblean) for a long time. Why
    >> shouldn't they be able to write a simple thing as a Virtual Desktop Manager
    >> well?

    >
    > You tell me. As I said, I'm guessing.
    >
    > As are you, frankly.
    >


    Well, I've never cared to try and implement one... So, yes in a way I'm
    "guessing" - but, there are no real technical barriers that come to mind.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  19. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:16:39 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    >> Nope... all of that is already built into the default shell.
    >>
    >> It's kind of like X and virtual desktops.
    >>
    >> [deletia]
    >>
    >>

    > OK, now I'm extremely confused: just what is a "desktop" in this
    > context?
    >
    > Granted, part of my confusion is my familiarity with X, which breaks up
    > its world into the rough hierarchy:
    >
    > - X server (display)
    > - X screen
    > - X root window
    > - X window




    Huh. Well, I would go with "root window", but that's a guess. Where
    icons are placed for GNOME and KDE? that would be the analogy, the
    quantity of "my computer"/home icons. Just a guess.


    -Thufir

  20. Re: [News] Linux Visual Effects Surpass Competition


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:%0Phk.5646$t32.4027@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >* Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-23, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>> They're not implementable very well in Windows, would be my guess.

    >>
    >> And why would you guess that? People have been and are writting
    >> complete
    >> shell replacements for windows (such as bblean) for a long time. Why
    >> shouldn't they be able to write a simple thing as a Virtual Desktop
    >> Manager
    >> well?

    >
    > You tell me. As I said, I'm guessing.
    >
    > As are you, frankly.


    No guessing required. There are several replacement shells for Windows and
    that's a fact. It's also a fact that there's little interest and market for
    them.



    >>> Maybe virtual desktops will get more traction in Vista.

    >>
    >> Why? Vista still doesnt' come with them
    >>
    >>> Microsoft put a crappy text editor (actually three of them) in DOS and
    >>> Windows. I don't want any of them. They suck. But there they are!
    >>> Same for most of the games that come with Windows.
    >>>
    >>> And I'll bet those crap apps didn't "sell any boxes", either.

    >>
    >> I doubt anybody ever bought windows for notepad, edlin, or edit.com....
    >>

    >
    > But the point is that effort was put into this crap, instead of a real
    > cool feature that /more people/ would want.


    It's not a cool feature. I find it useless on Windows, linux, Solaris and
    every other OS where I've seen virtual desktops. Because /you/ think that
    it's cool doesn't mean that everyone else does. The few people who want
    virtual desktops can download a small app and get that feature.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast