Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 10:14 -0500, taharka wrote:
Full story at; http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6042651.html
Hmm, looking at it, and a couple of the links branching off it, I wonder
if it really adds anything useful? And will it mean that you'll need a
super duper, hot and noisy fan-cooled graphics card for a basic machine?
<snip>
I've used other people's PCs which are tarted up to the hilt in those
sort of ways, and they're slow to use (much slower than using my own
system with things that just snap to it, even though my overall PC power
is far less - half the ram, a quarter the CPU clock rate, etc.). Every
GUI action that I take to get a task done, on their system, involves
waiting for it to finish doing its song and dance.
I agree with you on most of this. Windows is going down this road,
which is why Vista is supposed to require an incredibly over-specced
graphics card. I guessing they think having it on machines in PC World
will make people rush to upgrade.
However, as I've said before, genuine window transparency would be quite
useful (although it'll never end up in metacity because it will confuse
people who have never used a computer before).
--
imalone
