Windows Vista System Requirements, Aero Glass, & Integrated graphics chipsets

[Eug]

The Windows Vista system requirements suggest that Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics is fine for Aero Glass.

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
1 GB of system memory.
A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero2.
128 MB of graphics memory.
40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
DVD-ROM Drive3.
Audio output capability.
Internet access capability.

Windows Vista Capable and Premium Ready footnotes

Processor speed is specified as the nominal operational processor frequency for the device. Some processors have power management which allows the processor to run at lower rate to save power.
Windows Aero requires:
DirectX 9 class graphics processor that:
Supports a WDDM Driver.
Supports Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware.
Supports 32 bits per pixel.
Adequate graphics memory.
64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels
128 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels
256 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels
Meets graphics memory bandwidth requirements, as assessed by Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor running on Windows XP

Furthermore, this video shows Glass running on a machine with GMA 950. So, why does this DailyTech article say that Intel G965 is required?

 

[drag]

Furthermore, this video shows Glass running on a machine with GMA 950. So, why does this DailyTech article say that Intel G965 is required?

Probably because of DirectX 10 compatability. The GMA 950 isn't suppose to support all the features needed for full glass stuff, but the G965 should.

I don't know if this true, but I expect that it's their reasoning.

Also there were different levels of areo so maybe that video has some features disabled that may not be noticable in it.

(edit: Either that or portions of DirectX 10 may be running using software rendering... This is typically how it's done with OpenGL. With OpenGL you generally run as much of it as possible using aviable hardware acceleration and what you can't you use software fallback. This is nice becuase most consumer-level cards don't actually have full 100% opengl acceleration.. and newer opengl stuff can work with older opengl cards (with newer drivers). Just the parts that are needed for games and such are typically accelerated with most video cards unless your using a workstation-class video card. Previously I beleive that DirectX and such was full hardware accel or bust, (you either had directx 9 compliant card or you didn't) but I am not sure about that.)

Don't know.

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: Eug

Adequate graphics memory.
64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor less than 1,310,720 pixels
128 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels
256 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions higher than 2,304,000 pixels
article]http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1158[/L] say that Intel G965 is required?

What resolutions do those pixels refer to?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
What resolutions do those pixels refer to?

1310720 pixels - 1280x1024
2304000 pixels - 1920x1200

These numbers don't mean much, however, without more information. How, for example, does a dual monitor system factor in to all of this? Besides, given that windows are simply textures in graphics memory, how many applications did they expect you to be using when they calculated these numbers? Do the numbers still apply for power users? (given MS's track record with "minimum" requirements, I would suppose not)

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: drag

Furthermore, this video shows Glass running on a machine with GMA 950. So, why does this DailyTech article say that Intel G965 is required?

Probably because of DirectX 10 compatability. The GMA 950 isn't suppose to support all the features needed for full glass stuff, but the G965 should.

I don't know if this true, but I expect that it's their reasoning.

Also there were different levels of areo so maybe that video has some features disabled that may not be noticable in it.

(edit: Either that or portions of DirectX 10 may be running using software rendering... This is typically how it's done with OpenGL. With OpenGL you generally run as much of it as possible using aviable hardware acceleration and what you can't you use software fallback. This is nice becuase most consumer-level cards don't actually have full 100% opengl acceleration.. and newer opengl stuff can work with older opengl cards (with newer drivers). Just the parts that are needed for games and such are typically accelerated with most video cards unless your using a workstation-class video card. Previously I beleive that DirectX and such was full hardware accel or bust, (you either had directx 9 compliant card or you didn't) but I am not sure about that.)

Don't know.

You don't need DirectX 10 for Aero Glass. Mind you the DirectX 9 requirement announcements only came out yesterday, so perhaps DailyTech was just guessimating.

GMA 950 has full DirectX 9 support, although some of it through software emulation. The difference here is though it's taken care of via the drivers IIRC, and the OS "sees" that it is a fully DirectX 9 compliant GPU. So, while it will won't be fast at it, it still supports Aero Glass. There is no "software fallback" required by the OS itself. This is supported by the reports that translucent windows do indeed work fine in Vista beta with Intel's Vista drivers for GMA 950.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not a coder.

P.S. I'm getting a MacBook, which uses GMA 950 graphics. It's locked to only 64 MB I believe, but that's not a big deal since the screen is only 1280x800 (1.0 MP).

BTW, I had been hoping that G965 would be out in time for the MacBook, but no dice.

 

[Eug]

Hmmm... The Vista Upgrade Advisor app seems to be gone.

 

[spyordie007]

GMA 950 should be fine.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
GMA 950 should be fine.

Yeah, esp. since there are now WDDM drivers out for it.

I wonder why GMA 900 isn't supported, since on paper the specs look similar to 950. Is it just because GMA 900 is slower, or is it more for marketing reasons?

 

[Eug]

BTW, I note that Intel's Vista page for laptops only mentions Core Duo. They totally ignore Core Solo. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because some of the eye candy acceleration is software-based on Intel 945.

The full release is on - www.xstremehardware.co.uk

What release? Or do you just mean the press release.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Eug

The full release is on - www.xstremehardware.co.uk

What release? Or do you just mean the press release.

Probably nothing more than an attempt to plug his site... notice that it's also in his sig. :roll:

I'm still not sure how even GMA950 will be able to handle it, given that a fairly recent beta that I saw running on a Geforce 6600GT (similar to my video card) seemed to be slightly hesitant at times. Maybe they've made more optimizations since then (I hope so, because I'd hate to have to update my video card just to run Windows + Photoshop!).

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: Eug

The full release is on - www.xstremehardware.co.uk

What release? Or do you just mean the press release.

Probably nothing more than an attempt to plug his site... notice that it's also in his sig. :roll:

I'm still not sure how even GMA950 will be able to handle it, given that a fairly recent beta that I saw running on a Geforce 6600GT (similar to my video card) seemed to be slightly hesitant at times. Maybe they've made more optimizations since then (I hope so, because I'd hate to have to update my video card just to run Windows + Photoshop!).

Which version did you see, and how much memory did the system have?Apparently, Vista can suck on a 512 MB system.

Anyways, while I'd prefer perfect smoothness, as long as it works relatively OK on GMA 950 I'd be happy. My primary OSes are still going to remain XP/2000 at work and OS X at home for quite some time. I just want to have Vista work OK just to play around with.

 

[Eug]

The Vista Upgrade Advisor is now back up.

 

[Gautama]

I read a month or two ago that none of the current ATI or Nvidia card can use Vista to its maximum potential. Is this a load of bullshit? Im pretty sure my x1800xl can handle anything they can throw at it

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Gautama
I read a month or two ago that none of the current ATI or Nvidia card can use Vista to its maximum potential. Is this a load of bullshit? Im pretty sure my x1800xl can handle anything they can throw at it

Maybe you're confusing the fact that there are no video cards on the market that support HDCP?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6177.html

 

[Brazen]

Do we have to start a new thread on Vista hardware requirements every stinkin' week? Is this going to get better or worse once it goes gold?

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Gautama
I read a month or two ago that none of the current ATI or Nvidia card can use Vista to its maximum potential. Is this a load of bullshit? Im pretty sure my x1800xl can handle anything they can throw at it

On the ATI side, just about anything that's a Radeon 9550 or better (with enough RAM) should be fine. I believe their top integrated chipset should be fine too.

Originally posted by: Brazen
Do we have to start a new thread on Vista hardware requirements every stinkin' week? Is this going to get better or worse once it goes gold?

Well, MS only released the official system requirements a few days ago. Any threads previous to that would not have taken into account the official system requirements.

 

[Eug]

Fun with Vista's magic 8-ball

Last week, Microsoft released a test version of its "Upgrade Advisor," a downloadable tool that aims to tell users how Vista-ready their system is.

Ironically, the machine that was in the best shape for Vista, at least according to the tool, was a loaner Mac Mini with 1GB of memory. That system was Aero-ready, according to the tool, as long as I devoted more of the system's modest hard drive over to the Windows partition. It needed 15GB of the drive to be free, and most of the free space was over on the Mac side of the house.

Pix

 

[drag]

GMA 950 has full DirectX 9 support, although some of it through software emulation. The difference here is though it's taken care of via the drivers IIRC, and the OS "sees" that it is a fully DirectX 9 compliant GPU. So, while it will won't be fast at it, it still supports Aero Glass. There is no "software fallback" required by the OS itself. This is supported by the reports that translucent windows do indeed work fine in Vista beta with Intel's Vista drivers for GMA 950.

Ya.. that's the software fall back. Drivers and libraries deal with it transparently from the rest of userland. Applications just end up using the API irregardless of hardware acceleration support. (opengl has various extensions though that applications may make special use of, though. So often drivers delcare support for this or that extension.)

 

[Eug]

I agree with you.

I was just saying that Vista itself doesn't include its own software fallback for non-compliant GPUs.

Intel is faking it of course with its own software fallback in its GMA 950 drivers, but as long as it works...

It does make you wonder why MS didn't try to incorporate some sort of software fallback though. Then again, they're behind as it is, and now Ballmer is saying Vista might get delayed again. ie. Not Jan 2007 but "early 2007". Plus, many systems with non-compliant GPUs wouldn't have fast enough CPUs to take take of this anyways. I note that Intel will not support the full Vista on Core Solo, but does with Core Duo. I presume that part of the reason is because Core Solo with software fallback for Vista eye candy could be problematic in certain circumstances in terms of performance. So, I guess it wouldn't be worth the effort for Microsoft to add the software fallback this small group.

 

[pctwo]

FWIW, Aero works with Geforce 6150 IGP. Dragging full window is a bit laggy, but this is with very unoptimized driver, I assume. I don't know if I'm getting ALL the Aero stuff, but I get the transparant window and 3D flip anyway.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Eug
I agree with you.

I was just saying that Vista itself doesn't include its own software fallback for non-compliant GPUs.

Intel is faking it of course with its own software fallback in its GMA 950 drivers, but as long as it works...

It does make you wonder why MS didn't try to incorporate some sort of software fallback though.

I think it's a difference of philosphy on the subject of APIs.

With OpenGL it's a cross-platform programming API for designing 3d applications. It doesn't have much nessicarially to do with the hardware, although it's obvious that it's designed to be accelerated when acceleration is aviable. It's just about 3d programming. Hardware acceleration is purely optional.

With Direct3d you have something that is designed to allow fairly low-level access to video cards in a way that is fairly specific to video games.

So with OpenGL you have a lot of the API that isn't accelerated on normal video cards. (that's why workstation-class video cards tend to be much more expensive and not much better for video games). There are optional extensions you can use (for a example a group of extensions is called the OpenGL ARB). Each vendor has their own 'special sauce' that they make aviable. People use it for video games, but it's used much more wider then that.

With Direct3d it's designed to interact specificly with video cards, so software failback is not going to be considured much into it's design. So this is why you don't see it used much outside game programming. Microsoft dictates the design and ATI vs Nvidia can't make much use of extensions to sell their cards.

At least that's my limited understanding of the situation.

As for Software fallback.. Most people don't know this, but with the first generation or two of Mac OS X was completely software rendered. They had absolutely no hardware acceleration of their compisition stuff. (this is were you items rendered off screen, then placed together as 'one big image' for your display. This is the big thing that Areo introduces for Windows) And still it was fast enough to comfortably use on a 300-400mhz machine.

 

[Eug]

With Direct3d you have something that is designed to allow fairly low-level access to video cards in a way that is fairly specific to video games.

How does that work with Vista and GMA 950 then? MS specifically says hardware suppport is needed.

P.S. I just checked the Vista Advisor on my GMA 950 MacBook, and full support is indeed there for Aero, as expected.

As for OS 10.1, I though it was pretty slow on a G3 600. It was definitely usable, but I find that really a dual G4 machine (or preferably a dual G5) with 10.3 Panther and Quartz Extreme capable GPU is preferred, just for OS stuff. Great on this MacBook Core Duo 2.0 with 10.4 Tiger though. Fast...

 

[Eug]

Confirmation of Aero Glass working on MacBook with GMA 950 integrated graphics.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=504058&tstart=0

 

[Slicedbread]

This is good news then, my xpress 200m should display it without a hitch right?

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Slicedbread
This is good news then, my xpress 200m should display it without a hitch right?

Should be fine. Xpress 200M is DirectX 9.0 compliant, and it's better than GMA950 too.