Open Graphics Project Status Update (KernelTrap)

Posted Oct 6, 2005 18:31 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Could someone please come up with a single freaking convincing example of why 3D is *useful* for a 2D desktop?

I think there is none. After all, it was thought as a 2D desktop; by definition, 3D has no place here. Scaling and displacing should be much faster when done in specific 2D circuitry; other effects like rotations and the OSX-minimize thing are just eye candy.

On the other hand, in Quartz 2D Extreme you use a powerful and expensive DSP for drawing primitives and compositing images. The fact that it happens to be a 3D chip is just an accident. But is it really useful? Hardly.

Don't know much about Vista. Judging by past history it will probably be a cheap copy.

Posted Oct 6, 2005 19:59 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]

Some vector stuff that is useful:

- Enlarging the item being focused (menu row, toolbar buttons etc)
would be a nice accessability feature for people with bad
eyesight. They could still use the desktop without having font size
where you can fit only a few lines of text on whole screen

- Mac OSX feature to see all windows at the same time
(all scaled down to fit to screen at the same time),
and selecting the one to focus (after which normal window
sizes are restored) is quite nice

- Dimming other windows than the focused one (requires just alpha
blending support and memory, not vectors)

- Desktop items, such as icons, could scale e.g. according to display
DPI or number of pixels. This will be nice with display migrations
(ability to move applications from one sized screen to another, e.g.
from laptop to 32" TV, to mobile phone etc.)