Does Vista have a chance at beating XGL/Compiz?

[rdd]

I just tried XGL/Compiz using this http://www.compiz.net/viewtopic.php?id=389 howto and I have to say, I am completely flattened!

This stuff is so incredibly cool, I seriously doubt that Vista will be able to rival this, especially given the lead time till January 07.

And although everybody always warns about this being alpha stuff, I've been typing, surfing, mailing, using the window sorting functions, transparency (even on videos, it's CRAZY!) and spinning the cube like a madman and it hasn't shown a single glitch. CPU usage is bearable, doesn't cause my processor to scale up (except when I do 2 full rounds on the cube).

Do they still have a chance?

[JoshHendo]

Personally, I would say no.

This is mainly becuase Ubuntu/Linux is free, and so is XGL, and you don't need new hardware for it. If you just want a operating system that looks cool, anyone would go with Ubuntu+XGL over Vista if they knew about it.

Vista uses up too much resources to be able to compete with it.

[Lord Illidan]

Wait until you see the finished product of VISTA and XGL/COMPIZ.

[Rhapsody]

I'm going to break with the pack and say yes. XGL/Compiz may be better looking, less resource hungry, more stable, and free in every way, but logic rarely factors into who 'wins' these things. If Vista takes off, it won't be the first time a patently inferior product has beaten all.

[Random Roadkill]

it depens what you mean by 'Beat'...
I'm with Rhapsody; XGL/Compix might be better, but most people dont even know that you can run a comp on anything other than Windows and will buy Vista...cos Microsoft Rule The World:roll: :roll: :roll: ...ho hum...

[bruce89]

XGL/Compiz is extendable, and developing at an amazing rate. Sure it might not be as stable as Vista's stuff, but that will soon change. Anyway XGL/Compiz doesn't require such high spec stuff. Also XGL/Compiz is free software, so it is better anyway.

I think that XGL is for the short term though, and development should focus on Xegl.

[hizaguchi]

Yeah, Vista will likely be inferior to Gnu/Linux with or without Xgl, but that won't stop it from selling just as well as XP.

[Max Luebbe]

I'm running the most recent beta of Vista on one of my boxes.

Aero Glass doesn't even come close to being as cool as XGL.

Windows does look much better though, than the Fisher-Price/little kid look on XP.
Is it worth the extra system resources though?... Probably not.

[yaztromo]

I'm in the no camp until XGL/AIGLX comes by default in Linux. I can't get it to work on my system when I follow the howto's to the letter. There is a long long time to go before this stuff is mature enough to be on more than just a tiny fraction of linux desktops out there. Vista has it NOW so it's already winning.

[Miguel]

That's an easy answer. Vista has no chance to beat Xgl until it has a MS approved theme with enough differences between active and inactive windows. And no, a single red "X" is not enough.

IMHO, contrary to most people's belief, what Xgl needs is not "the cool factor". It needs features that will actually improve usability. Exposé and soft zoom are improvements. Wobbly windows are not. Trying to use GPU power to have a more responsive desktop is an improvement. Using gpu power so that slower CPU's can have a bearable window manager performance is good. Soft subtle shadows are not an improvement but look good andt don't hurt usability.

What does it mean? Polish, polish, polish and keep it simple and usable, not cool. What I need is not more features but better perfomance and more reliablity on the current features. Anyway, this might mean that I have become the linux geek I was bound to be. Join the dark side, luke. Ahhhhh, Ahhhh