NO Windows Aero for Intel 915 graphics card, Why?

I am still hoping that windows will release i915 vista drivers

"JED" <> wrote ...
>I am still hoping that windows will release i915 vista drivers


The task of developing these drivers falls to Intel, rather than
"Windows"/Microsoft.

The story of Intel's laggardly approach to developing graphics drivers for
Vista is well-known.

Unfortunately, the focus of attention has moved on for Intel; they're now
focused much more on the new X3000 graphics chip. The GMA900 as found in 915
is ancient history. It is extremely unlikely that Intel will develop Vista
drivers, at this late stage.

To find out more about Intel's WDDM plans, see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...S/default.aspx

Sorry for the bad news; hope it helps a bit anyway. FWIW, Aero is
over-rated; my desktop machine has a Nvidia 7900GS which could easily run
Aero, but I have it turned off, all the same (I much prefer Windows Classic
theme).
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

* Andrew McLaren:
> "JED" <> wrote ...
>> I am still hoping that windows will release i915 vista drivers
>
>
> The task of developing these drivers falls to Intel, rather than
> "Windows"/Microsoft.
>
> The story of Intel's laggardly approach to developing graphics drivers for
> Vista is well-known.
>
> Unfortunately, the focus of attention has moved on for Intel; they're now
> focused much more on the new X3000 graphics chip. The GMA900 as found in 915
> is ancient history. It is extremely unlikely that Intel will develop Vista
> drivers, at this late stage.
>
> To find out more about Intel's WDDM plans, see:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...S/default.aspx
>
> Sorry for the bad news; hope it helps a bit anyway. FWIW, Aero is
> over-rated; my desktop machine has a Nvidia 7900GS which could easily run
> Aero, but I have it turned off, all the same (I much prefer Windows Classic
> theme).

I agree, Aero is overrated. Although, on my machines with Aero enabled,
things do seem a bit faster. I do have transparency disabled, however....
such a useless "feature".


-Michael

Microsoft is not responsible for drivers. In this case, you should be asking
Intel..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
Posting Productively.. http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm



"JED" <> wrote in message
news:EA686361-F915-496B-864E-...
>I am still hoping that windows will release i915 vista drivers

Only the 945 supports AERO Glass.

Windows AERO Glass requires that you have a minimum of 128 MBs video RAM
that is Direct X 9 compliant and supports the Windows Display Driver Model
(WDDM). If your video card does not meet these requirements, it's the likely
cause why you are not seeing it. For onboard/integrated cards, you need to
have 1 GB of dual channel memory installed with 512 MBs of RAM allocated to
the system. The amount of Video RAM also determines the resolution size your
Display can use.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry



"JED" <> wrote in message
news:EA686361-F915-496B-864E-...
>I am still hoping that windows will release i915 vista drivers

"MICHAEL" <> wrote
> I agree, Aero is overrated. Although, on my machines with Aero enabled,
> things do seem a bit faster.

That's right ... with Aero enabled, you not only get the goofy visuals, but
screen composition is also enabled by DWM. So the entire screen is composed
in a buffer and then kind of bitblt'ed to the screen .. instead of redrawing
the screen, window by window. Composition is great. I wish there was a way
to get it, without the rest of Aero. So far, I haven't found a way... (but,
there might be one, it's just a low priority for me).

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

* Andrew McLaren:
> "MICHAEL" <> wrote
>> I agree, Aero is overrated. Although, on my machines with Aero enabled,
>> things do seem a bit faster.
>
> That's right ... with Aero enabled, you not only get the goofy visuals, but
> screen composition is also enabled by DWM. So the entire screen is composed
> in a buffer and then kind of bitblt'ed to the screen .. instead of redrawing
> the screen, window by window. Composition is great. I wish there was a way
> to get it, without the rest of Aero. So far, I haven't found a way... (but,
> there might be one, it's just a low priority for me).

I'm sure you are aware that you can go into Advanced System settings
and uncheck the froufrou things you don't want. Like I said, I also disabled
transparency- with maximized windows, you don't even get the transparent
borders. Why bother? That's about as useless to me as DreamScene.


-Michael

I find that the transparent borders soften the look somewhat. Having always
used XP in Win 2000 look, it is a welcome change.

DreamScene is a demo, isn't it? I played with it for a few minutes, but the
grizzly bear catching fish was distracting. As I have two monitors with a
variety of stuff open, fancy backgrounds have little place, and I set the
background to black so that the icons on the desktop are visible and clear

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
Posting Productively.. http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm



"MICHAEL" <> wrote in message
news:...
>* Andrew McLaren:
>> "MICHAEL" <> wrote
>>> I agree, Aero is overrated. Although, on my machines with Aero enabled,
>>> things do seem a bit faster.
>>
>> That's right ... with Aero enabled, you not only get the goofy visuals,
>> but
>> screen composition is also enabled by DWM. So the entire screen is
>> composed
>> in a buffer and then kind of bitblt'ed to the screen .. instead of
>> redrawing
>> the screen, window by window. Composition is great. I wish there was a
>> way
>> to get it, without the rest of Aero. So far, I haven't found a way...
>> (but,
>> there might be one, it's just a low priority for me).
>
> I'm sure you are aware that you can go into Advanced System settings
> and uncheck the froufrou things you don't want. Like I said, I also
> disabled
> transparency- with maximized windows, you don't even get the transparent
> borders. Why bother? That's about as useless to me as DreamScene.
>
>
> -Michael

* Mike Hall - MVP:
> I find that the transparent borders soften the look somewhat. Having always
> used XP in Win 2000 look, it is a welcome change.

Perhaps, so long as you don't have maximized windows. I think the borders
look just fine without transparency. I've adjusted the color intensity to what
I find appealing and used the "Color Mixer", also. Overall, I do find Vista
visually more appealing.

> DreamScene is a demo, isn't it? I played with it for a few minutes, but the
> grizzly bear catching fish was distracting. As I have two monitors with a
> variety of stuff open, fancy backgrounds have little place, and I set the
> background to black so that the icons on the desktop are visible and clear

DreamScence is still a "work in progress", and resource hog. It's another
one of those things that if you work with maximized windows most of the
time- what's the point? Use a screensaver if you want pretty desktop froufrou.

I also like darker backgrounds. I have 7 icons on my desktops, never more.
Vista does make it quite easy to just put the name of a program in the search
bar and press enter.... no need for a cluttered desktop.


-Michael

MICHAEL wrote:

> I have 7 icons on my desktops, never more.
> Vista does make it quite easy to just put the name of a program in the search
> bar and press enter.

B-b-b-b-but that means you have to TYPE.... arrrrghhh !!! You old GEEK
you. You actually KNOW some program names? NERD, there no hope for you
in GUI land.