Windows graphics system to be overhauled

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Dan Warne31 May 2006, 11:40 PM

Microsoft is to overhaul Windows' graphic driver model after realising that the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) 1.0 which will ship with Vista needs improvement in the way it shares GPU resources between programs and Windows itself.


videocard150.jpgMicrosoft is to overhaul Windows' graphic driver model after realising that the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) 1.0 â€" which will ship with Vista â€" needs improvement in the way it shares GPU resources between programs and Windows itself.

Steve Pronovost of Microsoft's DirectX team disclosed at WinHEC in Seattle last week that although the WDDM 1.0 introduces some rudimentary task scheduling for GPUs, a new generation of GPU hardware and a major architectural change to the way Windows deals with video cards will be required.

He said that the trouble with WDDM 1.0 is that once one program is using the GPU, other programs are shut out until the process completes. In Vista, that can cause less fluid rendering of on-screen graphics, if multiple programs are trying to use GPU resources at once.

Until now, the inability to share GPU resources hasn't been an obvious problem under Windows XP, because XP uses GDI â€" a 2D graphics system â€" to draw windows and operating system interface elements. In general, only 3D games and other major grahics apps use GPU resources, and users only run one such app at a time, he said.

However, inadequate GPU sharing is a problem for Windows Vista, because it uses the GPU to draw all elements of Vista's new Aero interface, and more generally there is a trend towards using the massive computing power in GPUs to process an array of non-graphics tasks as well.

WDDMslide350.jpg

The gotcha is that improving GPU task scheduling will require new hardware, he said. The overhauled device driver model, WDDM 2.0, will only run on a new, yet-to-be-released generation of GPUs. NVIDIA and ATI are already aware of Microsoft's plans and are working on new hardware.

However, it means that what is a Windows Vista logo-compliant machine today may not be able to optimally run future iterations of Windows incorporating WDDM 2.0.

Microsoft is also looking at a further revision of the standard, WDDM 2.1, which will run on the same hardware as 2.0 but offer even finer-grained multitasking on the GPU.

Henry Moreton of NVIDIA said the power of GPUs was finally being tapped by application developers. For example, he said, a Windows Vista desktop PC user could easily be running the Windows Vista Desktop Manager (WDM), GPU-aware photo editing software, video feed viewers and TV PVR applications simultaneously.

"Some GPU operations are so massive they take a non-trivial amount of time to complete," he said, "while Other GPU operations are time sensitive."

Pronovost did not say when Microsoft expected WDDM 2.0 and 2.1 to be introduced into Windows, and Microsoft said it "did not have any information to share" in response to an APC enquiry.

Microsoft also talked at WinHEC about how it was introducing I/O scheduling for Vista, so disk-intensive tasks such as virus scanning or large file copy operations couldn't cause a system to become unresponsive.

Dan Warne travelled to Windows Hardware Engineering Conference 2006 in Seattle as a guest of Microsoft.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Baxxy:

Man, is there any limit to Microsoft's bungling when it comes to Vista? Michael Jackson's chimpanzee could have written an operating system faster by typing random characters. Just after I've bought a video card that's going to be Vista-capable, I'm going to have to buy another one to get WDDM 2.0 support? That's fkn outrageous.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Eben:

So you would have rather stick with DOS

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cyber:

#1, my advise, go read and educate yourself. Maybe you'll understand how important the changes are in Vista.

Also, GPU scheduling is absent because none of the graphics chip company saw the requirement coming. The yet to come DX10 compliant hardware will make GPU scheduling better and there is nothing MS can do but wait that the hardware exists before deploying the technology.

At this point, if you want more fluid UI, you may want to upgrade your video card...but that is almost 2 years away.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Saving:

I'm saving up now to but my new Vista PC. If I saved enough money each day I will have enough cash to buy the PC in 2010 which is when Vista is likely to ship.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tee:

Baxxy, You go write an OS then!!!
Technology by its very nature is to constantly improve and succession rates are only getting shorter.

Be happy that MS are trying to develop better software, otherwise you might still be running DOS.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

the crap command line os that it is. I mean, why can't I just double click on a file in linux and have it load. no, that would be easy, you have to uncompress, then compile, type 4 thousand lines of code before it'll even desider to work. arg, this pisses me off.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ray:

Back in the 1980's (in a keynote speech) at Comdex, Bill Gates said, "We believe that OS/2 is the operating system for the '90's." He knew what he was talking about and he saw the power and potential in OS/2. This was in the days when IBM and Microsoft still played nice together - then the falling out - and Microsoft killed OS/2. OS/2 is (was) a multi-tasking, multi-threaded, object oriented operating system which ran like a bat out of hell on a Pentium DX66 processor.
Just imagine the speed and power of this OS on today's hardware!!! - we're talking a Cray Supercomputer!

Mr. Gates - put the past behind you, buy the rights to OS/2 and build an incredible OS with all the pretty bells and whistles on a SOLID base model that will not obsolete 50% of the computers currently in use and will give us incredible computing power from our existing machines! Stop releasing versions of Windows that need bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids, ad infinitum and depend on ever greater processing power and memory to stay even. Whatever happened to "Nobody will ever need more than 64K..."

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jean-Louis:

os/2 was all that... ditto for BeOS after the brands were bullied out of dual boot by bill via ms redemption. BeOS were awarded more in the subsequent antitrust settlement than they sold for in the fire sale...

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Lanoxx:

after all this is a fine step from Microsoft's developers. It seems they are finally realising what i believe almost everybody has known for ages: Windows XP lacks a dozen important features to make it more stable, reliable and faster.

But instead of reconsidering the general system design, Microsoft seemed to be focusing on the new GLASS EFFECT, which is actually just distracting from the fact that Vista will not be much better than XP, just slower, and peoble would be wondering why their new 3GHz dualcore 2GB ram system is still not any faster than dad's 386 machine.

If I reboot my PC, it takes one minute to boot to UI and another five until every programm has been succesfully started. I'm sure that's not because I'm loading too many programs at startup but because XP is not capable of allocating system resources in a flexible way. So while my Outlook and my browser are waiting to load, the system just decides to take a nap and stop responding untill everything is loaded.

FACT: the GPU is doing nothing while my CPU is at full load trying to draw Windows' 2D graphics into my main memory, taking three minutes to load about 200mb-300mb of UI-relevant data and hardly processing any information. Not to mention that in this time I can't even use the Windows shell in any way since it is derived from the Explorer process which is BUSY.

And all of this is considering my system is configured very well (I'm familiar with such problems and have configured my autostart options and registry, which won't occur to average users that hardly understand the way windows works.)

So before you people start crying about the fact that Vista is never gonna be finished, consider this: the new graphics model should just be the first step of a long ladder Microsoft has to ascend. It has to be followed by an a new shell system that based on multitasking capable instances separately from the graphic and I-O part of the shell. Furthermore, a general I-O scheduling system is crucially needed - like what is mentioned at the end to the article.

I just hope microsoft gets this right. Windows still needs a completely overhauled filesystem (Bill Gates' proposal of a database-organized filesystem is a pretty good idea) as is better memory management - it is outrageous that a system can't handle full memory and starts lagging because it can't control its swapfiles. The system kernel and shell should keep responding no matter how full the memory is. Everything else is secondary and hence I'drather wait longer than getting just another patched up system like XP, which wasn't worth the money. If Microsfot is not be capapble of handling all these issues, I believe soon other systems like Linux or Mac will be a good alternative to Windows, even for the common users.
LANOXX

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Alex:

Reply to Ray (#6):

What you don't seem to know is that Windows Vista is actually based on OS/2. Go read the Wikipedia articles on Windows NT and OS/2 for more information.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Danny:

I'll try to keep it short.

I just hope microsoft gets this right.

Windows still needs a completely overhauled filesystem. (Bill Gates’ proposal of a database-organized filesystem is a pretty good idea)  as is better memory management - it is outrageous that a system can’t handle full memory and starts lagging because it can’t control its swapfiles.

I’d rather wait longer than getting just another patched up system like XP, which wasn’t worth the money.

If Microsoft is not be capapble of handling all these issues, I believe soon other systems like Linux or Mac will be a good alternative to Windows, even for the common users.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Danny:

OK, my comments did not come through, so I will try again.

I just hope microsoft gets this right.

When did they last get it right? WinME. Wait, Win98, or 95, maybe 3.11? Screw it. Next question.

Windows still needs a completely overhauled filesystem. (Bill Gates’ proposal of a database-organized filesystem is a pretty good idea)

Try Beagle, in Linux.

as is better memory management - it is outrageous that a system can’t handle full memory and starts lagging because it can’t control its swapfiles.

I can't remember the last time I configured a swap file. Wait, I am running Linux. Next.

I’d rather wait longer than getting just another patched up system like XP, which wasn’t worth the money.

Well, it is four years behind schedule, and every feature has been dropped except this Aero Glass, which requires 3 times the resources as XGL (Linux, and working now, on today's medium grade hardware), and apparently, this won't be there (fully) either. Most people will likely turn it off if it is that bad.

If Microsoft is not be capapble of handling all these issues, I believe soon other systems like Linux or Mac will be a good alternative to Windows, even for the common users.

Well, for those of you afraid of Linux (Comment 5), try a live C