'Snowfall' screensaver for Mac OSX
Why can't Windows do that?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 by cavalierex | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
My office is about 3/4 Mac OSX and 1/4 WinXP (no Vista yet). One of my coworkers saw a fabulous screensaver at the Apple Store recently and managed to track it down. It's called 'Snowfall' (http://www.alittlebitofnothingleft.net/snowfall/) and it runs through OSX's Quartz framework. As I understand it, Quartz is an OpenGL framework based on Screen PostScript technology developed by Adobe/NeXT. It forms the core infrastructure of OSX's graphical display system and powers the GUI, transition effects and all that OSX eye candy we all salivate over. But the most interesting part is that it uses nearly no CPU power!
I am reminded of Stardock's own DesktopX falling-snowflake object, which featured spinning snowflakes. I loved that! But I also remember how it would consume a lot of CPU to spin those little suckers.
How is it that the OSX screensaver -- with large, sultry, seductive, detailed snowflakes -- can run so quickly and without any real overhead costs?
When is Windows gonna catch up? Is Vista capable of this?? Or do we have to wait for Fiji (Vista R2) around 2008, or Vienna (the subsequent major release of Windows) around 2010?
~ Alessandro.
I am reminded of Stardock's own DesktopX falling-snowflake object, which featured spinning snowflakes. I loved that! But I also remember how it would consume a lot of CPU to spin those little suckers.
How is it that the OSX screensaver -- with large, sultry, seductive, detailed snowflakes -- can run so quickly and without any real overhead costs?
When is Windows gonna catch up? Is Vista capable of this?? Or do we have to wait for Fiji (Vista R2) around 2008, or Vienna (the subsequent major release of Windows) around 2010?
~ Alessandro.
cavalierex
Reply #2 Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:25 PM
I just redownloaded it and tried it now, and the DesktopX snowflakes consume 40% CPU according to the meter; although this does not translate to noticeable performance problems. But I do remember that some people's machines were too sluggish with it, which is why a second version (with no rotation, and thus less CPU usage) was released.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't explain why Mac OSX can EASILY handle large, detailed, gorgeous, rotating semi-transparent *3D* snowflakes, whereas Windows so far can't keep up.
Reply #2 Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:25 PM
| The DesktopX snowflakes I use do not use any CPU at all. |
I just redownloaded it and tried it now, and the DesktopX snowflakes consume 40% CPU according to the meter; although this does not translate to noticeable performance problems. But I do remember that some people's machines were too sluggish with it, which is why a second version (with no rotation, and thus less CPU usage) was released.
Be that as it may, it still doesn't explain why Mac OSX can EASILY handle large, detailed, gorgeous, rotating semi-transparent *3D* snowflakes, whereas Windows so far can't keep up.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:54 AM