Coffeehouse Thread

23 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

No DreamScene for me

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Cyonix

    I just installed DreamScene but it looks like it won't work if you have more than one GPU Sad

    Has this always been the case?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cyonix wrote:
    I just installed DreamScene but it looks like it won't work if you have more than one GPU

    Has this always been the case?


    That can't be right...

    I'm assuming DreamScene uses non-exclusive mode D3D to paint to more than one GPU, but I can do that fine with the DX SDK samples on this machine (a 6800GT and a 440MX).

    Are both your GPUs using the same driver though? I can see it not working if one's ATI and the other is NVidia.

  • User profile image
    Cyonix

    Both are nvidia

    I have a 7950GT and a 8500GT hooked up to three monitors

    rundll crashes when i try to enable it and then a dialog pops up saying "Windows DreamScene cannot run because the computer is currently using more than one video adapter"

  • User profile image
    unvjarhead

    I can confirm that this is happening. Same thing...two 1680x1050 moitors and 2 NVidia 7600GT's and I get the "Windows DreamScene can't run as your desktop is now configured." with a subtext of "Windows DreamScene cannot run because the computer is currently using more than one video adapter." Hope someone figures this out.
    p.s. It worked in the pre-release DreamScene.

  • User profile image
    nightski

    You aren't missing much tbh

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    This DS bug saves you from constant 30-40% CPU utilization (AMD X2 4200+).
    Worth of this "feature" is very doubtful. At least you have some monster video and quad-core CPU, but 99.99% of PCs are not ready for this.

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    It seems fairly pointless anyway if you have multiple monitors. DreamScene is paused on both monitors if there's a window maximized on either one. Since I keep Outlook maximized on the second display, there's no point to using it.

    Still, DreamScene is worth installing if only for the extra wallpaper positioning options it adds ("Maintain aspect ratio" and "Crop to fit screen") even if you aren't going to use any videos as your background.

    EDIT: And the CPU usage is very high indeed. I get between 10 and 30% combined CPU usage between explorer.exe and dwm.exe if a DreamScene movie is playing, and that's on a Core 2 Duo T7500!

    It looks to me as if, in response to the Ultimate Extras complaints, they just decided to release it without fixing the performance issues that plagued the preview.

  • User profile image
    bitdisaster

    Sven Groot wrote:
    It seems fairly pointless anyway if you have multiple monitors. DreamScene is paused on both monitors if there's a window maximized on either one. Since I keep Outlook maximized on the second display, there's no point to using it.

    Still, DreamScene is worth installing if only for the extra wallpaper positioning options it adds ("Maintain aspect ratio" and "Crop to fit screen") even if you aren't going to use any videos as your background.

    EDIT: And the CPU usage is very high indeed. I get between 10 and 30% combined CPU usage between explorer.exe and dwm.exe if a DreamScene movie is playing, and that's on a Core 2 Duo T7500!

    It looks to me as if, in response to the Ultimate Extras complaints, they just decided to release it without fixing the performance issues that plagued the preview.


    Yup, same here - up to 30% CPU usage is to much.

    Sad

  • User profile image
    numedia

    I have the same problem. This kind of stuff urks me that we are told to get high end systems to support features like this and when we do, it still does no good. Why did the preview allow DS to work on multiple GPU's but this "release" version does not? Must everything in Vista be scaled back?

  • User profile image
    TimP

    nightski wrote:
    You aren't missing much tbh


    Yup, I didn't use it when it was beta and decided to give it a try since it showed up on Windows Update, what a waste. You could stick a Windows Media Player control on a web page and use it as your Active Desktop in Windows 98.

  • User profile image
    Cyonix

    section31 wrote:
    
    Sven Groot wrote:
    It seems fairly pointless anyway if you have multiple monitors. DreamScene is paused on both monitors if there's a window maximized on either one. Since I keep Outlook maximized on the second display, there's no point to using it.

    Still, DreamScene is worth installing if only for the extra wallpaper positioning options it adds ("Maintain aspect ratio" and "Crop to fit screen") even if you aren't going to use any videos as your background.

    EDIT: And the CPU usage is very high indeed. I get between 10 and 30% combined CPU usage between explorer.exe and dwm.exe if a DreamScene movie is playing, and that's on a Core 2 Duo T7500!

    It looks to me as if, in response to the Ultimate Extras complaints, they just decided to release it without fixing the performance issues that plagued the preview.


    Yup, same here - up to 30% CPU usage is to much.

    I disabled my extra monitors to test it and i'm only getting a max of 10% for explorer.exe and 1-6% for dwm.exe...

    I have a C2D E6600

    I wish they would have let us just use DreamScene on one monitor and have wallpaper for the other monitors Sad

  • User profile image
    LaBomba

    I don't get it...where are the extra dreamscenes - it's still just the basic five.

    If they didn't fix the performance issues - what exactly did they release? Big whoop.
     
    The team just got some heat and they responded poorly.

    Long Zheng you did good - sort of.Wink

    Edit: Nm, see the extra pack available now, still performance sucks...Sad

  • User profile image
    Cyonix

    LaBomba wrote:
    I don't get it...where are the extra dreamscenes - it's still just the basic five.

    If they didn't fix the performance issues - what exactly did they release? Big whoop.
     
    The team just got some heat and they responded poorly.

    Long Zheng you did good - sort of.

    Edit: Nm, see the extra pack available now, still performance sucks...

    Yeah i agree, response was poor.

    Our problem was with the lack of information regarding Ultimate Extras. If the Ultimate Extras team just communicated and told us where they were at, there wouldn't have been so much outrage.

    Now the release of DreamScene looks like a panicked response as opposed to a planned release.

    I hope this isn’t where Microsoft is headed

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Cyonix wrote:
    If the Ultimate Extras team just communicated and told us where they were at, there wouldn't have been so much outrage.


    There isn't an Ultimate Extras team. It's just a mish-mash of things from various other teams bundled in a way to give added value to Ultimate buyers.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    AndyC wrote:
    
    Cyonix wrote:
    If the Ultimate Extras team just communicated and told us where they were at, there wouldn't have been so much outrage.


    There isn't an Ultimate Extras team. It's just a mish-mash of things from various other teams bundled in a way to give added value to Ultimate buyers.


    In the end, somebody is going to decide when to release a what application as an ultimate extra. That is the Ultimate Extras team.

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    I have similar DS bug, but regarding just a multiple monitors (single GPU).


    I have Toshiba M400 (1400x1050, Intel gMA950 (up to 256 MB shared memory)). And second monitor attached (1280x1024) as "extend desktop".


    DS reports me "total desktop size is greater than maximum texture resolution". DS works only on single monitor configuration.

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Bas

    Sven Groot wrote:
    It looks to me as if, in response to the Ultimate Extras complaints, they just decided to release it without fixing the performance issues that plagued the preview.


    Seeing how it was apparently compiled back in mid-July, I guess we can safely assume that somebody freaked out and just released whatever they had.

    Thanks for taking us so seriously, Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Ok, that's just weird. If it was just the build string I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (God knows MS plays with build numbers and dates quite often) but the timestamp countersignature could not have been faked (unless MS knows something about Authenticode that we don't Tongue Out ).

    Yeah yeah, documentation and testing, but the timing is too big a coincidence. I don't buy it.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.