Windows Aero on 64mb video card

[Lang Murphy]

FWIW, I consider Aero to be very over-rated. I usually run Vista with the
"Classic" desktop. I like the idea of desktop composition for smooth
appearance and performance; but the fancy visual effects are annoying
flummery, IMHO.

Funny... but I like Aero. Not all aspects of it... I rarely use Flip-3D, but
I do like the preview windows that pop when one hovers the mouse pointer
over a taskbar button. (I especially like that feature when I've got a
longish process occurring on a PC to which I've got a RDC... I can just
hover over the button and see what's going on without having to open the
window. Yes, a very small advantage, and, that's what I consider it; an
advantage, and I -do- like it!)

And I like the translucent window borders. I'm not sure I can explain why I
like them, I just do. And that's coming from a guy who has tried just about
every Windows UI "enhancement" over the years. The SideBar's OK. I like
detaching my gadgets and closing the SB. I just use the clock, calendar, and
weather gadgets. (I've d/l'd a few others but end up tossing them after a
couple of days... do I really care which CPU core is being worked out more?
Uh... well... I guess not.) There was a Sidebar applet years ago... I forget
the original developer, but Desqview purchased the original company and put
it out for a year or two, if I remember correctly. Anyone remember HP's
NewWave? LOL! Virtual desktops have been around forever. Thank you, Vista,
for not including that feature. (When I finally do get my new Mac with
Leopard, I will not be using Spaces. Ever.)

All that said, the UI is the user's gateway to the computer and one man's
bread is another man's poison... ultimately, if we can get the computer to
do what we want it to do without -too- much heartache, then we're winners.

Lang

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Funny... but I like Aero. Not all aspects of it... I rarely use Flip-3D,
but I do like the preview windows that pop when one hovers the mouse
pointer

I think it's a matter of personal judgement. Some people - whose technical
opinion I highly respect - tell me they love Aero, and consider it a
compelling feature. I am just perplexed by that! but I'll take their word
for it When people ask me about compelling features in Vista, *I* start
to tell them about the improved heap management ... and hey, they look at
*me* stangely

I'd say that Aero can be split up into a few different features, all mingled
togther:

- Composition: the ability to compomise an entire desktop image off-screen,
and then refresh the entire screen in a single operation, without GDI
updating individual Windows separately. This gives you a much smoother
screen image, with none of that nasty "blank window" effect you can get
under previous GDI versions. This is indeed a great feature and should be
universal for all GUIs. Even GUIs whhose main aplication is multiple Command
Prompts.

- Transparency: ability to blend different Windows in the same screen area.
This could have utilitarian application in a few scenarios, and is
worthwhile for that reason. But current applications of Transparency seem to
focus on the "gee-whiz" visual effects and don't add to tangible
functionality (but look nice).

- visual effects: the theme stuff, borders, colours etc. Well I am just an
old fart, I am happy with a VT-100 terminal and a command prompt. So visual
effects leave me cold. But it can increase user-friendliness for many
general users. Just look at the impact of Mac OS X, which does visial
effects at least as well as Aero, if not much better. I concede Mac OS X
Aqua is gorgeous to look at, and keeps one glued to the screen for hours,
even when a coffee break beakons.

In Mac OS X, Encore is a genuine productivity boot which lets the user get a
lot more work done more smoothly. I lik that. Whereas Flip-3D, the Vista
analogue, doesn't really improve quantifiible productivity; it's still
pretty much a gee-whizz feature whose main application appears to be for
"Wow starts now" advertisements for Vista . That difference says a lot
about the difference between Mac OS X and Vista - both, by the way,
operating stystems which I respect and use (and Gnome too).

Overall, I think Windows absolutely *must* provide a state-of-the-art GUI,
just to compete in the market place against Aqua and Beryl. And we have
these incredible graphcs cards now, almost for free; so why not use them,
just for the hell of it?? But does it amplify the functional range of the
machine? Well for basic system administration tasks, and coding and
compiling, which are 75% of my work ... uh, no. I would gladly take
Composition in iosolation, if it was a disagreggatated feature.

Anyways ... if people like Aero, they should use it. Windows Server 2008
uses the Classic interface by default, and, that's the way I like it )
(shades of of Kevin P

Best regards!

 

[Lang Murphy]

I think it's a matter of personal judgement. Some people - whose technical
opinion I highly respect - tell me they love Aero, and consider it a
compelling feature. I am just perplexed by that! but I'll take their word
for it When people ask me about compelling features in Vista, *I*
start to tell them about the improved heap management ... and hey, they
look at *me* stangely

Well, I certainly didn't mean to infer that I thought Aero was a compelling
feature. I like it, yeah, but compelling? Nah. Although I -do- think the
video sub-system being largely, if not completely, decoupled from the CPU is
a "good thing."

I'd say that Aero can be split up into a few different features, all
mingled togther:

- Composition: the ability to compomise an entire desktop image
off-screen, and then refresh the entire screen in a single operation,
without GDI updating individual Windows separately. This gives you a much
smoother screen image, with none of that nasty "blank window" effect you
can get under previous GDI versions. This is indeed a great feature and
should be universal for all GUIs. Even GUIs whhose main aplication is
multiple Command Prompts.

Good point.

- Transparency: ability to blend different Windows in the same screen
area. This could have utilitarian application in a few scenarios, and is
worthwhile for that reason. But current applications of Transparency seem
to focus on the "gee-whiz" visual effects and don't add to tangible
functionality (but look nice).

I read that MS had done usability studies that indicated that the
translucent borders helped the user focus on the application more. Whether
either is true or not, i.e., that they did the study or that said study
truly provided that feedback, is beyond me. That said... gee whiz effects
are somewhat relative, right? I remember my response to Windows after just a
year or so of DOS's CLI. Gee whiz! ;-) Last year I built an old Toshiba
laptop with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and, holy crap, we thought that was
cutting edge back then, and, to a degree, it was, but looking at it now, and
remembering the intracacies of such things as loading CD drivers in a
combination of entries in autoexec.bat and config.sys makes me shake my head
and laugh. 10 years from now, folks may look at the Windows "classic" look
with the same disbelief that anyone could have possibly endured it.
(Apologies to all those still using WFW... ;-) Or Windows Classic! LOL!)

- visual effects: the theme stuff, borders, colours etc. Well I am just an
old fart, I am happy with a VT-100 terminal and a command prompt. So
visual effects leave me cold. But it can increase user-friendliness for
many general users. Just look at the impact of Mac OS X, which does visial
effects at least as well as Aero, if not much better. I concede Mac OS X
Aqua is gorgeous to look at, and keeps one glued to the screen for hours,
even when a coffee break beakons.

One can certainly customize an large portion of the UI. I must admit that
the changes in Vista's UI have stopped having a "gee whiz" impact.
Specifically stuff like the buttons in the upper right hand corner of
windows glowing like neon when the mouse pointer is hovered over them. When
I first started playing around with Vista during the beta program, I thought
that was "way bitchin'... now? Yawn. As to Aqua... I saw it a little bit on
Jaguar and Tiger on relative's Mac's, and it is attractive, but I spent so
much time just trying to figure out how to do "stuff" that I couldn't really
concentrate on the UI's attractiveness. When Leopard is released and I take
the plunge with a Mac, I'll be more able to comment with authority on it.

In Mac OS X, Encore is a genuine productivity boot which lets the user get
a lot more work done more smoothly. I lik that. Whereas Flip-3D, the Vista
analogue, doesn't really improve quantifiible productivity; it's still
pretty much a gee-whizz feature whose main application appears to be for
"Wow starts now" advertisements for Vista . That difference says a lot
about the difference between Mac OS X and Vista - both, by the way,
operating stystems which I respect and use (and Gnome too).

Encore? I searched the Apple site and got no hits on Encore... It appears
there's a music composition application named Encore, but, for some reason,
I don't think that's the Encore you're talking about.

Overall, I think Windows absolutely *must* provide a state-of-the-art GUI,
just to compete in the market place against Aqua and Beryl. And we have
these incredible graphcs cards now, almost for free; so why not use them,
just for the hell of it?? But does it amplify the functional range of the
machine? Well for basic system administration tasks, and coding and
compiling, which are 75% of my work ... uh, no. I would gladly take
Composition in iosolation, if it was a disagreggatated feature.

Roger that, Andrew... yes, they must, and no, it doesn't.

Anyways ... if people like Aero, they should use it. Windows Server 2008
uses the Classic interface by default, and, that's the way I like it )
(shades of of Kevin P

Kevin who? Just FYI...

Best regards!

Same here, dude... best regards!

Lang