Recommended Posts

Did Microsoft really remove Aero and if so why why did they do this? Aero make the desktop look so much nicer. The Windows 8 desktop imo looks ugly in comparison and it looks flat. I am not a fan of the new metro lookor metro apps but I at least I figured I could ignore it and continue using the desktop.

I am really disappointed in what Microsoft has done with WIndows 8. It is obvious that he main focus is not the desktop but mobile devices. This has to be the first Windows release that I am not interested in getting.

Edited by SHoTTa35
Moved and tagged
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1095739-why-did-microsoft-remove-aero/
Share on other sites

WTF, battery life isn't the reason got MS to remove aero..people can disable in windows 7 to save "BL" Maybe MS is trying kill the desktop by making look like <snipped> and people will realize the beauty of metro. GOOD STRATEGY !

Edited by Calum
Our word filter is there for a reason, as you know. Please do not intentionally bypass it.
  • Like 1

Boy! Was it like this when Windows 7 was at this point? It's like people really love Windows 8 or hate it.

People dislike change. They show a lot of inertia to the 'new'.

The techies actually hated the user-interface itself, when Microsoft introduced it in Windows 95. They thought it was for people who were too lazy to learn a few DOS commands.

Did Microsoft really remove Aero and if so why why did they do this? Aero makes the desktop look so much nicer. The Windows 8 desktop imo looks ugly in comparison and it looks flat. I am not a fan of the new metro lookor metro apps but I at least I figured I could ignore it and continue using the desktop.

I am really disappointed in what Microsoft has done with WIndows 8. It is obvious that he main focus is not the desktop but mobile devices. This has to be the first Windows release that I am not interested in getting.

They removed it exactly for the reason you mentioned. It was a gimmick, and it attracted the user's attention. And it didn't provide any real advantage in productivity, except to look pretty.

And battery life was also a factor. It consumed a little bit more juice, and actually had a minimum graphic power requirement to run.

I like the flat UI, the square windows, but I will miss the transparencies. Then again I only plan to run it on a tablet which will probably account for 10 - 15% of my computer usage, and most of time I'll be in the Metro UI.

People dislike change. They show a lot of inertia to the 'new'.

The techies actually hated the user-interface itself, when Microsoft introduced it in Windows 95. They thought it was for people who were too lazy to learn a few DOS commands.

Yup - and when reminded of it, they either get all Pharonic about it, or try to change the subject.

I was very much a skeptic when the Developer Preview of Windows 8 came out (and primarily because of the radical UI) - now I'm a decided non-skeptic.

I've done three installs of this leak of Enterprise- N (two in VMs and one bare-metal) - if anything, I'm actually less of a skeptic.

The lack of Aero has seriously sped things up, and especially on supported hardware.

My discrete GPU is actually the sort of hardware that led to Aero getting grounded - the AMD HD5450 (a notebook GPU in desktop clothes) - it's supported OOTB in both Windows 7 and Windows 8.

Things have seriously gotten faster compared to the Release Preview (which has Aero) - which leads ME to believe that Microsoft actually has a point about Aero being a drag on performance.

The biggest issue with aero glass was the fact that allot of programs had compatibility issues with it in general.

Never experienced anything like that and people fail to realize that aero on windows 7 could be turned off. It isn't manditory.

Windows xp looked better than windows 98, vista better than xp and 7 better than vista. Windows 8 ended that tradition.

The odd thing to me is that, in the RTM of Windows 8, all the glass/aero is gone, but the icons in the ribbon for File Explorer are the exact same as in the CP and RP. The glossy, 3D icons from Vista and 7. That's what I can't figure out. Why did they keep the same icons? Even Office 2013 completely revamped all the UI icons for the Ribbon in all their apps. But Windows 8 has kept the icons. And the same My Computer, Recycle Bin, and Network, Control Panel icons from Vista/7. To me, if they were going to do something as drastic as get rid of all reflective / transparencies and every visual aspect of Aero, they could have redone the icons to be more consistent with the rest of the OS's look.

Never experienced anything like that and people fail to realize that aero on windows 7 could be turned off. It isn't manditory.

Windows xp looked better than windows 98, vista better than xp and 7 better than vista. Windows 8 ended that tradition.

Apparently, there wasn't as much gain by not using it in Windows 7 as there has been with its banishment in 8.

And again, you're referring to aesthetics; the same could (and has) been said (ending the tradition of good-looking DEs, that is) about GNOME 3.x, KDE 4.x, etc. - if anything, the trend on the FOSS side has been toward minimalism (Xfce, E17+, Cinnamon, etc.).

The odd thing to me is that, in the RTM of Windows 8, all the glass/aero is gone, but the icons in the ribbon for File Explorer are the exact same as in the CP and RP. The glossy, 3D icons from Vista and 7. That's what I can't figure out. Why did they keep the same icons? Even Office 2013 completely revamped all the UI icons for the Ribbon in all their apps. But Windows 8 has kept the icons. And the same My Computer, Recycle Bin, and Network, Control Panel icons from Vista/7. To me, if they were going to do something as drastic as get rid of all reflective / transparencies and every visual aspect of Aero, they could have redone the icons to be more consistent with the rest of the OS's look.

That's disappointing to hear. I really dislike it when Microsoft seemingly does things in a cursory fashion. I thought Windows 8 was finally going to show some consistency. I guess not.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • it dosnt support onprem exchange. it dosnt support mapi-calls. the views are all worse/limited. its slower. it cant see public folder calendars. we already have webmail. the list of other missing features is pretty huge but i only see it when customers call to say their email isnt working, and 9/10 times its cause they accidentality changed to outlooknew(new). Hold the line everyone!
    • yeah, this looks beautiful. Damn this winter's going to be great.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!