Recommended Posts

Any DirectX stuff not working well, like DirectDraw, might be because they're between v11 and v12, no DX12 drivers for Windows 10 out either.

 

People who get a FPS boost in games right now could be benefiting from early CPU overhead reductions, that's the key to better frame rates.

xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:

What are these killer apps that everybody keeps mentioning?  What are these MUST HAVES that do NOT exist in the desktop environment?  I am pretty sure I can use Facebook without needing a Facebook app.  I can use Netflix with a browser.  

 

Again, what is this stall you are referring to?  Even comparing Photoshop CS2 to CC has a huge change in features.  What modern app exists that does NOT exist on the desktop that is OMG SO AMAZING?  Even Angry Birds is on Steam.  Some of the most popular mobile apps are on Steam.  Better games are on Steam and the PC platform.  So how are things "stalled"?  

Netflix in a browser can't give you surround sound. At least the Windows 8 app can produce Dolby Digital 5.1 Plus.

They should switch all desktop apps to use modern Metro chrome, then it makes sense to show a Metro style dialog on the desktop. Otherwise its just inconsistent UI.

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

  • Like 3

NEXTCubes

 

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost seem to) be happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

 

Also, if the goalposts weren't moved, wouldn't we just end up with Windows 8.1 again?  :huh:

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost be) happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

But is it worth the resultant damage to the Windows marketshare to get it?

 

As much as you (and a few others) want a consistent UI/UX, the marketplace seems to disagree.

 

Where Windows HAS been consistent is in niche-OS areas (including RT, for that matter), and niche-only operating systems don't succeed commercially.

 

If anything, a major desktop OS needs SOME inconsistency for it to actually work.

 

OS X (the descendant of NEXTstep) has a non-consistent UI included with it - it's called Launchpad.  It looks nothing like the default OS X UI - yet you can, in fact, do darn near everything from there that you can from the default UI.  Could Launchpad be the ModernUI of OS X?  (In fact, the only difference between Launchpad and ModernUI is that the core OS functionality is NOT duplicated there - yet, and that it actually predates ModernUI - Launchpad goes back to SnowLeopard.)

 

Another reason for the "consistency" of the OS X default UI is that both it, and the hardware, are from the same company - Apple.  Apple is, by and large, made up of the folks that WROTE NEXTstep (which, toward the end, was indeed available for standard x86 PCs - albeit at Apple-sized mark-ups) - that is the version that can run on VirtualBox or VMware today.  Basically, OS X is a semi-closed OS (despite the BSD underpinnings).

 

Other than Surface, Microsoft doesn't make entire computers.  Instead, it is licensed to companies that do (from the Lenovos to the boutique and home-builder/BYOPC crowd).  Designs run the gamut.  If anything, consistency is something that PCs are known for NOT having - in terms of either hardware OR software.  In other words, the lack of consistency works in its favor - it gets licensed, sold, and used because it is NOT a straitjacket-OS.

 

Also, who is settling?  If we wanted to settle, there WOULD have been a hardware stall with 7 - however, that did NOT happen - far from it.

The issue is not just where do we go from a hardware POV, but where do we go from an application POV?

 

I'm in FAVOR of greater choice in applications - including ModernUI (both Win32 and even WinRT) applications.  I don't want either/or.

The issue I am facing with that is that the same folks arguing for consistency are also arguing in favor of complacency - not only in terms of OS, but in terms of hardware support.

If getting the complacency issue scuttled means dumping consistency (which Windows hasn't had since 3.x), I'm fine with that - especially given the Microsoft track record with consistent operating systems.

Back to the original question in the title, My view is that Microsoft is indeed ignoring the desktop. Why? Because if you look at the development frameworks that were used in the past for the desktop (Win Forms, Silverlight, WPF), they are either gone or pretty much in maintenance mode. They have already said that there are no new frameworks in the works. HTML5/Javascript/Xamarin are "where it's at" now and that's not the desktop.

Getting back on topic, it seems to me that the opposite it true. Microsoft seems to be focusing quite a bit on the desktop and fixing 8.x's shortcomings. I think they were brilliant in making it automatically change when you use a tablet or desktop. I was actually in the minority that liked the Metro screen but now that the start menu is back and with Metro tiles, I really like it.

 

My main issue is that MS cannot make a consistent UI. Ugly as it may be, I hope they make everything have the same windows graphics. However, I do wish they would give an option for more of a visually appealing style. And I don't want to use Windowblinds, I always thought that felt like a hack. Even though they have stepped back about 20 years with the ugly icon design, they need to make all of them have the same style. I'm sure that is a work in progress though like everything else. I also noticed that when I click the Cortana search field, a different style field displays above it offset a bit. it gives me the impression that they are just sticking new interface elements on top of old ones. Why can't they just make a single unified UI without feeling everything is skinned.

 

Also, I hate how their is a settings start menu item and then there is still a control panel. I really hope they do away with the control panel. It makes it confusing to try and figure out when to use Settings and when to use Control Panel.

I don't really think they are. I think that they're trying to unify both the tablet world and the desktop world, personally. Don't flame me for this, but on the desktop aspect, you're getting the best of both worlds, IMHO. Minus the touch aspect. Unless you're on a touch screen monitor. Look, you can't make everybody happy. Nobody can. But can you find a medium? Absolutely. Example: I like pizza. Especially home made pizza. It's good. (That's my fifty percent). However, I also like it when I don't have to make a huge mess making pizza, which is why I'm equally happy to call pizza hut. (The other fifty percent). It's an equal balance. At least for me. I'm just happy I have pizza, either way, when it comes down to it. Microsoft knows what they're doing by us tech preview users. I've beta tested for years, it's just that they finally decided to let more people in, and express their own opinions. Which I think, is good. So it's ok to think the way you do, OP. Variety is the spice of life! :) They'll get it right, and everything will be okay. Don't worry. It's a community effort, just like neowin started out as, and has flourished to be. Don't let the trees get in the way of the forest. ;)

What are people talking about regarding the desktop and customization not being a thing anymore? I run Win8.1 and my desktop is as customized as it's ever been.

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

  • Like 3

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!! :D

  • Like 1

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!! :D

 

LOL.  

 

Windows 2 also introduce overlapping windows like in windows 7.

Actually I love these tiles (Windows 8), because it looks fresh for me.

Probably most people hate tiles because that is what they see as opposed of start menu in Windows 8

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Ask Windows 8.

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

I don't think so. I believe some people like the clean look of Windows 8 or some people who don't care about UX at all, what distract them from Windows 8 is confusing (like PC Settings, start menu replacement, and flyout menu), hence there are some downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7. My friend love windows 8, especially on touchscreen, but he decided to downgrade to windows 7 because he don't understand windows 8 (he gives up when he saw start screen)

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

exactly!

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

 

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

 

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

 

It certainly would not hurt to have consistency. I don't think that there is any debate on the subject, and doubt very much that Microsoft themselves would debate the subject.

 

The question is if there can't be complete consistency, should we not move forward at all?

Ask Windows 8.

Windows 8 wasn't tossed because the UI wasn't consistent - Windows 7 didn't have a consistent UI, either.  Windows 8 was launched in a bad economy - which is a far easier wall to avoid. (The best evidence of that is sales of PCs since the current recovery began.  PCs - from traditional desktops and portables to non-traditional desktops and portables - are selling again.  By and large, it is NOT 7 that is on them - instead, it's 8.1 - which STILL lacks a Start menu - or a consistent UI.)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • ...but you're Johnny, from Australia?    
    • Glow 26.9 by Razvan Serea Glow provides detailed reporting on every hardware component in your computer, saving you valuable time typically spent searching for CPU, motherboard, RAM, graphics card, and other stats. With Glow, all the information is conveniently presented in one clean interface, allowing you to easily access and review the comprehensive hardware details of your system. Glow provides detailed information on various system aspects, including OS, motherboard, processor, memory, graphics card, storage, network, battery, drivers, and services. The well-organized format ensures easy access to the required information. You can export all the gathered data to a plain text file, facilitating sharing with others for troubleshooting purposes. No installation needed. Just decompress the archive, launch the executable, and access computer-related information. Glow runs on Windows 11 and Windows 10 64-bit versions. Glow 26.9 changelog: New Features The processor hardware detection engine has been significantly enhanced beyond traditional Intel and AMD architectures. Native support is now available for modern platforms such as Apple Silicon (M-Series) and the newly introduced NVIDIA Spark. In addition, all ARM-based processors can now be accurately distinguished between ARM32 and ARM64 architectures, providing precise hardware reporting. This marks a major milestone for Glow's hardware detection capabilities. The RAM manufacturer identification algorithm has been expanded. JEDEC vendor codes for popular brands such as Patriot, PNY, Team Group, GeIL, Lexar (Longsys), and Asgard/Gloway have been integrated into the database. This significantly reduces the likelihood of incorrect or "Unknown Manufacturer" results and improves overall hardware detection accuracy. New Public IP Address and Internet Service Provider (ISP) features have been added to the Network section. To ensure reliability, this information is retrieved from the trusted service ipwho.is. When Hiding Mode is enabled, no requests are sent and these features remain hidden, as they may expose sensitive information. The search engine used in the Installed Drivers, Installed Services, and Installed Applications sections has been enhanced. You can now perform more flexible and accurate searches using initials, partial matches, and loosely arranged character sequences. The TS Preloader loading bar has been rebuilt using our modern TS Custom Controls graphics library, developed entirely in-house. As a result of this infrastructure upgrade, the loading bar now features smooth rendering and rounded corners that align with the visual style of Windows 11. [TS Updater] A new validation algorithm has been added to check whether the target application is currently running before the update process begins. Bug Fixes Resolved a condition that could prevent TS Preloader from shutting down safely during rare application crash scenarios. Fixed a text alignment issue in the Network section affecting the display of DNS addresses. Alignment is now rendered correctly. [TS Updater] Fixed an issue that could prevent the updated application's executable "*.exe" file from being located after the update process. [TS Updater] Fixed a bug that could leave outdated "*.sha256" files in the application directory after an update. [TS Updater] Fixed a rare issue that could cause subfolders to be moved into the root directory after an update. [TS Updater] Fixed an issue during the first launch that could cause flickering and a temporary white window appearance due to Windows Defender interactions. Changes A small improvement has been made to the internet connectivity detection algorithm. Connectivity checks are now performed in the background with minimal impact on the user interface thread. The keyboard shortcuts in the top menu have been reorganized and simplified to provide a consistent experience across all Türkaysoft applications and to avoid potential conflicts with standard Windows shortcuts. The TS Preloader splash image has been updated with a Türkiye-themed stadium design to celebrate Türkiye's qualification for the 2026 FIFA World Cup—its first appearance in 24 years. Congratulations, Türkiye! The TS Custom Controls module has been updated to version 26.6, delivering improved stability and a more polished visual appearance. [TS Updater] The application icon has been redesigned to provide a more modern and refined look. Note: Always unzip the program before using it. Otherwise you may get an error. Download: Glow 26.9 | 1.8 MB (Open Source) Links: Glow Homepage | Screenshot | Github Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • DWARF mini review: the world's smallest smart telescope for night and day sky captures by Steven Parker DWARFLAB reached out to me asking if I was interested in checking out the DWARF mini, which is a portable astronomy telescope designed for amateur astronomers. Why do I say it's for amateurs? Well, for starters, it's not what you'd call "high end"; it's more of a professional-grade starting point for amateurs serious about capturing what's up there in our night and day skies. A typical amateur astronomer is most likely thousands of dollars deep into the hobby, and I will make no claims that this DWARF mini (at a fraction of the cost) could replace it all, okay? Well, if you read on, it will be clearer what I am trying to convey. Disclosure: DWARFLAB provided a free sample without any editorial input or review pre-approval. I have always been interested in looking up and observing the night sky. I see satellites crossing the sky above my garden most nights, and I am always looking at the moon. Yeah, I have a 200MP camera on my phone, but at 200X zoom, AI takes over and makes the pretty moon pictures that I snap, the DWARF mini does not, you get an actual true picture of what you can barely see with the naked eye. Before we start, let's share the highlights of the DWARF mini in bite-sized format: Pocket-Sized & Ultra-Lightweight Weighing just 1.85 lbs (840g), the DWARF mini easily fits into a backpack or large pocket. Its all-in-one, compact design makes it the ultimate grab-and-go digital telescope for hiking, camping, or traveling to dark-sky locations. Intuitive App Control & Built-in Sky Atlas Go from unboxing to your first shot in just 3 minutes! The DWARFLAB App provides a seamless experience with an interactive star map. Simply select your target and start exploring without the steep learning curve of traditional setups. Auto GOTO & 360° Pivot Freedom Enjoy pinpoint automated tracking with full 360° rotation. Powered by a high-sensitivity Sony IMX662 sensor (1/2.8-inch, 2.9μm pixels), it captures amazing, low-noise astro details, bringing faint nebulas and star clusters to life with stunning clarity. Pro-Level EQ Mode & Long Exposure Unlock advanced deep-space imaging with Equatorial (EQ) Mode. Supporting impressive single-frame exposures up to 90 seconds and featuring built-in light pollution filters, it easily cuts through city glow to reveal intricate celestial structures. Smart Cloud Processing & All-Ages Fun Effortlessly enhance your raw data with integrated cloud processing for professional-grade results. Perfect for beginners, kids, and adults, this telescope makes exploring and sharing the wonders of the universe an exciting, family-friendly adventure. The packaging is a pretty minimal affair with the outer box opening like a flap to reveal the plastic mould of the DWARF mini sitting in it. Below, the Sun filter, charging cable, cleaning cloth, and documentation can be found. DWARFLAB also provided a Mini Hydraulic Tripod ($89.99), and I highly recommend getting it if you plan on purchasing the DWARF mini, as it fully supports the motorized tracking feature of the telescope; plus, at 840g, the weight of the telescope, you will need a tripod that supports more than the weight of a smartphone anyway. What's in the box DWARF Mini Smart Telescope × 1 Sun Filter x 1 Type-C to Type-C Cord x 1 Cleaning Cloth x 1 User Guide With that out of the way, here are the full specs: DWARF mini Dimensions (DWH): 60.70 mm x 100.38 × 183.61 (2.39" x 3.95" x 7.23") Weight: 840g (1.85lbs) Aperture diameter: 30 mm (telephoto), 3.4 mm (wide angle) Image Sensor: SONY IMX662 1/2.8" (Telephoto) OmniVision OS02K10 1/2.8" (Wide-angle) Focal length: 150 mm (telephoto), 6.7 mm (wide-angle) Equivalent focal length: 1016 mm (telephoto), 45 mm (wide-angle) Shutter Speed: Tele - 1/10000-90s, Wide - 1/10000-30s Maximum exposure time: 90s (telephoto & wide-angle), Both in EQ mode Rotation range: Lens: 225°, Base: 360° Effective Pixels: 2.07M Maximum Resolution: 1920 × 1080 (Telephoto & Wide-angle) Built-in filters: Astro, Dark, Duo-Band (Telephoto), Astro (Wide-angle) Output: JPG, FITS, TIFF, MP4 Shooting Mode: Photos, Videos, Astronomy, Burst Shooting, Time-lapse Photography Storage: 64 GB Battery: Built-in 7000 mAh, supports external USB charging Charging Port: Type-C NPU: 1 TOPS Features: WiFi, NFC NFC One-Touch Connection Astronomy Post-Processing/Appointment Shooting/Astronomy Mosaic Wi-Fi Transmission Range: 15m (open environment) Color: Black Compatibility: iOS & Android smartphones/tablets Warranty: 2-years (24-months) MSRP: $399 Design Charge port On/off button Lens On the DWARF mini itself, it is a pretty minimal affair. On one side, there is a Type-C USB port to charge the non-removable 7000 mAh battery, and on the other side, a large button to power on or off the telescope. The button is flanked by an LED that is green when connected via the DWARFLAB app, or lights up red when being powered off. Below the button, there are four LEDs that indicate battery power. The DWARF mini does not have any sharp edges as all sides are rounded off; it has a good heft to it, but the weight of it feels quite balanced in the hand, so it isn't top or bottom-heavy. On the front there is the DWARFLAB logo which is quite small and there are no other markings on it. The tripod offers full 360° rotation of the motorized base, which allows for tracking for the time-lapse mode, but also for the 90-second captures of nearer objects in the sky, such as the Sun or the moon. Usage To get started, simply power on the DWARF mini and open the DWARFLAB app, tap on Connect, and it will scan for the DWARF mini over the Wi-Fi network. The device supports both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi, as well as Bluetooth for discovery, so connection issues were minimal in my experience with it. As previously noted in the specs, the DWARF mini will stay connected with a phone or tablet up to 15 meters in an open environment, such as a backyard. Lighting status Powering on: The green circular light will rotate and breathe in turn Powering off: The red circular light is gradually extinguished Connecting: Green light strip rotating Connected: Green light strip solid/always on 4 lights 1= 0-25%, 2= 25-50%, 3= 50-75%, 4= 75-100% battery power To view the full lighting status, such as tracking mode and connection failure, you can check the user guide on the official DWARFLAB page. DWARFLAB app Above, you can see the steps undertaken to connect the DWARFLAB app to my Galaxy S26 Ultra. Weirdly, I got an alert that a firmware update failed to get uploaded to the DWARF mini the first time, but upon retrying, it worked. Then place the DWARF mini outside, make sure your smartphone or tablet is connected to it, and then head back inside, because you can manage it from the comfort of your home. Simply enter the Atlas tab in the app and search for what you want to capture, and then tap on the camera icon; the DWARF mini will then attempt to track the object and give you a live view right on your connected device. Results I've had the DWARF mini since April, but even though my garden is south-facing, I had a lot of trouble trying to capture a good image of the moon. In the end, it was possible after I took it with me on a trip to my parents in Southend, UK, at the end of May. Here is a capture of the moon, resulting from 20 stacked images over a 90-second exposure. What you are seeing here is not AI-assisted. A good example of what I mean is the latest flagships with their 200MP cameras claiming to capture things like closeups of the moon, and while they are not as good as the above example on the DWARF mini, the resulting image on smartphones is actually AI-assisted above 30X zoom. Here is an example of a similar shot at the moon at 200X zoom using an HONOR Magic8 Pro. The difference is clear. Next, here we have a shot of the daytime moon. Here is a shot of Arcturus, the red giant star, which is the fourth brightest in the night sky. As previously mentioned, it could be a bit clearer, but clouds passing in front of it muddied the shot a bit. The Sun The DWARF mini also ships with a sun filter, meaning you can take great shots of the sun as well. Tracking Sun Resulting (stacked) shot Live zoom The pictures themselves are limited to Full HD, and some of the examples actually came out in HD (1280x720), but this is because the standard telescopic result is in 720p while "Wide" is in 1080p. Above you can see how in the app the Sun is tracked, the resulting capture, and Live zoom. I have only scratched the surface of what is possible with this telescope; I found several examples online of shots of the Milky Way, among others, such as nebulae and galaxies. All of this requires patience and knowledge, although if you know what you are looking for, simply enter it in the Atlas tab in the DWARFLAB app, tap the camera icon, and the telescope will attempt to track it. Conclusion The good The DWARF mini definitely places itself in a price point that makes astrology accessible to anyone looking to get started in the hobby. Say you want to have a closer look at the moon, simply enter it in the Atlas, and the Live view also lets you zoom in and snap pictures. The bad Some issues I came across while operating the DWARF mini were that it sometimes failed to connect unless I held my smartphone right next to it, and finding and tracking sometimes took several attempts to get it calibrated. I discovered that it helped if I sort of positioned and pointed the telescope in the general area it was supposed to detect, but this obviously wouldn't work with objects you can't see with the naked eye; more testing is required for that. Another bit of advice is to ensure that the lens is clean. While making the examples of live zooming on the sun, I discovered that the telescope lens and sun filter were not completely clean, and only after cleaning with a microfiber cloth was I able to get a decent shot of the sun. Where to buy and a coupon Okay, $399 is not cheap for a side hobby, but nor is a $1,500 smartphone flagship that you'll most likely have for a couple of years. This is a one-time entrance into astrology, and it won't become obsolete in one year like a smartphone. It's a thumbs up from me. The DWARF mini is available to buy right now in the U.S. and U.K. at the links below. DWARF mini for $399 on the official site DWARF mini for $399 on Amazon U.S. Use the NEOWIN5OFF coupon code for an additional 5% off at checkout (expires June 21) As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Adobe Acrobat Reader Dis Continued
    • The name, you mean? If so, it's actually the objects common name. There's another one called NGC 7293 which is also known as Helix Nebula (because we're looking at a helix structure top down) but other times also known as the Eye of God. You'll understand when you see it
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      505
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      272
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!