Whats your opinion of the Aero Glass UI?


Recommended Posts

Don't ever call Vista XP SP3 with eye candy.

Microsoft has done more to Vista than they have with any other release since Windows 95. They rewrote the user interface, networking, and audio and that alone will bring an extreme new stability never before possible in XP or below. And that's just the start of it.

Don't forget the WDDM display driver model, which goes hand-in-hand with DirectX 10....

Can you really change the thicnkess of the borders? I heard that, and if it's true Aero is my new best friend.

Yes. These are 20 and 5, respectively....The standard is 8, but I find that too thick.

post-47827-1151873323_thumb.jpgpost-47827-1151873329.png

Edit: I can't believe the forum would resize it for just a few lousy pixels. Typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks alot! Does it go smaller than 5? Like, borderless?

Not borderless...if you set border padding to 0, the border shrinks to 3 pixels (Which is really thin...)

post-47827-1151876585.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i have been running the new build the post beta 2 and Glass has changed it is more of a light then before and i think they added .net 3.0 witch inlcudes winfx 3.0 /WPF 2.0 so it loooks better.

.Net 3.0 is just the new name for WinFX, first of all. Second, Vista has always had wpf support, but the interface is not written in WPF. WPF (well, .Net) is managed code (and the interface is written in XAML), which Vista is definitely not written in (actually, in the early Longhorn days, some of the interface was in managed code, but it was removed during the rewrite). There is a rumour that the Diamond interface for media center will be written in XAML, but nobody has heard anything about diamond recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Aero UI is so damm useless and stupid, along with it's such a memory hog...

oh and back to that guy who said, Those people who bitch about the Aero glass, must not have a system to run it... Will i don't think people would be posting something that they don't know about... if they don't got the system to run it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how you could call it "more stable"......heck, XP has been the most stable OS I've ever had

I reboot about once a month, or as required for a software update. Mine runs 24/7. Maybe it's the gaming

part that makes XP "unstable". I run tons of non game apps daily, P2P, tv program, IM client, photoshop,

DVD burner and it's as stable as can be.

I still (until proven by EXPERTS) will call Vista "XP SP3 with eye candy".

Networking works perfect on XP. Sounds works perfect on XP, the UI works perfect on XP.....

Until it's in RC/Gold stage and the "experts" can prove that it's a ton better than XP, why mess with

something that WORKS.......I upgraded from dos to windows 3 because it was better (so to speak),

3.0 to 3.11, 3.11 to 95, 95 to 98, 98 to 98SE (I skipped 98ME), and then to XP because of a definate

improvement to stability, but for right now, I don't see the "need" other than having the latest and

greatest.......an old tech back in the 70's told me...."just because it's new don't make it better, just

means it's new". :yes:

:alien:

Don't ever call Vista XP SP3 with eye candy.

Microsoft has done more to Vista than they have with any other release since Windows 95. They rewrote the user interface, networking, and audio and that alone will bring an extreme new stability never before possible in XP or below. And that's just the start of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how you could call it "more stable"......heck, XP has been the most stable OS I've ever had

I reboot about once a month, or as required for a software update. Mine runs 24/7. Maybe it's the gaming

part that makes XP "unstable". I run tons of non game apps daily, P2P, tv program, IM client, photoshop,

DVD burner and it's as stable as can be.

I still (until proven by EXPERTS) will call Vista "XP SP3 with eye candy".

Networking works perfect on XP. Sounds works perfect on XP, the UI works perfect on XP.....

Until it's in RC/Gold stage and the "experts" can prove that it's a ton better than XP, why mess with

something that WORKS.......I upgraded from dos to windows 3 because it was better (so to speak),

3.0 to 3.11, 3.11 to 95, 95 to 98, 98 to 98SE (I skipped 98ME), and then to XP because of a definate

improvement to stability, but for right now, I don't see the "need" other than having the latest and

greatest.......an old tech back in the 70's told me...."just because it's new don't make it better, just

means it's new". :yes:

:alien:

Can I ask you something buddy? Are you calling yourself unexpert? Cause if you are, then let me make my comments (otherwise please forgive me :huh: )...

The problem with Windows Vista is that Microsoft stupidly let this piece of "Greatness" slip out of their hands to be used by someone like you (unexpert, your words not mine! :| ); Therefore you are trying to compare the software which is not even finished yet, with something that has been finished, retouched and repatched over 100 times all along the way over the last 5 years. This is too much work put on Vista, and only when it is Release to customers you will see how valuable it is and then you will want to upgrade; that's so simple :)

You have to compare the technologies in which XP lays, to the current technologies that make the foundation of Windows Vista. I can still bet on this: Windows Vista will be the best Operating System ever made by Microsoft Corporation. (pardon me if I sound like a fanboy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you might be evenually forced to upgrade to Vista to be able to use the latest programs and stuff. Are there drivers for Windows 98 for new hardware these days? No because new drivers are developed for Windows 2000 and XP users in mind. This will happen one day that they will stop making drivers for 2000 and only need you to have XP or Vista. MS might not make a new OS around as long as between XP-Vista is now. That's how computing world are. I'm afraid. You don't upgrade, you gonna miss out on the latest stuff.

I think there are some people where I live that is still on 98 or even 95 but most is on XP.

What's the short name for Vista anyway? Is it WinV, winvista, or simply Vista?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense taken.......(been in and around law enforcement too many years to have a thin skin).

I've been screwing with electronics, computers, etc since the early 70's. I don't consider myself

AN expert by any means, but someone who has been messing with computers since DOS 3.3

No, I'm not trying to compare XP with Vista......it's just that XP is rock stable, and, with what I

have seen with Vista B2, I don't see what the big deal is. Will I give it another go when the RC

comes out? You bet I will. If Vista is going to be released, I need to know it's in's and outs.

Does XP need to be "revamped"? You bet......it's 5 years old. I remember when I got the RC

version from microsoft. When I installed it, I was AMAZED how stable it was, compared to 98SE.

Where I am coming from is from the standpoint of features, the "what's new" part of Vista and

then, compare that, to what XP offers now, and then put that in the calculator and see if one can

justify the cost of the upgrade. I wasn't trying to bash, or put down Vista in any way. I was simply

trying to justify the cost, of purchasing a "new" OS, with any improvements, or just sticking with

XP.

As the post B2 releases come along and we push along to the RC stage, then it will be up to the

"experts" to give their opinions (and you know what opinions are like) if the upgrade is worth

the price.

In the long run, the consumer will be the ones making the decision, along with the OEM vendors.

But, it does make for a lively discussion :yes:

:alien:

Can I ask you something buddy? Are you calling yourself unexpert? Cause if you are, then let me make my comments (otherwise please forgive me :huh: )...

The problem with Windows Vista is that Microsoft stupidly let this piece of "Greatness" slip out of their hands to be used by someone like you (unexpert, your words not mine! :| ); Therefore you are trying to compare the software which is not even finished yet, with something that has been finished, retouched and repatched over 100 times all along the way over the last 5 years. This is too much work put on Vista, and only when it is Release to customers you will see how valuable it is and then you will want to upgrade; that's so simple :)

You have to compare the technologies in which XP lays, to the current technologies that make the foundation of Windows Vista. I can still bet on this: Windows Vista will be the best Operating System ever made by Microsoft Corporation. (pardon me if I sound like a fanboy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't think it looks that good... Back when abundant screenshots only started to surface, and we had KoL's original VistaXP 3.0 theme for WindowBlinds, I thought that Vista was going to look sleek as hell...

But since then the borders were made thicker and higher contrast, the icons were finalized and don't impress me at all, and things like that butt fugly blue toolbar were added to Vista's Explorer. In the end of the day, the current OS X still ended up looking ten times more fluid than what Vista has shaped into.

But at least it's nice to know that Vista will offer plenty of great new technology for skinners unlike Microsot's own, who have a real sense of taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.Net 3.0 is just the new name for WinFX, first of all. Second, Vista has always had wpf support, but the interface is not written in WPF. WPF (well, .Net) is managed code (and the interface is written in XAML), which Vista is definitely not written in (actually, in the early Longhorn days, some of the interface was in managed code, but it was removed during the rewrite). There is a rumour that the Diamond interface for media center will be written in XAML, but nobody has heard anything about diamond recently.

ok .net 3.0 witch is winFX 3.0 has some changes made to it, if you kept up todate on stuff you would know winfx 2.0 or .net3.0 would included a revamped WPF or winfx witch can better manage how WPF works and also how glass interface ois presented and how your graphics card manages threads basicly a revamped Aero/DWM subsystem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ones that bitch about the new Aero UI must not have a system that can run aero. ;)

And people who act immature like you are what make Neowin look bad ;)

Not everyone cares for all the Aero effects and nobody really cares that you have a computer that can run Aero. You're special in your own little world, buddy. Many people have computers that can run it, but they're mature and don't run around bragging about it like a little 5 year old kid ;) Get over yourself :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here isa question to all who eather dont like vista and or who dont like the aero glass interface...

Lets say you was in occoma from 1986 to 1998 now you wake up and a few weeks later your at home and you seea relitive running somthing on what appers to be a computer it is running a operating system more advanced then anything you remeber seeing how would your reaction be knowing the last thing you remeber was seeing DOS and only hearing about Windows 1.0 but now it is 1998 and windows 98 is out how would you react or feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok .net 3.0 witch is winFX 3.0 has some changes made to it, if you kept up todate on stuff you would know winfx 2.0 or .net3.0 would included a revamped WPF or winfx witch can better manage how WPF works and also how glass interface ois presented and how your graphics card manages threads basicly a revamped Aero/DWM subsystem

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, nor do you make any sense. Learn some english, then maybe I'll have a mature conversation with you, if you can handle it. There is no such thing as WinFX 3.0 or 2.0. WinFX is WinFX (later changed to .Net 3.0). .Net 3.0 contains .Net 2.0, WPF, WCF, WWF, and WCS. The only thing different in 5456 is how they are doing DWM/Aero. DWM was rewritten, which is NOT WPF. And Windows does NOT use managed code (.Net) to draw the interface, or make up any part of the shell for that matter. However, in the pre-rewrite days, Aero did use WPF, like I said before. It seems to me that you need to keep up to date.

So basically... DWM != WPF

Get your facts straight, buddy :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it, may not be all that MS said it was gonna be back in the concepts like the carosel. But It is a huge leap forward for windows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense taken.......(been in and around law enforcement too many years to have a thin skin).

I've been screwing with electronics, computers, etc since the early 70's. I don't consider myself

AN expert by any means, but someone who has been messing with computers since DOS 3.3

No, I'm not trying to compare XP with Vista......it's just that XP is rock stable, and, with what I

have seen with Vista B2, I don't see what the big deal is. Will I give it another go when the RC

comes out? You bet I will. If Vista is going to be released, I need to know it's in's and outs.

Does XP need to be "revamped"? You bet......it's 5 years old. I remember when I got the RC

version from microsoft. When I installed it, I was AMAZED how stable it was, compared to 98SE.

Where I am coming from is from the standpoint of features, the "what's new" part of Vista and

then, compare that, to what XP offers now, and then put that in the calculator and see if one can

justify the cost of the upgrade. I wasn't trying to bash, or put down Vista in any way. I was simply

trying to justify the cost, of purchasing a "new" OS, with any improvements, or just sticking with

XP.

As the post B2 releases come along and we push along to the RC stage, then it will be up to the

"experts" to give their opinions (and you know what opinions are like) if the upgrade is worth

the price.

In the long run, the consumer will be the ones making the decision, along with the OEM vendors.

But, it does make for a lively discussion :yes:

:alien:

You know, I do agree with you, to a point. Unfortunately, at least for Microsoft's sake, there's not a lot new that the customer will see, so many will see it as pointless to pay for this. But for the developers out there (and I'm one of them, sorta :p ), and for the future of Windows, there's sooo much to look forward to. My feeling is that one devs get used to using all the new technology on a regular basis, then the Vista platform will really take off, and that's where Vista will shine. (Except, of course, for the fact that most of it will be backported :wacko:). And hopefully, now that the technology is in place (for the most part...WinFS? :angry:), Microsoft can finally deliver what they originally promised for Vista in Vienna...hopefully... So personally, I'm all for Vista (not to say there's things I don't like, though), but I guess that's just because of my position as far as a dev and potential user of software built on this platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing that I always liked about the Apple OS's to an extent.......no backporting, to a degree.

You want to run our new wizbang OS, then you have to meet a certain amount of requirements.

The windows OS I think would be a better OS, if they would finally drop support for a ton of legacy

hardware/software. Do we really need 16 bit support for a bunch of old softare/hardware? If you

need to support a certain app, or board, then don't upgrade...simple as that.

I do agree with you that when they start making apps natively for the vista OS, it should take

off. That and the push for x64 hard/software.

:alien:

You know, I do agree with you, to a point. Unfortunately, at least for Microsoft's sake, there's not a lot new that the customer will see, so many will see it as pointless to pay for this. But for the developers out there (and I'm one of them, sorta :p ), and for the future of Windows, there's sooo much to look forward to. My feeling is that one devs get used to using all the new technology on a regular basis, then the Vista platform will really take off, and that's where Vista will shine. (Except, of course, for the fact that most of it will be backported :wacko:). And hopefully, now that the technology is in place (for the most part...WinFS? :angry:), Microsoft can finally deliver what they originally promised for Vista in Vienna...hopefully... So personally, I'm all for Vista (not to say there's things I don't like, though), but I guess that's just because of my position as far as a dev and potential user of software built on this platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing that I always liked about the Apple OS's to an extent.......no backporting, to a degree.

You want to run our new wizbang OS, then you have to meet a certain amount of requirements.

The windows OS I think would be a better OS, if they would finally drop support for a ton of legacy

hardware/software. Do we really need 16 bit support for a bunch of old softare/hardware? If you

need to support a certain app, or board, then don't upgrade...simple as that.

I do agree with you that when they start making apps natively for the vista OS, it should take

off. That and the push for x64 hard/software.

:alien:

Yes! I completely agree, enough is enough already. If these people really want to stay stuck back in the DOS days, I say let them, they're honestly the kind of people that are holding back the industry (apart from plain old hardware limitations, of couse). And not only that, but one of the biggest reasons for instability and such in Windows is because of all the hardware support. Scrap some of the old stuff that nobody should even be using nowadays (I mean, come on, its 2006 people, not 1986), and Windows becomes much more managable...Look at Mac, they use their own hardware, so it's really easy for them. (something I admine about Microsoft, actually, that they have the ability/guts to support so much). And unfortunately, as far as the x64 platform, there's no real killer app like Win95 that's going to make people go out and switch. Maybe Vienna? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that AERO suffers from really bad design. The translucency doesn't really help while working, it's often really confusing (now, what window was the active one?), the whole UI, including the explorer (which is still better than OSX' Finder, really) could need a MAJOR overhaul. Right now, Vista is _design-wise_ nothing but XP with transperancy and a few nifty, little tweaks. The workflow is still the same old XP crap, nothing has really changed. Getting the LOOK right isn't that hard - Microsoft already showed a few concepts that looked pretty nifty over all those years (a lot of them were much better than what we'll get with Vista now), but it's really a shame that they completely failed when it comes to making the navigation more user-friendly and the interaction with the OS a better experience. Vista still suffers from a lot of the design-flaws that every Windows version suffered from since over 10 years now. The fact that Microsoft is not and has never been a design company is sadly very visible right now. I can imagine that Microsoft let people come up with ideas of how the next big OS could look like for a little too long, without really testing out what would work design-wise. That must've been around 2003. And then, they just completely fell into that hole of missing their timelines and encountering one problem after the other. After realizing the harsh truth that 'Longhorn' (4xxx) isn't really going to get them anywhere, they panicked and just took over the XP design, plussing it a bit and that's that.

That's not a bad approach for an update, really. But if the current product is already a bit behind and if such an update takes a company over 5 years to create, then there's something really going wrong over there. Microsoft needs, really, really needs to hire some people who've a clue about design into their own band (and they're slowly starting to do that, hiring guys like Bill Buxton), or they'll fight a losing battle later down the road.

I like the breadcrumb bar that they put into the explorer, but the fact that it's still kinda hard to navigate through C:, D:, E: and so on is just another result of poor design.

Don't want to sound arrogant or something, but I really think that a lot of those people here who're celebrating Vista as a startling, new OS probably never encountered well designed software before.

Edited by Clay-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloated and unneccesary

I second that.

the ones that bitch about the new Aero UI must not have a system that can run aero. ;)

Mine runs Aero perfectly smooth and I absolutely hate it with or without the glass. It's a waste of system resources and to have a "Mac" look to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aero in Vista is a good effort for a V1 of an updated User Interface.

Looking forward to the next version of Windows with a far more thought out design.

IMHO 7/10 is fair.

Haha.. true :)

:laugh:

Even my laptop with a X600 Video Chip runs Aero in all its glory and it does so very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to the next version of Windows with a far more thought out design.

IMHO 7/10 is fair.

That's exactly the trouble. We've all looked forward to Vista for a 'far more thought out design' and Microsoft couldn't deliver at all.

When it comes to rating how good of a job Microsoft did with updating their User Interface, I'd give them a 2/10. Nice conceptions and some nice ideas, but often really bad implementations, going hand in hand with design-flaws and UI inconsistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.