»X« Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Aero is more than just the nice UI. It's a fully 3d accelereated Direct3d 9 interface. If it can't run, neither can Aero. Serious question then. What use is that? I thought we would see apps creating amazing on screen animations etc to best use this technology. Hell, even MS hasn't used it. The only few things that spring to mind is the totally useless flip 3d and the taskbar thumbnails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted September 10, 2007 Veteran Share Posted September 10, 2007 well would you rather waving flags and all that to make it more "pretty"? Windows even tho most of the geeks might not think so is a business operating system also. Having too much going on wouldn't make much sense either. Surely you want to make it more pleasing but if MS did all they can do with the graphics cards we have then almost nobody would like the system. Let's see you have a small number of 100 customers from all over the world and keep all of them happy at the sametime with 1 product, not gonna happen. Imagine doing it for millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mirumir Subscriber¹ Posted September 10, 2007 Subscriber¹ Share Posted September 10, 2007 Also, what's with the GUI on Vista - back buttons are all over the place and don't fit in with the UI. Oh, and don't even get me started on the Start Menu and programs. It's like trying to look at your whole house while looking through a 1mm peep-hole. Do you prefer when you open Start Menu - All Programms and it covers 2/3 of your screen? If you do, you can always switch to classic menu in Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhaligani Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 sorry to break it to you but most of what windows vista is and can do canot be done with XP unless it had a major overhaul of the entire graphics/sound/network sub system, Winodws vista isa great entire Rewrite in the same way windows 95 was over windows 3.1/3.11 so Saying there is no advantages in vista over XP just means you dont actually run the OS you boot to the desktop and then shut down you dont do day to day work or any task at all and do a good compare and if you do then you need to get a checkup or something for the obvious advantages in the OS over XP and well i will not explian them cause i should not have to explian what has been done many times by others. Sorry to break it to you M8. As I said, I run a triple boot. The products are tested against each other, from different aspects, from time to time.That has been the case since the early Beta's. The feedback is requested by, and given to, domestic and large quantity purchasers.users who have no interest in "what is under the hood "(quote MS) but in what it does and what it cannot do, comapared to other versions. For you further information, Vista 32 is my main OS, on which I complete all my personal work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»X« Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 well would you rather waving flags and all that to make it more "pretty"? Windows even tho most of the geeks might not think so is a business operating system also. Having too much going on wouldn't make much sense either. Surely you want to make it more pleasing but if MS did all they can do with the graphics cards we have then almost nobody would like the system. Let's see you have a small number of 100 customers from all over the world and keep all of them happy at the sametime with 1 product, not gonna happen. Imagine doing it for millions. Thats why there are different versions. Maybe having all the bells and whistles for ultimate, which isnt the case currently. Dreamscene anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Do you prefer when you open Start Menu - All Programms and it covers 2/3 of your screen? If you do, you can always switch to classic menu in Vista. I prefer to have a usable Start Menu. The new method is slower and less efficient - it was more about changing things for the sake of it rather than improving the user experience. It's a shame that in order to get the old menu back you have to sacrifice the new search bar (a genuinely useful feature) and the matching Aero interface (instead you get the old Windows 2000 theme for it)... that isn't a proper option and so people are effectively forced to use the new version. It's one of the biggest annoyances with Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Right Guy Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The Start Menu...slow... wow i just dont understand how it could be slow... in my case i found my stuff faster than in Xp. The all program in XP is like you have too much icons on your desktop so when you come to find something you pass on it 3-4 time before you find it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»X« Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The start menu and search features are the best parts of vista. I hit the windows key then type what I want and its there. Simple. Never have I needed to wade through the start menu to find a programme yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The start menu and search features are the best parts of vista. I hit the windows key then type what I want and its there. Simple. Never have I needed to wade through the start menu to find a programme yet. I agree that that aspect of the Start Menu is great - I have never disputed that. However, the All Programs menu is slower, it requires scrollbars to display all the information and the way all the Windows applications display at the top is just irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I don't understand why so many people are having issues with Vista. I've run Vista on computers ranging from one with only an AMD Athlon XP 2400+, 768 MB of DDR266 RAM, and an nVidia GeForce FX 5500, to one with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 2 GB of DDR2-533 RAM, and an ATI Radeon X1300. Vista ran better each and every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoDEAN Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Serious question then. What use is that?I thought we would see apps creating amazing on screen animations etc to best use this technology. Hell, even MS hasn't used it. The only few things that spring to mind is the totally useless flip 3d and the taskbar thumbnails. Well, because things are rendered off screen, and stitched together by your video card, we no longer have issues with ghosting with frozen apps who can't redraw their contents quick enough. The ability to move around frozen windows (They just become frosted). The window transforms that take place during minimizing/closing/etc. Glass wouldn't be possible without a 3d accelerated desktop (Not in a quick and usable form, anyway.) The live previews on the start menu. Ok, many of these things were possible without the 3d desktop, but the 3d desktop makes them all a lot faster and smoother and flicker free and stuff. But the best part (IMHO): WPF applications are hardware accelerated, improving their UI performance tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Every month things are getting better and better. Right now I enjoy playing Quake Wars Enemy Territory Demo :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitchcock4 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Every month things are getting better and better. Right now I enjoy playing Quake Wars Enemy Territory Demo :) Red_Star, Why are things getting better? Is this because (a) you have added memory or other hardware? (b) You have tweaked Vista to do a better job? or ( C) The Microsoft "reliability updates" to Vista have helped? Thanks. This helps us all that haven't used Vista see where the problems lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbicious Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Well, in response to the initial question, I would have to say that I personally think Vista is certainly living up to my expectation. Things were fine for me from the beginning, but I do think that they could've been smoother for the rest of the general public. I was just one of the luckier ones, I guess. But seriously, this is kind of a subjective question, so please don't try to ask me to defend my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudEngineer Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 yes, yes it is. vista works great on my current pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDreamX Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Not for me. Networking is a hastle, copying/moving files is slow, and the UI is just distracting. The updates are not coming quick enough and the ones that are have yet to have any major effects. I upgraded to 2 GB of memory and things still feel sluggish. I ended up disabling themes (not just Aero) and I still find myself using it less. With Vista on my MacBook Pro (don't flame), anytime I need to use Windows, I end up using my old desktop with XP installed and things just seem to get done faster. Microsoft has dropped the ball with Vista, which makes me very glad that I switched to Macs a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoDEAN Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Vista works "about" as good as xp does on my system. If you look at the year XP came out, to this year, you would think Vista would be light years ahead, but in reality it really isn't. Hope that new OS Microsoft is working on will be a true winner. IMO, Vista is just a "hold over the customers" OS, kind of like another OS that MS released a few years ago. I have yet to see anyone put vista on a computer and say "WOW, this is something revolutionary or great!!!" Most I've talked to, me included, was in aww for about 10 minutes, then was like "hum, xp'ish....." We'll see if a few years if MS starts moving forward, and not side to side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»X« Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Well I'm back on xp now. It took some getting used to, but things run blisteringly fast. And things just work. And also, I appear to have gained some fps in games too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunkymunky Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 On the whole....yes. I just recently did an upgrade on my PC. Core 2 E4400 Gigabyte 965G-DS3 Motherboard Geforce 8600GTS 2Gb DDR2 667 Until this was done, it was slightly sluggish, but now it's smooth as silk and runs everything well. I have recently fallen in love Media Centre too. Works a treat, and the 360 hooks in shmick too. I will definitely be making use of it during the RWC to record some of the matches. Well, those that are on crappy free to air TV here in Oz. There is one major concern I have though. USB2 flash disks and HDD's seem to cause Vista to stutter. My mouse just seems to lag big time, but as soon as I remove them, mouse returns to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts