I will not buy Windows 7 unless it has ... *Feature*


Recommended Posts

Just what we need, a "useability research" to decide what's good for us. No science, beyond the fundamentals, can depict what people find comfortable. Aesthetics are a part of that. Hell, if you use science to depict what is good for people, Microsoft Bob would have been an immense success. You need a more human approach to this than leaving it to scientific research to try and analyze something as vague as aesthetics.

And it's funny, these research approven "improvements" you suggest that comes as a result of glass, are exactly the kind of things I get rid of at Vista's first installation. I get rid of all thick Window borders because they look very bloated and unnecessary (Appearance Settings -> Advanced -> Set "Border Padding" to 0).

I think dragging content was very clear in XP. And I'm not sure about focus being placed on a windows content, but millions of people did not have a problem with that in XP.

Most people I've talked to find Aero very unadaptable and more overwhelming to use, again, I don't know what your research poll suggests, but for sure I and many others find the Aero UI unintuitive when compared to other interfaces such as OS X's. (Don't mistake me, I use Windows (and already highly used to Vista and Aero) and not OS X, but I prefer Apple's UI design choices). There are many reasons why a vast majority of users despise Vista and have made it a point to stick to XP, and the aesthetics are a significant part of it. Not many had problems navigating around XP, really.

Let me make it clear: Functional wise, Vista is definitely an improvement (however not too much) over XP, definitely. But Aesthetics wise, it's highly a gimmick. It's done based on a manner very unbalanced between semi-sciences of what people might find useful and what looks "cool". Vista is overwhelming to look at and use for many, many consumer people, in comparison to XP. XP has a no-frills, highly usable UI. Vista is full of frills. IMO.

A lot of good points there. What is "usability-friendly" for some may be all "flash and trash" for others. I feel the same way about compiz in Linux. All those special effects may look cool but they get in the way of functionality. I don't need windows I close bursting into flames. I stick to the basic effects and everything's much more usable.

vista.png

Thanks for that screenshot. :) And it comes from Ars Technica; Enough said.

A lot of good points there. What is "usability-friendly" for some may be all "flash and trash" for others. I feel the same way about compiz in Linux. All those special effects may look cool but they get in the way of functionality. I don't need windows I close bursting into flames. I stick to the basic effects and everything's much more usable.

Exactly, I think compiz effects are quite useless too. They might look nice for about a few days, and then it just comes in the way of actually getting work done. I honestly think OS X is a clear example of reaching towards a nice and a very fine line between Beauty and Usability.

Just what we need, a "useability research" to decide what's good for us. No science, beyond the fundamentals, can depict what people find comfortable.

Er, no, that's exactly what it does. It asks people what they find best.

That screenshot is silly. Can you imagine what it would look like in XP? Most of the screen would be bright blue or green.

Er, no, that's exactly what it does. It asks people what they find best.

That screenshot is silly. Can you imagine what it would look like in XP? Most of the screen would be bright blue or green.

The screenshot wasn't posted to show the borders.

It was to show the various conflicting UI directions in Microsoft's own products. Look at the menu bar areas from one app to another.

The screenshot wasn't posted to show the borders.

It was to show the various conflicting UI directions in Microsoft's own products. Look at the menu bar areas from one app to another.

Fair point, I do concur that more consistency would be good.

However, including Office 2007 isn't entirely fair (as it's essentially mid-change). I would also point you to the quote that the image was posted in response to:

"3) Visual focus to be placed on the window content (so it looks more like it's "floating" on top of the glass sheet, instead of sunken in as in Luna)."

I have to totally agree with you on that. Aero looks awesome and is a hellava jump in UI aesthetics.

I just hope that Windows 7 brings something new and sparks some more interest into the OS.

but it costs 80+MB RAM to keep the service that allows it running.

source:MzServicesManager

Fair point, I do concur that more consistency would be good.

However, including Office 2007 isn't entirely fair (as it's essentially mid-change). I would also point you to the quote that the image was posted in response to:

"3) Visual focus to be placed on the window content (so it looks more like it's "floating" on top of the glass sheet, instead of sunken in as in Luna)."

I quoted that part because the screenshot illustrates that glass doesn't really help that much with visual focus [compared to luna] when you're working with several windows in one screen.

...That screenshot is silly. Can you imagine what it would look like in XP? Most of the screen would be bright blue or green.

But it would definitely look a lot more cleaner and defined than this blurry mess in Aero.

I can understand the definition problem, but I don't think it's normal to have quite that many overlapping windows at once - you have alt-tab and the taskbar to switch with.

The pane surrounding the program is not supposed to leap out at you, which it absolutely did in luna. Note also, you can do a fair bit with the aero borders in regards to colour and transparency.

I can understand the definition problem, but I don't think it's normal to have quite that many overlapping windows at once - you have alt-tab and the taskbar to switch with.

It is an exaggeration, but perfectly illustrates the inherent problem with it. The screenshot was meant more to illustrate the inconsistency rather than visual focus, to be honest. ;)

The pane surrounding the program is not supposed to leap out at you, which it absolutely did in luna. Note also, you can do a fair bit with the aero borders in regards to colour and transparency.

The luna colors are awful, but having blurry/transparent panes where you see the mess behind the window isn't really great either.

The luna colors are awful, but having blurry/transparent panes where you see the mess behind the window isn't really great either.

That's my point though - if you turn up the intensity slider in the options, you can barely see through it. I have mine essentially set to "heavily frosted".

That's my point though - if you turn up the intensity slider in the options, you can barely see through it. I have mine essentially set to "heavily frosted".

I just turn off transparency period. It's just like Leopard's menu bar--only a catchy consumer gimmick.

I'm still using XP but I always thought the Aero theme was pretty nice. Judging from that picture though, everything looks like a mess if you actually multitask a lot.

And +1 to what some others have already said. While, Aero (to me) is nice, Aero Basic looks like flat out garbage. They really need to do something for people who don't want/can't run transparencies but still want a decent looking UI.

I'm still using XP but I always thought the Aero theme was pretty nice. Judging from that picture though, everything looks like a mess if you actually multitask a lot.

And +1 to what some others have already said. While, Aero (to me) is nice, Aero Basic looks like flat out garbage. They really need to do something for people who don't want/can't run transparencies but still want a decent looking UI.

I agree: Aero looks cool but it interferes with functionality. Nice for those who want to be wowwed but a bit of a damp squib for those who are hardcore computer users, like compiz in Linux IMO.

My understanding around the different UI's in Vista, is that Microsoft wanted to define different scenarios. For instance, Windows Photo Gallery, Media Player 11, Movie Maker, DVD Maker use the same UI elements, Explorer uses a standard look, while Office uses its own UI methodology. Its about defining the experiences. Office has always not adhered to Windows look and feel and the Office Fluent was its most obvious departure.

My understanding around the different UI's in Vista, is that Microsoft wanted to define different scenarios. For instance, Windows Photo Gallery, Media Player 11, Movie Maker, DVD Maker use the same UI elements, Explorer uses a standard look, while Office uses its own UI methodology. Its about defining the experiences. Office has always not adhered to Windows look and feel and the Office Fluent was its most obvious departure.

It's not just the several variations, but the variations within the variations.

Mail and Calendar both have the search box in two different locations even though they share the same top bar. Explorer and IE share the same look, but the drop down arrow near the arrows are differently spaced. Explorer has a teal-green toolbar, while Calendar and Mail have a darker blue one. Menubars are seemingly random throughout different applications--just stick with one. Different control panels have different interfaces.

560.jpg

560-1.jpg

560-2.jpg

So on Paul Thurrott's site, it says they aren't going to introduce additional incompatibilities with the driver model. Does that mean Vista drivers will work on Windows 7? I don't want to buy a laptop now and then be stuck on Vista later because there are no new drivers for 7.

So on Paul Thurrott's site, it says they aren't going to introduce additional incompatibilities with the driver model. Does that mean Vista drivers will work on Windows 7? I don't want to buy a laptop now and then be stuck on Vista later because there are no new drivers for 7.

There are always drivers for new versions of Windows, assuming the product is in any way recent.

It's possible Vista drivers might work - but even if there are architectural changes, they will be small, and thus new driver creation will be relatively simple.

There are always drivers for new versions of Windows, assuming the product is in any way recent.

Not for laptops. I have a Sony Vaio S56GP which is not THAT old (has a Pentium M and a GeForce Go 6400) and there are NO drivers for Vista at all.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
    • Another devilish issue surrounding these certificates is what can happen with old, unsuspecting PCs that nevertheless have Secure Boot enabled. In my case, it was a Dell with a 3rd-gen Core chip (so about 13 years old). As of the last few weeks, it was suddenly BSOD'g within about 5 minutes of booting. Turns out it was because of MS's "Secure-Boot-Update" scheduled task, which is scheduled to run 5 minutes after login. It's explained in gory detail here (this is not my post, but it was where I found the answer), but the short version is that this legacy system would need fairly elaborate, manual certificate intervention since MS's automatic cert update method cannot work. How to do that is linked late in the thread. https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...od-caused-by-scheduled-task Secure Boot wasn't at all important for this particular PC, so I disabled it to be done with the problem.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      95
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!