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

By 1Frothy
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Toxicfume Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Kirkburn

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Kirkburn

Posted
Posted
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)."

Collaborator

MasterSasuke

Posted
Posted
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

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Toxicfume Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
...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.

Grand Master

Kirkburn

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Kirkburn

Posted
Posted
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".

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Experienced

ienhz

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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.

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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

Experienced

ienhz

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Kirkburn

Posted
Posted
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.

Experienced

ienhz

Posted
Posted
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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.