In an interesting turn of events, Microsoft has said that the current Aero interface in the latest Vista build (the December CTP) is not the final UI, saying: “There are going to be GUI changes in Vista by the time the final release comes.” However, not too long ago they claimed the current Aero UI was final. Will the real Microsoft developer please stand up?
Anybody who thinks MS has had a super-secret this-is-gonna-make-you-drool UI theme hidden away in the basement somewhere for the last 5 years of “Longhorn will be released next year” is sucking on Bill & Steve’s knees. They’ve been saying this the whole time.
Yeah they’ll make some minor modifications, maybe, if they have time, but the UI you’re seeing now is what it’s gonna look like, end of story.
That’s what we all said about XP when it had that “Professional” theme with the crazy squares near the widgets. But then Luna showed up.
Aw God, don’t tell me we can expect this kinda cool theme to be replaces by some fugly colorish theme?! Was I really the only one who didn’t like the Luna and who thinks it’s a theme made for retarded (no insult ment!) people and dumb blonde secretaries, with all those big buttons and widgets? Oh well, there is always Gnome
Was I really the only one who didn’t like the Luna
You’re definitely not. It’s the most Fisher Price-y look possible. The previous theme (often called “Whistler Professional”) was great. You can see it here: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/whistler_beta1_0012.gif
This was present in every Whistler beta I ever tried. When XP came out though, it shipped Luna as default – with no Professional, just classic.
They changed it in Beta2.
Exactly, whistler theme was great, I even used it on my workstation for some time (Clearlooks now on home Linux and office’s XP machine). I’m just affraid same story will happen here.
But of course, “customers love the theme”. Sure, they also like having 675346 icons down there in systray, they also LOVE big popups within every program, the more colors the merrier, some *DING*,*PONG* and *WHOOP* sound playing with every key they press and most of all that goddamn pet that pops up whenever I want to search for files. I really wonder where they find those customers, Jerry Springer show?
It appears that pretty accurate copies of the Whistler Professional theme are available for both KDE and Gnome. Kinda cool.
I wouldn’t expect Microsoft to have a final UI at this stage in development. More than likely they thought they had a good design at the time when they said it, but like all business plans things change and probably have to work with new ideas or problems that cropped up.
Olivier (Expert):
Q: [135] What is Aurora and how will this be implemented in the user interface or is it just a tool for developers to learn and understand the capabilities of WinFX?
A: Aurora is one of the graphical elements of the Windows Vista brand. Expect to see it in several places… It is not a tool… That’s about as much as I can say about it.
So…Aurora is some brand name the marketing department thought up? Even the devs don’t know WTF it is?
They know what it is, they just don’t want to say.
Aurora is hard to explain. Look here for some info: http://www.aeroxp.net/board/index.php?showtopic=26&hl=aurora
My guess is that you’ll see the new Vista UI a week after Apple’s WWDC, where they’ll preview the next version of OS X this summer!
hehe that’s what I was going to say as well
Boring news.
XP is 5 years old but I still wait for decent linux GUI theme. Clearlooks (old version) is first that make me happy. Only after that 5 years I understend, how much work done by MS for Luna. How polished every bit in default XP look. Cannot wait for final Vista, I know that this time MS developers put even more of bleeding edge scientific patented tricks in it. And gnome-look – like sites will spend next 5 years to catch it by ripping independent elements as frames, icons, fonts (yes, MS develop new fonts for GUI, how old is vera font family? I still cannot find any Cyrillic glyph in it, Segui already have it). And more, all it will render by decent engine, using shader programs to perform gamma-correct ClearType-like tricks. In other side, I am will spend my traffic every month downloading another half-arsed fglrx and keep reading forums about how cool x11perf. If it not enough, thing about lack of 16-bit ( it is time for 32!) support in main Linux 2D program – GIMP. Color calibration anyone ? So, do not repeat stupid anti-MS BS, Vista GUI is the most developed part of new os.
<snip incomprehensible drivel and hype>
So, do not repeat stupid anti-MS BS, Vista GUI is the most developed part of new os.
Well they sure have some work to do if the latest build is any indication.
The mouseover icons for the elements in the right of the start menu are terrible for usability. They’ve taken icons, whose primary purpose is to help people find interface elements, and made them only visible on mouseover, which makes them completely useless except for eye candy. Now its just a list of text items.
Progress bars have distracting glints that move across them, serving no purpose.
Explorer refreshes periodically (mostly in the library) for no good reason, with the stupid progress bar of course)
Those stupid big tooltips (for the battery status for example) provide no extra information while using way more space, and they also steal the focus, even though they accept no input.
To name just a few. My impression of the Vista beta was pretty bad, but maybe I’m just bitter because my Athlon 64 3200 with 1024MB of RAM gets a system score of 2 on the system analyzer in Vista.
My impression of the Vista beta was pretty bad
Same here. But I talking about final Vista, not beta. Remember stupid blackish GUI in beta XP near 2000? There is no relation between that theme and final Luna. It is obvious that MS just trying to protect leaking of art and prevent cloning before release.
To name just a few. My impression of the Vista beta was pretty bad, but maybe I’m just bitter because my Athlon 64 3200 with 1024MB of RAM gets a system score of 2 on the system analyzer in Vista.
Then don’t run all the feature of it. It is not all or nothing. Vista was designed to turn off features for hardware that it doesn’t support.
Then don’t run all the feature of it.
Soo… Gig of ram and 64 bit cpu is not enough to run an operating system? Hmm….
Soo… Gig of ram and 64 bit cpu is not enough to run an operating system? Hmm….
This is more than enough to run Vista. I’ve run it on a 1GHz Duron w/ 512MB RAM.
I’ve run it on a 1GHz Duron w/ 512MB RAM.
Not very well no doubt. After bootup with a couple trivial programs running (Windows explorer windows), task manager claims 550 Mb of ram used. In other words, about 200 to 300 more than XP. Of course, of course, it’s still a beta, but this is just ridiculous.
I’m quite fond of the 8GB install as well.
Not very well no doubt. After bootup with a couple trivial programs running (Windows explorer windows), task manager claims 550 Mb of ram used. In other words, about 200 to 300 more than XP. Of course, of course, it’s still a beta, but this is just ridiculous.
I’m quite fond of the 8GB install as well.
No, it ran very well, and with the Glass UI thanks to a Geforce FX 5200 AGP. It also (of course) ran fine without Glass. The system is above the minimum system requirements Vista is targeting. I can only speculate that your doubts about perf are driven by the repeated misinformation about Vista’s hardware requirements.
Just because task manager says it’s using 550MB doesn’t mean that memory is just for the OS and can’t be freed for other purposes if necessary. The value also varies depending on how much RAM your system has. Also, SuperFetch could be one of the reasons for the usage numbers. Last, the initial overhead of GC, Code Access Security, etc., could contribute to this, however the cost isn’t linear and is comparable to unmanaged code as more apps are run.
Besides this, as has been stated many times before, this is a beta build, contains debug code and performs more logging than release builds will. As such, perf analysis means little at this point. The 8GB install is also not a definite figure for similar reasons, and also because the final method for installation is still being worked on. I could make the short-sighted accusation that Vista RTM will be bad due to the current 1hr+ install time. The problem is that in a few builds (when the aforementioned final install method is in place), the install time will be several orders of magnitude quicker and my accusation will thus be invalid. Bottom line, there is too much code fluidity at this point to make accurate assumptions about perf.
8GB only for OS O.O ? When I installed SuSE 10.0 full install that took ~7GB it has everything from full java, development tools, shells, 2D&3D graphic programs to bunch of games.
@leos:
This software is still in BETA.
BETA. Meaning, NOT FINISHED. Meaning, FULL OF BUGCHECK CODE. Meaning, NOT GOLD. Meaning, BLOATED ON PURPOSE. Meaning, NOT THE FINAL VERSION WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY RUN MUCH FASTER.
Geez … some of you are so thick …
It’s more than enough.
What kind of video card is in the system? That’s probably the #1 thing to be looking at with Vista. A GeForce FX5200 maybe? 😛
What kind of video card is in the system?
ATI XPress 200M with 128MB dedicated RAM. (its a laptop). Yeah its not a great card, but it supports DX9. Should be plenty for the trivial effects in the vista UI. The video card actually got a reasonable score in the system analyzer, and given the pre-beta state of the drivers for vista, I was actually quite pleased with the video performance.
Edited 2006-01-27 03:33
The DX9 shader effects in the Vista UI are anything but trivial.
In any case, since the processor/RAM are strong points, the weak video card is probably what brought the score down.
The DX9 shader effects in the Vista UI are anything but trivial.
The effects are trivial compared to anything a reasonably modern game does.
In any case, since the processor/RAM are strong points, the weak video card is probably what brought the score down.
Can’t remember the exact breakdown of scores, but the Ram actually got the lowest score out of all. Video card got a reasonably good score (6.something IIRC)
I think its also worth pointing out that OS X can do alot of these same effects as the fancy Vista UI on much lesser video cards (ATI Radeon 7500, GeForce MX 220, etc).
I think its also worth pointing out that OS X can do alot of these same effects as the fancy Vista UI on much lesser video cards (ATI Radeon 7500, GeForce MX 220, etc).
OS X handles drawing in software until Quartz 2D Extreme is finished. You also can’t do shaders on a Geforce MX. It’s a fixed function graphics card.
What OS X currently does is nothing compared to Vista.
Scary the thought that someone would have to get a new video card just to see the “pretty” effects in Vista. Still waiting to see something in the Vista gui that can’t be done in KDE, meanwhile Aero doesn’t appear to anything other than a cross between the Plastik and Crystal themes.
Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do about Vista.
I’m sick of these kind of uninformed opinions. When KDE can do compositing, true high-level shaders, 3D rendering, and create a resolution-independant GUI all on your 3D hardware, THEN you can say that KDE can do what Vista can do.
Until then, KDE is just a fancy DE on top of a toolkit on top of an archaic display technology with some hacks here and there to try to do something more than just regular, unaccelerated 2D.
Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do about Vista
Seems like you love spouting BS.
I’m sick of these kind of uninformed opinions
I’m not sick of yours, but you still spout a lot.
When KDE can do compositing, true high-level shaders, 3D rendering, and create a resolution-independant GUI all on your 3D hardware, THEN you can say that KDE can do what Vista can do
Let me see. High-level shaders is not provided by the desktop (that’s the graphic card’s driver work), 3D Rendering is not either (that’s the graphic card’s and its drivers’ work). That leaves compositing (that KDE ALREADY provides, as evidenced on my wife’s desktop) and resolution-independant GUI.
If you mean resolution independant in the way shown on the Vista previews, I’m afraid to disagree with you, because it’s already there in KDE. If you mean like in Gnome with SVG themes (like with Nuvola that I use) then it’s a work in progress (I still have not seen that in the Vista previews though).
Until then, KDE is just a fancy DE on top of a toolkit on top of an archaic display technology with some hacks here and there to try to do something more than just regular, unaccelerated 2D
Despite your BS, KDE is just fine.
It’s actually a fancy DE on top of a toolkit that can already (as opposed to in a beta) do compositing, on top of an old display technology with some extensions (and that is improving every week) that succeeds in providing more than regular, accelerated 2D.
Denial is a powerful tool.
Show me a KDE desktop that can do a translucent glass effect in real time using the 3D shaders of the video card. Show me real time 3D minimizing/maximizing effects.
Oh, what’s that? You say the technology “really is there!”, but no one’s using it? Is that so? Or maybe it’s there, just experimental and no one wants to touch it for serious work?
Give me a break.
Denial is a powerful tool
As we’ll see below …
Show me a KDE desktop that can do a translucent glass effect in real time using the 3D shaders of the video card. Show me real time 3D minimizing/maximizing effects
So you want FOSS to blindly copy what others are doing ?
With which shaders again ? Do you understand “vendor support” ?
You see, MS can asks vendors to develop special API, Apple can’t and have to limit hardware, Linux users can’t either. The Linux solution must works in a great many more configurations than Windows, so it’s even more difficult. It’s not impossible to do though.
But what you ask is just trollish. There are plenty of technology preview on Gnome, and even KDE.
That does not mean it’s gone gold, stable, usable by everyone with every video card, exactly the same situation than in Vista.
Oh, what’s that? You say the technology “really is there!”, but no one’s using it? Is that so? Or maybe it’s there, just experimental and no one wants to touch it for serious work?
I just say it’s in development, like Vista. But even if it works, to be usable, it will need vendor support.
And no, it has no purpose for serious work.
My wife, which has the KDE desktop, told me she did not need all these effects, so I removed them this WE.
Still waiting to see something in the Vista gui that can’t be done in KDE,
The “frost” look via pixel shading.
meanwhile Aero doesn’t appear to anything other than a cross between the Plastik and Crystal themes.
*blink* Um… I’m not sure how to respond to that one.
The 200m does not have dedicated video memory. It is a shared system.
Not to mention it’s beta, it’s not clear the analysis code is finished yet, and the are issues with WPF and AMD processors in the current build.
Your arguments are very strong.
But The biggest problem of Windows GUI is that it does not really let to tweak it significantly changing parameters or just customize as it can be done for ex. in KDE. The concept of Windows GUI seems most logical, but this limited customizable pisses off a lot of people.
I always wondered why Windows cannot include a basic GUI packages and advanced buttons for further customization. The same could be said regarding the security, MS could configure different level of security and give choice to people during or after Windows install, or at least from the Control panel. If somebody is smarter, so always could be an advanced option.
The same mistake are made now in Vista, at least to this point: not everybody likes these colors (though I do like), so why not to give a choice to people…
Think about it…
But The biggest problem of Windows GUI is that it does not really let to tweak it significantly changing parameters or just customize as it can be done for ex. in KDE. The concept of Windows GUI seems most logical, but this limited customizable pisses off a lot of people.
Vista will have more customization options than XP. Currently the main customization options are around the color scheme. I don’t know what additional options MS may add in later builds. I doubt there will be any way to dramatically change the rendering of windows, for example, without needing to use third-party tools like WindowBlinds.
There are shots of some of the current build’s UI options here:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_5270_gallery_05.asp
The same could be said regarding the security, MS could configure different level of security and give choice to people during or after Windows install, or at least from the Control panel. If somebody is smarter, so always could be an advanced option.
Security is already configurable. Click on your user icon in the Start Menu (if you’re using XP) and create a limited user account. You can also get more control over user permissions by right-clicking on My Computer | Manage | Local Users and Groups. You can edit system policy by typing gpedit.msc at the command prompt or in a Run box.
I’m willing to bet that the reason why Windows has limited customizability is for marketing purposes. Windows is a brand not just a product. The Windows GUI, while designed for usability, has also been designed as part of the brand development. If you walk by someone using a Windows PC it is immidiately evident that they are running Windows and conciously (or subconciously) you take note of that. For a lot of people this influences there purchasing decision – they think about seeing all those people running windows. Same goes for Mac OSX. People probably don’t notice machines running linux for the exact opposite reason (it allows tons of customization) unless they take the time to ask the person what operating system they are using.
The Windows GUI, while designed for usability, has also been designed as part of the brand development
From my experience with usability in Gnome and Windows, and with brand development on the Net, I have the strong belief that brand development and usability are not compatible, and so is very hard to do.
Even when your brand focus on usability like Apple does, it’s still hard.
If you walk by someone using a Windows PC it is immidiately evident that they are running Windows and conciously (or subconciously) you take note of that
BS. It is not evident, because the contrary is false.
A lot of people asked me before how they could get their Windows to look great like mine. That’s when I tell them that I run Linux. Then they stay in shock.
So I would rather say that those that know what Windows is are brainwashed (subconcious thing like you said) to assume that all PC run Windows.
Those that don’t know what Windows is (most people I know) ask how they can make their ‘computer’ looks like mine.
Those that know what Linux is, tell me : “Wow, I need to install Linux soon”. Given if they say “Linux” or a specific name of distro, I know right away their level of understanding.
For a lot of people this influences there purchasing decision
BS again. You imply that they have a choice. Those that know have a choice (and most of the time it’s a losing battle), the others do not.
People probably don’t notice machines running linux for the exact opposite reason unless they take the time to ask the person what operating system they are using
Same BS as before. Actually, people don’t care, and people are brainwashed with the Windows way.
But they notice pretty well that it’s not Windows that’s running, but when it’s all they know, they ask if it is what they know for the sake of not looking too ignorant.
Edited 2006-01-27 16:20
From my experience with usability in Gnome and Windows, and with brand development on the Net, I have the strong belief that brand development and usability are not compatible, and so is very hard to do.
Even when your brand focus on usability like Apple does, it’s still hard.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I wasn’t arguing that Microsoft built the windows brand based on usability. I was stating that usability isn’t the only consideration in GUI design. Many of the choices Microsoft made in graphical elements and in restricting customization were to build a recognizable interface (i.e. icons, colour scheme, etc.). By building a recognizable interface you help to build a brand image.
BS. It is not evident, because the contrary is false. A lot of people asked me before how they could get their Windows to look great like mine.
Again, I think I have been misunderstood. I wasn’t making a statement about whether or not windows garnished more or less attention by passerbyers, but simply that windows is immidiately recognizable (without the need to make a comment to the user, which is especially important if they are unable to, i.e. the windows machine is displayed in a movie).
Besides, how do you think people became brainwashed to thinking all computers run windows? Because (mostly) all windows boxes have the same look and feel. If windows was extremely customizable then people wouldn’t have that impression because when they looked at or used computers they’d always look different and your average joe would be confused about what they were using.
BS again. You imply that they have a choice. Those that know have a choice (and most of the time it’s a losing battle), the others do not.
People ALWAYS have a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to purchase a computer with Windows XP. If you ‘don’t know any better’ that doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice, it just means that your choosing to make a purchase without arming yourself with the appropriate information…it’s called an uninformed choice.
Same BS as before. Actually, people don’t care, and people are brainwashed with the Windows way.
But they notice pretty well that it’s not Windows that’s running, but when it’s all they know, they ask if it is what they know for the sake of not looking too ignorant.
As evil as it might have been, let us not forget that MicroSoft developed a clever (don’t read as innovative) business strategy to create that effect. Also, for your average person I don’t think its much of any issue about being brainwashed or looking ignorant, as it is an issue with just not carrying what’s ‘under the hood’ so long as it preforms the task (i.e. checking email, writing a letter…).
Again, I think I have been misunderstood. I wasn’t making a statement about whether or not windows garnished more or less attention by passerbyers, but simply that windows is immidiately recognizable (without the need to make a comment to the user, which is especially important if they are unable to, i.e. the windows machine is displayed in a movie)
But I wasn’t either !!! I was telling you that people thought my Linux was Windows !!
Which just shows you that Windows is NOT recognizable.
You know, Linux desktops are easily recognised in movies and TV series too.
Besides, how do you think people became brainwashed to thinking all computers run windows?
Because they ask me how to get the same Windows everytime, despite the fact that I run Linux.
Because (mostly) all windows boxes have the same look and feel. If windows was extremely customizable then people wouldn’t have that impression because when they looked at or used computers they’d always look different and your average joe would be confused about what they were using
Perhaps. But currently, Windows users are just amazed by my Linux desktop (which just looks OK to me). But when I go back to a Windows at work (that’s when I can’t replace it with Linux) I understand why.
People ALWAYS have a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to purchase a computer with Windows XP
In the country I live in, you’ll have a VERY hard time purchasing one without Windows. And when you do (always by phone), they sell it to you for more money !!
So no one holds a gun to my head but it’s not possible either. You have to build a PC yourself basically.
Only HP offered PC and laptops for cheaper without OS or with Mandriva, and it does not last long. That’s why my last laptop is a Compaq/HP.
As evil as it might have been, let us not forget that MicroSoft developed a clever business strategy to create that effect
No, it was illegal from the start. And it still is, and MS is still evil, like EU showed.
Also, for your average person I don’t think its much of any issue about being brainwashed or looking ignorant, as it is an issue with just not carrying what’s ‘under the hood’ so long as it preforms the task
You got to be kidding, I converted nearly all my users to Linux because Windows never delivered, and I did not want to help MS and lose my precious time anymore.
In other side, I am will spend my traffic every month downloading another half-arsed fglrx and keep reading forums about how cool x11perf.
So basically you are bitter that your ATI card cannot use a Composite Manager effectively.
I have bought my hardware with that goal in mind (ATI 9000 in laptop and Nvidia 6600 GT in desktop) so I have all kinds of neat effects a whole year before Vista hits the shelf.
Yet I’ve found many linux GUI themes that I’ve enjoyed long before Clearlooks. Yet whenever I look at Luna I cry at the overdone attrocity. XP’s default look is overdone and many design choices that I often find detrimentary to usability so that I’d hardly call it polished.
One of the biggest issues here is that MS is trying to make something that satisfies everyone, which simply cannot be done. They need allow a more customizable interface that doesn’t need hacked dlls or third party software to have it look half decent and improve usability. I only hope that Vista obtains a significantly less guady and more usable interface than it currently has, although their past in Luna and previous gives me little hope.
IMHO Luna is far from polished. All those different colors do not match, and it wastes space. Even hover-effects are bad, since they blink to different colors. In GNU/Linux Qt has many better styles than Luna is, and GTK at least a couple (I haven’t really searched). Actually only usable XP styles are the classic and olive, but I still prefer classic look. By the way, does anyone else think that the best UI Microsoft has created was watercolor(the one used in devel-xp/whistler)?
Edited 2006-01-27 10:10
XP is 5 years old but I still wait for decent linux GUI theme
You should have gotten it then, instead of waiting. There are tons of GUI themes for Linux.
Clearlooks (old version) is first that make me happy
And yet it’s very old. It was old already when it was chosen as the default. If you hadn’t waited lazily, you would have gotten it since long.
Only after that 5 years I understend, how much work done by MS for Luna
I still don’t, but I don’t care actually.
How polished every bit in default XP look
I still find it looks like a mess (icons, widgets, colors, dialogs, start menu, …). What is ‘polish’ for you ?
You’ll have a hard time fooling me, I have a Windows XP SP2 here at work, I just launched Explorer, Wordpad and MS Word 2002 on it, and I have a very hard time seeing the polish, I see only a mess.
And gnome-look – like sites will spend next 5 years to catch it by ripping independent elements as frames, icons, fonts
Again, I recall correctly that when XP was out, it implemented only a small subset of what Gnome 2.0 offered in term of GUI. To this day, XP still plays catch up in this area. The only thing that looked more advanced on Vista are there because they were implemented years ago by Apple. But I still see Vista as the same thing XP and 9x before was : a bad copy of what is already there in other OS. Windows has always played catch up in GUI.
Gnome (or any Linux DE) never had to rip anything from Windows, quite the contrary. Especially frames, icons or fonts. I recently was puzzled to see that until Vista, Windows still use fixed coordinates to design GUIs !!! Even Gnome 1 was far more advanced. I have my Nuvola SVG icons and themes for years on Gnome. Bitstream Vera is years old too.
yes, MS develop new fonts for GUI, how old is vera font family? I still cannot find any Cyrillic glyph in it, Segui already have it
But how could you know, you don’t use a Linux desktop. Yes Vera is old and works very well. Its newer incarnation with Cyrillic and other things is called Déjavu. But you stupidly search in Vera despite knowing that it was not updated, how stupid one can be ?
And more, all it will render by decent engine, using shader programs to perform gamma-correct ClearType-like tricks
At least you understand that ClearType is not gamma correct. It’s not even a good implementation anyway. I never had these problems with Gnome and it’s anti-aliasing.
You have been well brainwashed by MS. Your sentence is a typical example of : it will be the best in the next version … Strangely enough, these are the same people that, when the facts are out, say that MS never said ‘this’.
In other side, I am will spend my traffic every month downloading another half-arsed fglrx and keep reading forums about how cool x11perf
Let me get this straight : you are complaining about the half-arsed job ATI does at providing proprietary driver for Linux ? And you read forums where they talk about X11perf ??!!!!
Apart from all of this having nothing to do with the discussion, what was your point with your useless sentence ?
If it not enough, thing about lack of 16-bit ( it is time for 32!) support in main Linux 2D program – GIMP
It has nothing to do with the desktop, but what did you meant exactly above ?
Other people already think about lack of 16 bit support. Some implemented and use Cinepaint, others are discussing it with a clear plan on the GIMP site. So what was your point ?
Color calibration anyone ?
In what, in GIMP ? Because it’s already there (think lcms and XOrg). Did you mean Pantone calibration ? Do you understand the true issue ? There are several article explaining it to you.
So, do not repeat stupid anti-MS BS, Vista GUI is the most developed part of new os
Then it does not look like a lot has been done. Apple provides you ways to be more productive. From your description, Vista does not. You’ll have to explain to me how the need to have a more powerful PC to just run the OS makes you more productive. Same for high-level shaders.
The current Vista GUI makes me think more of a technology preview or proof of concept, than an improvement in productivity above Mac OS X or Linux DE.
Gnome (or any Linux DE) never had to rip anything from Windows
No comments.
At least you understand that ClearType is not gamma correct.
It is my bad ugly english, definitely. ClearType is the most accurate and gamma – correct font render engine. It assume monitor gamma 1.4 but you can easily tweak it by registry editor or ClearType applet (search microsoft.com ).
Did you know that X11 absolutely ignore monitor gamma with AA font blending ? Same with toolkits, may be QT4 do something with it but all other (include famos Cairo) really think that frame buffer values are brightness. It is so lame, kiddish and unprofessional.
recently was puzzled to see that until Vista, Windows still use fixed coordinates to design GUIs !!!
You definitely live in other universe. Windows stop to use integer coordinates with NT GDI, nearly 10 years ago. ClearType is so nice looking not only by gamma correct LCD subpixel otimized colors but non integer glyphs spacing (kerning).
Cyrillic and other things is called Déjavu. But you stupidly search in Vera despite knowing that it was not updated, how stupid one can be ?
Thanks, I am happy to know it. Stupid ? maybe, but excuse me that i not very experienced in English. And in my town Internet costs very expensive. 2-3 year ago I just stop to tracking vera font updates, it was not changing during years so i giving up. Déjavu is very good news for me.
Let me get this straight : you are complaining about the half-arsed job ATI does at providing proprietary driver for Linux ?
No, I really must stop to use english and return to using votes only
. I trying to say that there is endless deep fundamental issues in current Linux Graphics area, and not so lot changes since i install my first (Mandrake 7 in 1999?) so it is stupid to say things like “Linux Cool, MS Baaad”. I understend if it say somebody from Apple developers or SGI programmers, with real deep arguments like “there is too strong contour contrast in frame edge, our development say that 79% of people pay too lot of attantion to it” or something similar.
It has nothing to do with the desktop, but what did you meant exactly above ?
Other people already think about lack of 16 bit support. Some implemented and use Cinepaint, others are discussing it with a clear plan on the GIMP site. So what was your point ?
My point that it is always discuss. There is no such features . There is no software video players with cool Philips TrimentionDNM – like things. doom9.net devs do not use linux at all in video processing. Reason – poor graphics / driver support. They always keep trying but now most linux-related work is using CygWin to compile binaries. 3D renders ? Blender3d ? good luck to make something useful. Games ? You really thing that it is evil MS prevent to write decent games in Linux/BSD ? Oblivion? CounterStrike ? Where is it ? You still thing that Linux Graphics so cool and innovative that you laugh on XP GUI ?.
In what, in GIMP ? Because it’s already there (think lcms and XOrg). Did you mean Pantone calibration ? Do you understand the true issue ? There are several article explaining it to you.
I do not need article. what I need is when I go to shop and return with cool small box with cute egg with USB, unpack, plug in my computer and it make things w/o reading billions atricles and applying 50 experimental risky patches. I want to get Samsung 770P(LCD monitor) and all programs that on CD start to work (there is no buttons on that monitor except power, all control only by MagicTune program, even brightness/contrast). And I understend Samsung, it is challenge to select GUI toolkit that work in any *unix. On Windows, you use Win32 and it guarantee to draw on every install. GTK? QT? Pure X11? Mono ? wtf, they just support one and linux loose.
So, I still think that Linux graphics is weakest area. And poor vendor support (ATI/NVIDIA) is not excuse to current state. And Vista with their fresh new GUI looks is very strong, powerful enemy.
30 out of 30 people on my contact list don’t know what ClearType is.
21 out of 30 visited a test web page with large fonts and a screenshot of what it should look like with ClearType.
21 out of 21 do not have ClearType enabled (it’s foolishly off by default even after 2 service packs and bajillions of windows updates)
With Cleartype turned on on my system my text often has weird discolorations that only go away when I highlight the word. OSX also has a similar glitch on my MacMini
“”3D renders ? Blender3d ?””
Tons of stuff for the last Star Wars movie and other blockbusters were modeled, animated, textured, test rendered and batch rendered on linux boxes.
I never got into linux because I’ve never had a version of knoppix actually get online with my nic.
I don’t have the time to search and acquire the knowledge to make it ‘just work’ or look into trying another distro.
Also don’t have the money to purchace a new network card.
Windows has shitloads of problems.
The average user (the one’s I know) know as much about linux as they know about windows (not a f–k).
I used to be a pc(windows) tech but got into web design (it’s easier to battle just IE than all of windows).
If I don’t have time to stay up to date with all the bull I need to know to keep Windows safe and working, I definitely don’t have time to stay up to date with the tons of stuff that’s always getting updated in Linux.
It is my bad ugly english, definitely. ClearType is the most accurate and gamma – correct font render engine. It assume monitor gamma 1.4 but you can easily tweak it by registry editor or ClearType applet.
Did you know that X11 absolutely ignore monitor gamma with AA font blending ?
Only thing I know for sure is that ClearType puts all kind of color artefacts on glyphs (on TFT AND on CRT), while X AA does not. So I say X AA is far better.
recently was puzzled to see that until Vista, Windows still use fixed coordinates to design GUIs !!!
You definitely live in other universe. Windows stop to use integer coordinates with NT GDI, nearly 10 years ago
You did not understand. I was talking about GUI design : how you place your GUI elements.
ClearType is so nice looking not only by gamma correct LCD subpixel otimized colors but non integer glyphs spacing (kerning)
You got to be kidding : no one (except Apple perhaps) has resolved this issue, as it can’t be resolved with current stable Windows and X technologies.
there is endless deep fundamental issues in current Linux Graphics area, and not so lot changes since i install my first (Mandrake 7 in 1999?) so it is stupid to say things like “Linux Cool, MS Baaad”
The deep fundamental issues in Linux graphics are external to Linux actually : basic vendor support.
And you have to open your eyes better I’m afraid. I think most americans can’t see the big advantage of Linux graphics above Windows, because a lot of the development is not apparent to them, like all that deals with i18n and l10n. Windows is just no match in these areas (and others) currently.
You have to load again the Mandrake 7 to see the big difference, you’ll see it right away.
My point that it is always discuss. There is no such features . There is no software video players with cool Philips TrimentionDNM – like things. doom9.net devs do not use linux at all in video processing. Reason – poor graphics / driver support
Your facts are true but irrelevant, and your reasons are wrong.
Philips pulls marketing on Trimension, but there are image enhancements algorithms since a long time on Linux, is it the marketing that makes you feel high ? If Philips wants to put their library on Linux, nothing stops them. Doom9 does not use Linux in video processing, but they sure enough use FOSS codecs, and mainstream studios use Linux for video processing. So all you say is irrelevant.
And the “always discuss” point you make goes obviously to vendors, as it’s their fault there is “poor graphics/driver support”, no one else, and surely not Gimp developers.
3D renders ? Blender3d ? good luck to make something useful
Look at latest movies since Titanic …
Games ? You really thing that it is evil MS prevent to write decent games in Linux/BSD ? Oblivion? CounterStrike ? Where is it ? You still thing that Linux Graphics so cool and innovative that you laugh on XP GUI ?
Where is the Linux DirectX ? What ? MS can’t provide them ? Now that answers all the silliness above.
At least OpenGL, SDL, X, most Linux graphics technologies are available on Windows (and developed by FOSS community), but MS is unable to do the same on Linux.
what I need is when I go to shop and return with cool small box with cute egg with USB, unpack, plug in my computer and it make things w/o reading billions atricles and applying 50 experimental risky patches
Do you imply that you have that on Windows ? Because you don’t.
Even installing a webcam is still a pain for lots of users. Anyway, you fell back to vendor support problem, nothing to do with graphics.
And I understend Samsung, it is challenge to select GUI toolkit that work in any *unix
BS. NVidia, several game makers, NX, Adobe, … made it without problem, but you still find stupid excuses ? Give me a break. All you’re doing here is trolling. It is not a challenge at all.
On Windows, you use Win32 and it guarantee to draw on every install. GTK? QT? Pure X11? Mono ? wtf, they just support one and linux loose
BS. Win32 ? What is that ? Look better at your Windows before spouting nonsense. Even MS does not use the same toolkit for all its apps. Launch explorer, Wordpad and Winword and come again.
GTK, QT, pure X11 are all guaranteed to draw on Linux BTW. Only closed proprietary toolkits are not guaranted to draw on Linux because the vendors do not support them.
So, I still think that Linux graphics is weakest area. And poor vendor support (ATI/NVIDIA) is not excuse to current state
I’ll let you believe yhis BS then, it’s better for everyone that way.
*Sigh*
So many good points, but you had to call the person “stupid”. It was so unnecessary, too.
iron out some of the bloat?
all major elements are already there. They’re probably just refine the visual, make it cleaner and add some eye candy, organize UI elements for better resolution independence…
The true Vista’s final UI:
http://sqlitebrowser.sourceforge.net/images/macosx.jpg
Edited 2006-01-27 01:07
Since XP fully supports changing themes I’m guessing MS has spent some time refining the whole theme API when it pulled it into Vista and has several “skins” ready to go for Vista as well.
Lets hope you don’t need to hack the damn thing to pieces to get third party themes to work with it.
So bascially Microsoft has a known history of lying to the public, its shareholders and customers???
Wow what a suprise.
Probably checked out http://get-e.org.
Slapping a new coat of paint on a Ford Pinto
won’t turn it into a Ferrari.
Slapping a new coat of paint on a Ford Pinto
won’t turn it into a Ferrari.
Wrong company. Apple is the company that sells products with more form than function.
been using macs from 9-6 5 days a week for nearly 2 years now….
definitely prefer Explorer over Finder any day.
There’s nothing more useful that having multiple views and categorizing and sortings of your files.
Found that the folder coloring option in Finder is great for making all my directories blue so they stand out from all the other files they get mixed up with.
I really didn’t like the Aero interface. Especially the transparent window borders. That makes the complete overall GUI result very messy and inconsistent.
I’ve been doing poss all night and its really not that bad. Aero is better than Luna, but not better than classic styles. I like clearlooks alot (athough wish the standard button widgets were alittle thinner). I use Tiger daily and enjoy the interface alot, but there is almost no configurablility (is that a word). Windows can be modified a ton. Period. I dont like windows but for customization it still rivals linux (if you include all the shell replacements) if not beats it. Luna is crap. It’s the first thing I disable before installing Firefox (and now Opera from time to time.. Awesome now). Its bulky, ugly and just doesnt make sense. Classic look is far better, although this is an opinion… I’m always correct.
jk. Even if Windows looked like crap after install you can change it immediatly. The modders will be out in full force right after its released. If you don’t care enough to change what windows looks like, then I’m sure your computer is just a tool for work and provides no enjoyment for you so you don’t care in the first place. I need sleep.
Happy Aussie day you thieves.
Linux is an operating system kernel, not a window manager.
[i]it still rivals KDE and Gnome<i/>
would be correct as long as you’re not comparing it to enlightenment.
The “frost” look via pixel shading.
have any screenshots of this? i’m having a hard time imagining anything that could be called ‘”frost” look’ that can’t be done well without pixel shading…
meanwhile Aero doesn’t appear to anything other than a cross between the Plastik and Crystal themes.
i see no 10px window borders in plastik or crystal…
Look at any of the 5xxx series build screenshots! Notice how stuff behind the “glass” blurs? That’s done with pixel shaders, not just with per-pixel alpha blending.
They can put lipstick on the pig all they want, but when I double click on an MP3 that Vista mistakenly things I illegally downloaded and refuses to play it, I will close that VMWare window and keep using XP.
They can put lipstick on the pig all they want, but when I double click on an MP3 that Vista mistakenly things I illegally downloaded and refuses to play it, I will close that VMWare window and keep using XP.
And so you show your lack of understanding of how DRM works.
Luna is better than linux GUIs ? Is it a joke ?
Luna is horrible and the first thing that I do when I have to use a windows XP box is changing its interface to classical theme.
Luna theme is identical to Teletubbies scenary, look
http://www.netekipa.com/gallery/AllPictures/Zabava/XPThemes/Full/16…
Yep, as was my basic original point. All this talk of the new GUI when all of Microsoft’s efforts should be going into to security so they don’t embarrass themselves again. I guess it’s easier to talk about shadows and frost than it is about teaching people for years that they don’t have to worry about security on the internet, but that now they do.
Yeah, because they don’t have different teams working on different components. And because people specialializing in GUI should be helping write security code.
*rolls eyes*
No, because they’re better at eye candy than they are at security. Or maybe you want to dispute that.
No, that’s not it at all. Reread your post.
“All of Microsofts efforts should be going into security.”
Are they not allowed to have a dedicated UI team? What’s the problem with talking about the UI anyway? It’s not like talking about it changes anything they are doing with security. It’s not like they are focusing all their resources on UI and nothing else.
Apparently you have much to learn about software development.
if windows vista was marketed as:
Every programmer on our payroll was retrained to specialize in security.
We paid 150,000 virus, malware, adware and spyware authors billions of dollars to write more junk to attack vista and supplied them with trillions of lines of source code to make their job easier.
We removed every part of IE except for those necessary for 3rd party apps to still render html without the lazy authors having to write their own simple, no-css-having, table-using html rendering engine and then those parts left in were made incapable of accessing Internet.
Unfortunately, we were too busy with security to add anything new.
———
I would have Vista on pre-order.
You’d also be in the very small minority.
Look at any of the 5xxx series build screenshots! Notice how stuff behind the “glass” blurs? That’s done with pixel shaders, not just with per-pixel alpha blending.
well, that’s just stupid. if they didn’t have those huge ugly window borders, they wouldn’t need to dress them up with fancy effects.
here i was thinking maybe there was something actually cool about the vista ui that i hadn’t seen yet.
Oi. You’re side-stepping the point now.
KDE can’t do that. That is the point. The end.
/waits for the “why wouldn it want to? its ugly!” post
vista, vista(?), vista(?)…. what the hell You are talking here about?!