[Moogs]

I think not. Aero sucks.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02...taui/index.php

...and yes I've tried it out first hand. Definitely not as blocky / Crayola-looking as XP but definitely less responsive too. The Program Menu sucks even worse than it did before, if that's possible. And the transparency is useless. Looks more like frosted glass than true transparency that you can read through to see what's beneath.

[ShadowOfGed]

Yeah, I installed Vista in Parallels the other day, just to give it a spin.

I hate it. Violently.



The frosted look is useless; it's a gratuitous application of alpha-blending just for the sake of showcasing "snazzy" and "cool" transparency effects. There's a reason applications are still opaque by default in OS X. Transparency should be reserved for true desktop "overlays," like Exposé, the Dock, and Dashboard.

Vista is a drain on system resources, much harder to navigate, buggier than XP (in under 12 hours), and annoying to boot. The UI eats resources for no practical benefit. They reorganized the entire system, such as the control panel, and IE7 absolutely blows as the Windows Explorer. One time, it randomly decided not to show me half of my control panel items, so I couldn't properly configure anything without a reboot.



And those god-awful security dialogs. They're more frequent than in OS X, provide useless "added details" (frequently a raw UUID, not text), and take over the desktop. I mean in the way that Dashboard takes over your desktop. Everything else is dimmed, and the security alert is the only interactive window. Alternatively, you can disable these warnings (User Account Controls, or UACs), which eliminates their entire purpose.

Way to go Microsoft, you fail. I'll use XP for a good long time. In fact, my university recommends that we NOT upgrade to Vista.

[rasmits]

Am I the only one that actually kind of likes the way Vista looks?

Obviously I like OS X better, but there are some elements of Vista that I wouldn't mind having.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for new things. (Probably true)

[Shades of Blue]

I might be misunderstanding, but the way I understand it, you won't see the Vista Aero UI running in Parallels, because Parallels doesn't have sufficient access to the graphics card. So what you'd be seeing is the "Aero Basic" interface, right?

I do think Aero (when it's run on a system that can handle it) is prettier than XP (and I usually use the Classic Theme under XP; I think the default XP theme is an awful, ugly horror), but I also think the UI is clunkier and it's easier to get things done using XP.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue I might be misunderstanding, but the way I understand it, you won't see the Vista Aero UI running in Parallels, because Parallels doesn't have sufficient access to the graphics card. So what you'd be seeing is the "Aero Basic" interface, right?

Correct. Aside from the obvious differences (lack of transparency, old-school alt-tab switcher, no win-tab switcher, etc.), there is also one other way to find out which variant of Aero you're using: the size of the window widgets.




For API compatibility reasons, Aero Basic has same-sized window widgets, because many apps make the assumption that they're all the same size, and would therefore otherwise break. More info.

I do think Aero (when it's run on a system that can handle it) is prettier than XP (and I usually use the Classic Theme under XP; I think the default XP theme is an awful, ugly horror), but I also think the UI is clunkier and it's easier to get things done using XP.

I tend to use Royale Noir on XP these days.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by chucker Correct. Aside from the obvious differences (lack of transparency, old-school alt-tab switcher, no win-tab switcher, etc.), there is also one other way to find out which variant of Aero you're using: the size of the window widgets.

Ah, I was unaware there are two versions of Aero. I just assumed I was seeing Aero Glass rendered through software instead of hardware.

It still doesn't change how much I dislike my Vista experience so far. I'm just glad it lives in a virtual machine such that I can switch back to XP without any hassle. And no, I'm not violating a license—it's Vista Enterprise. Which comes with no games, not even solitaire. Imagine that.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by chucker I tend to use Royale Noir on XP these days.

What's that?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by joveblue What's that?

An unreleased theme for XP. http://www.winaddons.com/royal-noir-146/

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by rasmits Am I the only one that actually kind of likes the way Vista looks? Obviously I like OS X better, but there are some elements of Vista that I wouldn't mind having. Maybe I'm just a sucker for new things. (Probably true)

No. You are not the only one who kinda likes how Vista looks. I do too.

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue I might be misunderstanding, but the way I understand it, you won't see the Vista Aero UI running in Parallels, because Parallels doesn't have sufficient access to the graphics card. So what you'd be seeing is the "Aero Basic" interface, right? I do think Aero (when it's run on a system that can handle it) is prettier than XP (and I usually use the Classic Theme under XP; I think the default XP theme is an awful, ugly horror), but I also think the UI is clunkier and it's easier to get things done using XP.

I am running Vista on a purpose built machine. And it runs very well. I still prefer OSX. But Vista is a vast improvement over XP, so long as your kit is up to it.

[thequicksilver]

Originally Posted by thegeriatric No. You are not the only one who kinda likes how Vista looks. I do too.

I think I'd go further. I prefer the way Vista looks. Haven't used it for more than a few hours (brief installation of my beta copy of RC1 late last year) but from a purely visual point of view it's very nice. Third party apps (namely Firefox) looked a bit weird though.

[specter]

You are not the only one who kinda likes how Vista looks. I do too.

Vista looks really great! But anyway it doesn't have any revolutionary features that XP wouldn't have... That's why I'll keep on using XP via Parallels until they introduce graphic support. And only then I will maybe try to install Vista on my Mac - but this will be due to pure interest, XP still satisfies me(when used with Parallels, of course )

Another problem here with Vista is that I'm going to run it on Parallels VM - and it means that it will require more system resources. Parallels eats a lot of RAM with XP already, I just can't imagine what is going to be when it runs Vista. Did anyone here have experience of Parallels Desktop slow-down when running Vista?

[doublem9876]

Once we get the full glass GUI running in Parallels under coherence mode, we'll be seeing transparent windows with the windows backgorund behind them. That'll look kinda funny. Unless, of course, Paralles finds a way around this, which they usually do.

And I also like the way Vista looks.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by doublem9876 Once we get the full glass GUI running in Parallels under coherence mode, we'll be seeing transparent windows with the windows backgorund behind them. That'll look kinda funny. Unless, of course, Paralles finds a way around this, which they usually do. And I also like the way Vista looks.

I don't know though. The way coherence works it basically just makes the desktop invisible, it doesn't eliminate it completely. The best solution would be to make your windows wallpaper the same as your OS X wallpaper.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by rasmits I don't know though. The way coherence works it basically just makes the desktop invisible, it doesn't eliminate it completely. The best solution would be to make your windows wallpaper the same as your OS X wallpaper.

But that hack is only for most versions of Windows, where all applications share a single rendering surface---the desktop.

It is my understanding that Vista updated its windowing system to resemble that of OS X, where each application window gets its own OpenGL (or DirectX) texture, and the hardware is in charge of compositing them. In this case, it would be easy for Parallels to pass each window's OpenGL texture directly to OS X, making Coherence much more seamless than it is now. So that might be a good thing.

However, I still don't really like Aero. Like the default XP theme, it just seems to be shiny for the sake of shine. Just my two cents, though.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by chucker An unreleased theme for XP. http://www.winaddons.com/royal-noir-146/

THANK YOU.

I hate Luna with a passion and I've always wanted to use Royale, but my XP license is a Pro one...

Royale Noir looks even better. Darker. I hate bright themes. Too distracting. Tiger is perfect if you ask me, and the general darkening that we've been seeing recently goes all out in Leopard, I'll be one happy camper.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by chucker An unreleased theme for XP. http://www.winaddons.com/royal-noir-146/

Hmm, I like it, it looks Vista-y (in a good way)... I might give it a go.

I hate the default blue XP theme, it's gaudy and horrible, but if you change the colour scheme to Silver (under the Appearance tab of the Display Properties), it's actually pretty good. I don't know why they didn't make this default

[joveblue]

UPDATE: Hmm it's good, but a little dark for my tastes... I'll stick with it for a while to see if it grows on me but I'll probably end up changing back to XP Silver

[Moogs]

I don't think there's any question Vista is "prettier" than XP -- which generally is the ugliest UI I've ever seen when using the default theme and colors. The point is, it's all window dressing. The new UI isn't easier to navigate, isn't as responsive on most systems, and doesn't provide any useful feedback to the user the way various aspects of OS X does. The transparency is completely useless from a functional perspective (to name the obvious example).

When it comes time to run Parallels I'll probably use it, just because it's less prone to attack than XP but that's about it. MS took 3-4 extra years to "perfect" vista, and THIS is what comes of it? Further proof MS' user interface designers are among the least talented in the industry. They're just clueless. They're trying to play catch up and they don't even understand what it is they should be emulating. To them it's just "make it pretty". Typical MS mindset where the default thinking on everything is clunky nested dialogs, etc. and then their idea of "thinking out of the box" is making things look like slick product packaging instead of integrating the concept of "easier on the eyes" with fewer clicks from here to there, more intuitive navigation features, etc.

I just don't get it. People make Borg jokes about MS employees but it's so true in a way. They have this collective mindset apparently, that completely prevents them from "getting it". In a way we should be glad. This is the best MS can do... so Apple is in pretty good shape I'd say unless MS does a massive restructuring and brings in a huge influx of new people with new ideas (that happens right before hell freezes over btw).

[Wraven]

Originally Posted by Moogs <SNIP>The new UI isn't easier to navigate, </SNIP>

Have you even looked at the new Start menu? It is a dramatic improvement over the old one. So much easier to find apps, docs, whatever, than before...

I'm one of the last persons on Earth who would recommend Vista, but some features and enhancements are worth noting.

[BuonRotto]

Had to post this somewhere, sorry:

Pogue on Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

[709]

gadgets ≠ widgets

Hilarious.

[murbot]

Holy shit. There are some clueless people out there.

Youve actually just prooved that Microsoft DID rip off Apple. 1) Does it really matter where the spotlight feature is placed? It probably uses the same code to roam your hardisk. 2) The name really doesnt change weather or not Widgets & Gadgets are the same thing. They both do exactly the same thing. So they are the same. 3) The choices of the board layout dont really reflect if they're the same. Microsoft has obviously taken the idea from apple. They wouldn't have found the idea.

My god.

[doublem9876]

That type of stupiditiditiditiditidity sickens me.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Wraven Have you even looked at the new Start menu? It is a dramatic improvement over the old one. So much easier to find apps, docs, whatever, than before... I'm one of the last persons on Earth who would recommend Vista, but some features and enhancements are worth noting.

Although on the whole it's probably easier to use than XP, there are certain aspects of it which just make it more confusing. Maybe it's just because I'm used to XP, but I found navigating the system to be quite confusing at times. And try as I might I could not find where the Application Data (ie Firefox bookmarks etc) is hidden. Overall I'd say it's not a huge improvement.

[dmegatool]

Ok OSX is better but I think Vista do some things right (actually I just know one, cause I saw my friend use it to show me some photos)

Preview is way better in vista I think. It automaticly get the files so you don't have to select all before to open Preview (like XP does). It play video too. Ok I don't care about video but probably some will.

[Moogs]

Wraven: I've had a chance to play around with Vista for about a half hour. The new start menu is better only in the sense that you don't have to go to a sub-menu to scroll through 8000 folders and icons to find what you're looking for. Now you can start scrolling through them with one click instead of two. Even so, there's still that odd combination of oversized shortcuts, program menu icons and folder structure all buried in there. MS just moved things around and made the menu prettier.

The whole concept of the Start menu sucks IMHO, so to say it's now less disorganized and requires one less click to wade through a bunch of shit, is like saying Robitussen came out with a cough syrup that now tastes more like clorox than battery acid. Still FUBAR any way you slice it.

But that's just me. I tend to be pretty unforgiving of bad interface design.

[murbot]

Grow a pair and start buying Buckley's.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by Moogs The whole concept of the Start menu sucks IMHO

I disagree. The Start Menu is probably the best thing to ever come from Windows; It provides access to everything you ever need on your system.

Disorganized in Vista's implementation maybe, but the concept is very useful.

Someone new to Windows, or new to computers, will know instantly where to go when they first turn on their computer. Click on "Start" and you see a list of your programs, system settings, file browser, network connections, etc. It's a way to get to what's most important without digging around using Explorer.

[Wraven]

Moogs,

Half an hour, huh? I use it at work a lot. The Start Menu is much better than before, and I've been using it significantly longer than half an hour. I was comparing Vista's Start Menu to previous incarnations of Windows in my original post.

I'm not slamming our beloved OS X. Can I not say that a PORTION of Vista is better than it was in previous versions of Windows without having ridiculous analogies like cough syrup tasting like clorox vs. battery acid spouted back at me?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by rasmits I disagree. The Start Menu is probably the best thing to ever come from Windows; It provides access to everything you ever need on your system. Disorganized in Vista's implementation maybe, but the concept is very useful. Someone new to Windows, or new to computers, will know instantly where to go when they first turn on their computer. Click on "Start" and you see a list of your programs, system settings, file browser, network connections, etc. It's a way to get to what's most important without digging around using Explorer.

Microsoft disagrees: the next Windows is planned not to have a Start Menu. (They were also originally planning to offer an alternative to the Start Menu called "Start Page" in XP, but dropped that before it even hit Beta.)

In any case, I do feel the Start Menu is a very useful hub, but as with all things Windows, it's needlessly disorganized. So you have app shortcuts outside the Programs folder because it's faster. Then some apps added themselves there. So in Windows 98, they added Quick Launch as a faster Start for some apps. Then some apps added themselves there. So in Windows XP, they added another location for frequently needed apps in the top left of the new Start Menu, and they added one for recently accessed ones underneath. And in Windows Vista, they added a search for the whole thing.

They're constantly fighting to decrease clutter, but in doing so add new clutter.