I've been saying this all along since I first tried Vista beta. The Vista GUI is less intuitive than XP's GUI.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070227/tc_pcworld/129410
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070227/tc_pcworld/129410
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista Aero GUI is a downgrade from XP GUI
- Thread starter Gatticus
- Start date
- Status
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Gregg Keizer is wrong.
There - I've stated my opinion too.
How about the numerous performance features that are included with Vista?
How about the fact that enabling Aero incurs a 0% performance penalty on your games, but enabling animated menus in WinXP incurs a 3-5% performance penalty.
People are used to XP. There are fade effects in XP as well... anyway, the fade effect in Vista seems faster than the fade effect in XP. ~200ms perhaps. And you can start moving your mouse to where it needs to be before the fading is complete...
Let me guess, you haven't used Vista, Gatticus?
I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone. Try it. You'll like it!
There - I've stated my opinion too.
How about the numerous performance features that are included with Vista?
How about the fact that enabling Aero incurs a 0% performance penalty on your games, but enabling animated menus in WinXP incurs a 3-5% performance penalty.
People are used to XP. There are fade effects in XP as well... anyway, the fade effect in Vista seems faster than the fade effect in XP. ~200ms perhaps. And you can start moving your mouse to where it needs to be before the fading is complete...
Let me guess, you haven't used Vista, Gatticus?
I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone. Try it. You'll like it!
Stuff like these articles is just fluffy (and no I won't use the dreadful deadful thread-ending three letter acronym) malarkey. The obvious point of order is "BUT IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY BY DEFAULT" is meaningless to most because they think it should be done their way, whoever they happen to be.
As noted in another thread by little old me, Microsoft did so much face-to-face research with the Vista R&D it's not even funny. They've never dumped so much time and effort into just talking to people face-to-face and asking, "Ok, so what would make this or that or these things better for you when using a computer?" and then used that demographic data to come up with what we have now: Vista.
If you (directed at anyone reading this) don't like an aspect of Vista, blame it primarily on the 5 million people that beta tested it and put in their $.02 when Microsoft asked them, "Ok, how can it be better?" because that's who's responsible in the long run.
'Nuff typed.
As noted in another thread by little old me, Microsoft did so much face-to-face research with the Vista R&D it's not even funny. They've never dumped so much time and effort into just talking to people face-to-face and asking, "Ok, so what would make this or that or these things better for you when using a computer?" and then used that demographic data to come up with what we have now: Vista.
If you (directed at anyone reading this) don't like an aspect of Vista, blame it primarily on the 5 million people that beta tested it and put in their $.02 when Microsoft asked them, "Ok, how can it be better?" because that's who's responsible in the long run.
'Nuff typed.
Yea, you beta testers are responsible for me losing my quick access to disabling the internet connection. I'm not happy about that. I don't like the way the start menu was redesigned for access to installed progs either but I can live with it.I don't like seeing names in control panel renamed to something else for no good reason. What was wrong with "Add or Remove Programs"?
Exactly. But you have to remember bbz_Ghost, going against the grain and bitching about something that is popular like Vista is trendy and gives the bitcher some much needed attention. The same (three letter acronym) was spread with Windows XP and will also happen with Vista's successor. People will bitch just to hear themselves talk and to get attention. And bitching about the way a OS looks requires no real knowledge of anything, just an opinion.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
I'm with ya there! But have you tried the search window at the top-right corner of the control panel? You just start typing what you're looking for and it instantly takes you there
Altering the value of MenuShowDelay makes menu appearances more responsive. It's still configured as the rather sluggish '400' value by default in Vista. As said above, window animations can also be disabled, in the standard user interface settings. The article is basically page-filler material, and not a reasonable indication of Vista performance.
I said I'd never do this, and in my 30 years online this year (since 1977, at 50 baud, I kid you not), I'm going to do this for the first and last time because of that comment quoted above:
LOL!
There, now it'll be another 30 years before I ever (HA! You thought I'd do it twice in one post... NOT!) do it again...
Whatever. I backed up my opinion with real data and you backed up yours with... get this..NOTHING!
I'm with ya there! But have you tried the search window at the top-right corner of the control panel? You just start typing what you're looking for and it instantly takes you there
So if I type "sex" will it show me porn? Thanks, I'll check it out.
Vista is XP for most intents and purposes related to the GUI controls. Right click on Computer and choose Properties, click Advanced system settings, click CONTINUE since it doesn't say "Allow or Cancel" like the freakin' Mac zealots love to say these days, click settings in the Performance area, and there you have it: the same controls XP offers over the GUI with a few additional ones thrown in just for Aero's capabilities.
What real data? That the French neomaxi-zoon-dweebie that wrote the article seems to think XP is better because the menus fly open faster?
Surely you can't be serious... but then again, I shudder to think you are.
"Hey Mabel, I found some dater here in that thar Intarweb sayin' XP dun be faster'n that newfangled Vista thingamabob... well I'll be damned more'n the Devil hisself..."
</shudder>
Yea, I know all that but the article is about Vista out of the box and not after tweaking or making registry changes. Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other. Just thought it would be fun to watch you zealots get bent out of shape.
Time to leave the basement, your mom is calling you for supper.
I think he covered a bit more than that but twist it into how you want to see it, I knew you would anyway.
Yea, I know all that but the article is about Vista out of the box and not after tweaking or making registry changes. Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other. Just thought it would be fun to watch you zealots get bent out of shape.
"Mabel, come 'ere, woman!!! Some dufus done admitted himself to bein' a troll on these here forums I been a'readin' for info on that thar newfangled Vista thingamajig I seen at the 'puter store the other evenin'..."
'Nuff typed.
He didn't cover anything at all, really. The article makes claims about a supposed 'report' for starters without actually providing any details of the report itself, so that the writers claims can be checked. No link, no publication details.
It also makes claims about benchmark test results, without any indication of what tests have been used to measure the supposed results.
In addition the claims are being made about a supposed indicator called "User Interface Friction', which is admittedly a construct of the person making the claims.
All operations measured are ones which are user configurable. For most of them the controls to adjust them are built into the user interface, and it is expected that people will adjust them. Mouse precision is a prime example. That's a personal preference item, and it will be set rather slow by default so that people with lower dexterity won't be prevented from making any necessary alterations.
A report isn't 'data' unless it is verifiable and factual information. This article is not that, in any way at all. It is predominately supposition and misdirection, couched in technical-sounding terms.
Just quietly, Gatticus, I'd consider the unprovoked and unwarranted "Once djens shows up we'll have the full Microsoft love-in going." to be a personal attack also. Pot and Kettle, eh?
But I'd have not bothered even mentioning it was it not for the comment you just made. You posted a topic. People have responded by clearly indicating that the article you posted about is a nonsense. You should now accept the explanation, and the fact that you were somewhat misguided in believing the article, and do so with a modicum of dignity. That'd be a sensible course of action.
But I'd have not bothered even mentioning it was it not for the comment you just made. You posted a topic. People have responded by clearly indicating that the article you posted about is a nonsense. You should now accept the explanation, and the fact that you were somewhat misguided in believing the article, and do so with a modicum of dignity. That'd be a sensible course of action.
Yea, I know all that but the article is about Vista out of the box and not after tweaking or making registry changes. Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other. Just thought it would be fun to watch you zealots get bent out of shape.
I guess we'll be seeing a [H]ardRule #26 someday... like...
(26) No TROLLING or posting statements specifically designed to incite or elicit inflamatory statements from one or several members.
Hey, I'd vote for such a thing...
Mods? Admins? Any interests in this? Hello?
First thing I disable on a new WinXP install. I would assume that Vista allows for the same ``tweak''?
I don't know why you all are harping on the fade effect as the article was about more than just the fade effect. None of you have given any counter argument about desktop chores or mouse precision. I think they call it selective reasoning.
"We realized that there are many things you don't easily capture when you do normal benchmarking, such as elements in the user interface that slow down the user," Pfeiffer explained.
Among the tests run last year-- when Pfeiffer matched up
Windows XP against Mac OS X-- and this year, when he added Vista, were benchmarks that quantified menu latency, common desktop chores, and precise mouse positioning.
"We realized that there are many things you don't easily capture when you do normal benchmarking, such as elements in the user interface that slow down the user," Pfeiffer explained.
Among the tests run last year-- when Pfeiffer matched up
Windows XP against Mac OS X-- and this year, when he added Vista, were benchmarks that quantified menu latency, common desktop chores, and precise mouse positioning.
why the fuck was mr frenchy going on about MOUSE PRECISION!!#@!!?? because obviously thats a function of your OS, and only your OS, right?
also, if one system looses in EVERY benchmark, then the reality is clear. it either
it obviously a lesser performer (not the case here, osx and vista are pretty comparable, wins and losses)
or the benchmark was set up in a specific way to cause one system to lose (i think the case here).
also, if one system looses in EVERY benchmark, then the reality is clear. it either
it obviously a lesser performer (not the case here, osx and vista are pretty comparable, wins and losses)
or the benchmark was set up in a specific way to cause one system to lose (i think the case here).
- Status