![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows areo glass to return in Win 10
- Thread starter Duoshockz
- Start date
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Well, that's nice. Not sure it's nice enough to overcome Win10's other issues. But it's a nice gesture.
ChronoDetector
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,783
I hope Aero Glass will be present on the Windows like Windows Vista/7 not just only the Start Menu and I will be happy. Hope they will give us an option to change the default GUI as well.
silk186
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,628
What are this issues that need to be overcome, keeping in mind that this is not a retail release yet?
after using win10 for a while (coming from win7), I don't even miss Aero any more. If they can make win10 look nicer than 7 and we have a choice to turn it on and off it will be all win for everyone.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,706
"Aero" never went away (GPU accelerated UI), they simple took away the transparency and changed the name on Windows 8 to reflect it as the default theme.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
I do not even want this feature, but I'm glad that Microsoft seems to realize that giving people an option to keep the desktop they liked is a good thing. Constantly telling us that what we want is wrong and then giving us something much worse (like the Metro UI or the Ribbon bar which STILL sucks) is unacceptable.
Cerulean
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,476
That's it. I've been won. Windows 10 is the new Windows 7
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,688
This is great news! I love Aero Glass, and it gives the UI that extra little bit of eye candy that I enjoy. Helps with aesthetics and for my eyes to see the edges of some windows.
I like it.
I like it.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Definitely a step in the right direction.
Although I expect them to do something that we really hate now, this being just a sweetener.
Although I expect them to do something that we really hate now, this being just a sweetener.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
.... /facepalm
So... 2000 was bad? NT 4 was good? NT 3.5 was bad?
I don't really buy that argument. MS has shipped some dogs, but not all the problems were due to Windows itself. For example, Vista's security popups were more obtrusive than it needed to be, but it was still a problem primarily caused by poorly written applications not treating system areas and user areas properly (i.e. assuming administrator account privileges to write everywhere). Vista actually did a service in that regard by forcing developers to stop doing such stupid things. Most applications now get admin popups only when there is literally a good reason for doing so since it actually requires higher privileges than a standard user has. And since ME is often brought up, the move to a different driver model led to many problems from device makers (especially VIA) that cleared up with time passing. The OS itself was no worse than 98SE in most cases otherwise (some test stuff put in that made its way to XP excluded... some of that was initially buggy).
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
To add to that, XP was initially crap as well due to numerous driver problems. Vista's beginning was no different from XP's beginning in that regard.
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
This is great news! I love Aero Glass, and it gives the UI that extra little bit of eye candy that I enjoy. Helps with aesthetics and for my eyes to see the edges of some windows.
I like it.
My feelings exactly. Took them long enough...
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Aside from a native start button and full start menu returning, this is the best news I've heard in regards to Win10. Kudos, Microsoft!
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Rose-tinted glasses there, buddy.
XP was NOT a good OS, and had all kinds of issues at launch:
- Driver compatibility issues.
- Software compatibility issues.
- Performance issues.
- LOTS of complaints about system requirements being absurdly high.
- Lack of new features (vs. Windows 2000).
- Huge security holes.
- Huge stability issues.
- Took until Service Pack 2 to patch most (or all) of the above issues.
Don't forget, Microsoft had to divert development resources and back-port features that were meant to be part of the Longhorn project (what would eventually become Windows Vista). They really couldn't afford to have both Windows ME and Windows XP fail in the consumer space, one directly after the other. The end-result is that XP with SP2 might as well be considered Windows XP "Second Edition"
XP had EXACTLY the same problems Vista had, and both OS's took until SP2 to get right... yet one is "good," and the other is "bad"? Give me a break.
Last edited:
I had a perfect comparison to Star Trek to take this thread far off topic and you ruined it for us.........
To say that Aero Glass is coming back is not very accurate. The Aero Glass theme is never coming back, just like Luna is never coming back or the Windows "basic" theme. Windows 10 has a totally new visual theme that includes some transparency and greatly reduces the size of Window borders (which is the main problem with Aero).
Overall, I like the new Windows 10 theme. It's less intrusive than either Windows 8 or Windows 7's default themes.
Also, Windows 10 is not going to have driver problems. Because it's functionally Windows 6.3, you can just use your Windows Vista/7/8 drivers.
Overall, I like the new Windows 10 theme. It's less intrusive than either Windows 8 or Windows 7's default themes.
Also, Windows 10 is not going to have driver problems. Because it's functionally Windows 6.3, you can just use your Windows Vista/7/8 drivers.
So... 2000 was bad? NT 4 was good? NT 3.5 was bad?
For example, Vista's security popups were more obtrusive than it needed to be, but it was still a problem primarily caused by poorly written applications not treating system areas and user areas properly (i.e. assuming administrator account privileges to write everywhere). Vista actually did a service in that regard by forcing developers to stop doing such stupid things. Most applications now get admin popups only when there is literally a good reason for doing so since it actually requires higher privileges than a standard user has. And since ME is often brought up, the move to a different driver model led to many problems from device makers (especially VIA) that cleared up with time passing. The OS itself was no worse than 98SE in most cases otherwise (some test stuff put in that made its way to XP excluded... some of that was initially buggy).
People that perpetuate this have no idea that Microsoft produces anything outside of Windows for Desktops and Xbox.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
Good shit, they actually listened to what users and insiders wanted. *applause*
not quite true.
They disabled the theme engine and left only the legacy theme enabled (the one that was used for basic themes in win7/vista), so no shadow effect etc. around windows, resulting in a ugly flat appearance that is so 1990s.
Its clear they did this to drag pc's down to the visual levels of portable devices.
Content Encoding Error
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.
Please contact the web site owners to inform them of this problem.
In latest firefox ^^
XP had issues but they were not of the same type at all.
XP first was a upgrade from 98/ME not 2000. 2000 was never mass adopted by consumers and was actually aimed at the business space.
XP's issues were partially driver related but I would say the main problems were in its early days.
Nvidia BSOD issues. (I remember was adjusting a bios setting to mitigate), eventually got patched.
Security problems, SP2 was the biggest patch for this but SP1 also patched some stuff.
Thats probably it in terms of major issues.
With vista it was more severe.
Vista was the first mainstream 64bit OS from microsoft, and as such 64bit driver support was poor.
It introduced new security measures which i its early days had bad support from vendors.
It introduced superfecth which was programmed really badly on vista.
It ran significantly slower than XP on low/mid end hardware.
It stopped creative's hardware based audio from working. (in the long term this is a good thing but it put people off vista)
Memory leaks in the new AERO backend.
UAC been new put a lot of people off especially as most apps at that point were designed to want admin privs and there was no whitelisting of OS functions like is in win7.
Initially gaming peformance was worse than XP.
The problem is mud sticks, so even tho vista is now a decent OS, they had to release a renamed vista in the form of windows seven.
Comparing vista to win8, vista's issues were a lack of optimisation, and vendor support for the modern design. Win8 on the other hand was just a horrible interface optimised for touch which was its main downfall.
I stopped reading there. You have no idea what you are talking about. XP was never derived form 98/Me, it was directly derived from 2000, aka NT5.0.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,688
From: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwi...10-insider-preview-build-10074-now-available/
So, it is coming back in one form or another....
So, it is coming back in one form or another....
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
But it was intended as an upgrade for 98/Me based machines, ergo a consumer OS. That person did not specifically say it was descended from the 9x kernel.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,688
It was the OS that brought ME to the NT kernel. It was the mesh between consumer and enterprise OS's. I thought 2000 was fine as a consumer level OS (supported DX). But, XP was the one that did it.
I don't think they meant that XP came from the 98/ME kernel, rather it came from the consumer side of the OS.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
Any consumer who skipped Windows 2000 was missing out.
I realize this includes a LOT of people, but my statement stands. If you chose any of those OS over 2000 (during the time when 2000 was out), for any reason, you were dumb. Any Windows "power user" would have been running 2000, period.
I ran leaked releases of 98, 98SE, ME and 2000 and I've also run RTMs of all of them and 2000 was the only one that was anywhere near good. (That's a little unfair because 2000 wasn't out when 98* came out, but I don't care - it was a hell of a lot better and, unlike NT4, completely usable as a desktop/workstation and not just as a server. And yes I know there were workstations with NT4 but personally I just hated using NT4 for that.)
Also, the people saying XP was crap at first are right. I myself swore never to use it but SP2 won me over (and SP3 actually made it worse IMO but I did use SP3 for the security patches). And they are also right that Vista was like that. With service packs, Vista is decent. I still don't like it because they screwed up certain things like the comdlg32 file chooser (why did they have to make it so huge and yet more of a pain to use?) but it got to the point where it was OK. It's just that by the time they (mostly) fixed Vista, 7 was either out or very close to out.
It's also correct to say that XP is a direct descendant of 2000.
Last edited:
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
I agree with you that 2000 was a great OS, much more so than XP could ever hope to be. I also concur that Vista post SP1 was actually pretty good, provided you had a Core 2 or better, fast hard disk and plenty of RAM.
it was derived from 2000.
but most of XP users came from 98/ME.
2000 wasnt a mass market consumer product.
For what its worth I used 2000 and loved it, but I was in the minority, it was a geek's OS. Of course 2000 had all the XP security flaws, but those flaws were discovered during XP's reign and it had all the takeup hence XP taking the mad PR.
Outside of people who pirate all their OSs, the choice of which OS they use is generally determined by what came on the system. Windows 2000 Pro systems were generally priced $100 or higher than one with a consumer Windows OS.
Also preventing wide adoption among consumers were compatibility problems with devices (Win9x had better hardware support) and software. And don't even start with the problems Windows gamers would have (largely a problem that XP adoption fixed as more games and software were made compatible with NT). Windows XP addressed many of the general compatibility issues that limited 2000's appeal. It's short-sighted to ignore the problems people would have had trying to use an NT kernel OS before XP was released.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
I almost no trouble with it with... well, not the widest range of hardware, but pretty decent. XP was actually more problematic for me than 2000 for a good while. And I did game with 2000 though admittedly there are always lots of games I never play.
I realize that a lot of people simply bought a computer with 98 or ME installed even while 2000 was out, but that was their own fault. Doesn't change the fact that 2000 was a better choice. I have no sympathy for people who simply go to a store and buy some product without research. (Though many of those people wouldn't even care that they missed out on Windows 2000, so, eh, whatever.)
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,085
Ergo, 95% of the population in the U.S.? Sorta the same demographic as those people who are using composite RCA jacks on HDTVs with their PS3 or BluRay player...