| 8:02 pm on Apr 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Live thumbnails are nice. I also enjoy the 'switch windows' button that lets you see live versions of every application you have running at once in a sort of 3D view.
The reason that this (and some of the other Aero features like transparency and smooth dragging) are possible is that the Desktop Window Manager holds all window data in memory instead of just a 'rendered' version of only the visible parts of the display.
It's also the main reason Vista uses so much more memory.
| 8:12 pm on Apr 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If they're smart they will just buy Apple and re-brand OSX. Vista is the new ME, but worse.
| 9:31 pm on Apr 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|the way the title-bar/menu-bar/address-bar area has been messed around in Explorer |
This threw me off at first too until I realized that it actually kinda makes going 'up' to the right folder easier than using the 'up arrow'.
I'm still a little lost with all the extra folders displayed on the side though, need to clean that up sometime.
The Hibernate feature is good for resuming where you left off without having to leave the computer on standby. I never used that on XP, can't remember if it was available.
| 10:04 pm on Apr 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It took me about four months to realise that it was a clickable breadcrumb trail.
Up until then I was severely annoyed that the UP button had vanished.
| 12:00 am on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I'm sure they had a good laugh at Microsoft when they were deciding to remove the UP button. Real jokers... is the politest thing I can say.
| 12:51 am on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can live without the up button on folders (but why it was removed is beyond me!). What really annoys is that the up button has vanished from the latest version of the open-file dialog (it's still there in older versions). The only program I have that uses this is Firefox, but it annoys the he*l out of me! (There is a keyboard shortcut alt-up I think but I can't check 'cos I running XP at the moment.)
| 4:39 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
i agree with microsoft having a laugh at us with the up button... but i disagree with the majority of people on this thread thinking Vista wouldnt catch on. personally i think Vista would be just as successful as XP. i have different computers running win2k (they dont want to change..) to 4 Vista. in the begining i didnt want Vista but i got the first one so i could learn about it, and to be honest you get used to it (it took a hell of a headache to get it working with all the programs and to get it to work with profiles from a 2003 server) and the people who use it LOVE it for some reason that i dont comprehend.. (they dont have to worry about the techie stuff).
| 4:56 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|people who use it LOVE it for some reason that i dont comprehend |
It's the eye candy factor. The average consumer would buy dog crap if you put it in a fancy package.
| 12:54 am on Apr 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
No, there are some usability improvements in Vista that trump XP. The Start menu is one of them. I'm so used to simply typing a few letters of the program I'm looking for on Vista that XP's Start menu is an antiquated hassle now. I'm also a fan of the new Windows Explorer in Vista. The Windows key + F brings up search in both XP and Vista, but I hardly use it in XP. In Vista system search is finally useful. All of these things save me time over XP.
Aero is nice, but that's not a major selling point in my book. Vista is a nice incremental upgrade from XP. I think MS did a decent job improving the user interface on this one. Sure, it takes a bit to get used to after years of XP, but I'm not averse to that.
In my experience Vista has been infinitely more stable than XP. I only reboot my Vista workstation when a software update requires it. I can let it run for months without noticing a slowdown, and it's never crashed on me. XP on the other hand gets gummed up and doesn't run smoothly after a while.
Looking forward, this new version of Windows probably won't toss out the UI improvements of Vista. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't a huge fan when I first started using Vista either. The fact that several of the UI changes actually save me time on a day to day basis have turned me though.
| 1:32 am on Apr 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
bill, just as a matter of interest - was yours an OS only upgrade on the old XP machine or a new machine with bundled Vista?
| 7:16 am on Apr 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
All of the copies of Vista that I've used have been clean installs. I've only heard of problems when upgrading one version of Windows to another.
| 10:09 am on Apr 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|And why does it require around 256MB of video memory to operate Aero, that's 32-64 times more than is required by XP. |
Before Vista was released, I heard Microsoft saying Aero would be available for XP. I guess they changed their minds as it hasn't emerged.
From what I know, Vista is radically different than XP in terms of rendering windows. There was a lot of hype about this before it launched. Basically it uses the graphics card to draw everything. XP and earlier versions of Windows use the processor. This enables windows to be rotated (there was a demo showing a video running smoothly in a spinning window with no loss of frames) and other special effects like page turns. Microsoft even showed how you could take an application like Calculator and stretch the window easily to make it larger, and all the buttons would be rendered perfectly.
Transparent windows also depend on the graphics card, though of course they can be done slower via the processor.
[edited by: Hester at 10:12 am (utc) on April 16, 2008]
| 3:39 pm on Apr 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Windows has used the hardware acceleration features of graphics cards since the early 90s.
Aero works by rendering every window whole into off-screen memory and then combines the images if each window to create the viewable image. On the face of it, that's a good explanation as to why so much memory is required, however...
In practice, only one window will normally need to be dragged at a time (the foreground window). This being the case, there is normally no need to buffer all the individual windows separately, all that is required is to buffer the combined image of all the windows behind the one that is being moved.
It would get slightly more complicated when topmost windows are involved, and it would be slightly slower when window focus changes, but it should require no more than about 16MB for a typical screen.
| 5:51 pm on Apr 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|This being the case, there is normally no need to buffer all the individual windows separately |
That's true if you're talking only about dragging one window around. However that's not the only application for Aero. My earlier post points out a couple, many more will develop.
To state the obvious, here in 2008, 256 megs of Video memory is no longer a large amount.
[Note: For some odd reason I'm not seeing all of the posts in this thread. I've been getting notices about new replies for the last 24 hours but cant't actually see any new posts between Bill's last post and Hester's post this morning. So If I'm repeating someone, apologies :-)]
| 9:11 am on Apr 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Windows has used the hardware acceleration features of graphics cards since the early 90s. |
AFAIK not to draw the entire OS - every window, every element. You couldn't have spinning windows with live video in them in XP. Or scalable applications where the entire contents of the window rescale in milliseconds. Correct me if I'm wrong.
| 11:12 am on Apr 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You could if you wanted.
|You couldn't have spinning windows with live video in them in XP |
I recently bought a USB dongle to watch Freeview broadcasts on my laptop (Terrestrial Digital TV). When the software is running, CPU usage is about 15%. Spinning the resulting image is actually quite easy (far easier than decoding mpeg video anyway).
Some programs written exclusively for Vista won't run on XP because they use a slightly different file format (that XP doesn't recognize). Other programs may require Aero or refuse to work, but for the most part, any graphical application that Vista can run, XP can run too. (There is also some pretty impressive aero-emulation stuff for XP too).
| 8:45 am on Apr 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Thinking about it, XP can also make use of the graphics card to rotate images etc, but that's not the point. I believe Vista makes exclusive use of the graphics card's processor for rendering windows. (At least in Aero?) Whereas XP doesn't, leading to the OS using processor cycles just to draw itself. (Remember when something crashes and you can move the window around leaving a trail of repeated windows?)
Now imagine you stop using the processor to draw the OS, but shift it to the graphics card - hence the 256Mb requirement. In theory, wouldn't that make Windows a lot faster? So Vista should be super fast! But is it....?
| 11:37 am on Apr 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
That merely indicates that the programs responsible for painting the missing area has crashed (or at least, is not processing WM_EraseBkGnd messages promptly). This may no longer happen in Vista due to off-screen buffering, but indicates nothing else.
|Remember when something crashes and you can move the window around leaving a trail of repeated windows? |
It is true that Vista can do some fundamental things that other versions of Windows cannot (easily) - live thumbnails is a good example. HOWEVER, this is down to the poor way Windows is written rather than something special in Vista. For instance, if you hit Alt-Print-Scrn, an image of the foreground window is placed on the clipboard. You might reasonably think that the Window is redrawn into an off-screen bitmap, but in reality, all it does is copy that portion of the screen that the window occupies (in Vista, this leads to dark smudges in the corners - the shadow).
Many common controls, such as buttons and edit boxes don't follow the rules. They may process WM_EraseBkGnd messages and WM_Paint messages properly, but often they simply draw directly to the screen. This probably accounts for Vista's ability to do several things that XP cannot.
| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 48 ( 1  ) |