The annoying side of Windows Vista
Can Microsoft get it together?
Thursday, April 20, 2006 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Paul Thurott takes a look at the latest Windows Vista (and has some screenshots) beta and has some criticisms.
We've been playing around with it as well and our initial excitement over Windows Vista is starting to turn into concern as we remember where Windows XP was at this stage of development -- it was in better shape.
The issue isn't just the bugs (which there are more than one would expect) but significant compatibility issues combined with Microsoft not making it clear whether they're going to live up to their performance expectations. For instance, the new Aero glass UI isn't fully hardware accelerated from what we can tell. Resizing windows or doing anything particularly intensive on the screen eats up a lot of CPU. CPU? It's supposed to be using the video card (WindowBlinds 5's performance gains don't eat up all your CPU on XP because it's using the GPU instead of the CPU for instance).
The state of some of the new goodies is problematic. The Sidebar, which we're excited about as a concept, needs better content if it's going to be on by default. Microsoft has broken the LogonUI elements which many programs, including many of ours, finger print readers, etc. made use of in order to do their magic and has provided no work around, no new API, nothing to resolve it despite developers asking for a resolution.
Bugs get filed and then marked closed seemingly arbitrarily. And many existing programs, which should work fine on Vista, just don't work. Right now, even DesktopX is not working on Vista. Why? We don't know. We'll find a way to resolve it long before release but it's these seemingly arbitrary compatibility issues that give us pause (let me put it like this -- WindowBlinds works on Windows Vista which you'd think would be a much tougher thing than DesktopX to get working).
It's too early to say that Vista is having serious problems. But time is running out for Microsoft to provide a build that looks like it's remotely ready for prime time. We'll be traveling to Redmond next month to talk to Microsoft on these issues and more.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:24 PM
Reply #3 Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:27 PM
| For instance, the new Aero glass UI isn't fully hardware accelerated from what we can tell. Resizing windows or doing anything particularly intensive on the screen eats up a lot of CPU. CPU? It's supposed to be using the video card (WindowBlinds 5's performance gains don't eat up all your CPU on XP because it's using the GPU instead of the CPU for instance). |
Can you elaborate on the above? I have always loathed the GDI+ API ever since WindowFX was released. I've been keeping tabs on an open source side project called Xgl. It pretty much puts Vista's GUI to shame. But that's just me.
Reply #4 Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:18 PM
The way I'm looking at it, is I'll update to Vista for two reasons (if it ever actually gets released, that is).
1. The beautiful GUI, which I really do love. I'm not especially crazy about these last incarnations with the bulbous start button... I thought MS had gotten the Playskool design inspiration out of their system with Luna... but I do love the glass effect, and problematic or not, I want that on my desktop.
2. The same reason I run XP with SP2 installed on my desktop now: to say I'm familiar with the latest technology, so that when problems arise, I can write somewhat intelligently about them.
I'm not crazy about the idea of my OS knowing where all of my files are, when I actually don't. So the new filing system would aggravate me more than it would help. And I'm not that big on turning my PC into a TV, so the extra media stuff is useless to me as well. I mean, I went out and got a beautiful, large, hi-definition TV, and it cost me less than a third of what my PC cost. And I love to watch my DVD collection. So am I gonna run my PC for 8-10 hours on a Sunday just to watch movies? Seems like an awful waste of resources, and lots of extra wear on my PC for a very pedestrian task. Plus, I'd have to sit at this stinking chair to see all the detail!
So... what is Vista to me? A new OS with a pretty GUI, and that's it. And I subscribe to OD, so I have a great GUI already.
I can wait.
Reply #5 Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:42 PM
It is a good thing to point out the bad points though, just to make sure Microsoft doesn't over look any of problems. Still, it's not going to be massed released for about 9 months, it's plenty of time for them to show us vectorized DirectX 9 effects, as well as make the current GUI into transperent .PNGs for users using a laptop or who can't afford to buy a mid-high end computer.
We really shouldn't complain much until the second beta due out late next month.
Reply #6 Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:36 PM
Reply #7 Friday, April 21, 2006 2:17 AM
Reply #8 Friday, April 21, 2006 6:53 AM
Venom339: Vista is pretty much feature locked now. Its highly unlikely you are going to see glass on machines that cannot currently handle glass or radical changes to how the DWM works.
Its worth remembering that current MS plans have Vista totally finished in 6-7 months time.
Reply #9 Friday, April 21, 2006 9:08 AM
Reply #10 Friday, April 21, 2006 9:47 AM
Sure, the GUI looks beautiful, but it lacks the basic functionality (especially in the folders view of Explorer) that all previous versions of Windows had. I love the Folders view: The fact that I can't duplicate that in Vista is extremely annoying.
Put simply, Vista continues Microsoft's continued attempts to "dumb down" the OS: Make things look prettier, take away functionality and choices for the user.
Reply #11 Friday, April 21, 2006 1:02 PM
| I guess it's better for them to do this than to release an OS with bugs and whatnot. |
And if they dont its going to start all over again with the security updates, service packs, and other updates that people will have to download, to fix their problems with the OS.
Reply #12 Friday, April 21, 2006 4:27 PM
| Venom339: Vista is pretty much feature locked now. Its highly unlikely you are going to see glass on machines that cannot currently handle glass or radical changes to how the DWM works. Its worth remembering that current MS plans have Vista totally finished in 6-7 months time. |
Alot of users, know that Microsoft plans on making the effects we've seen nothing more then transperent .PNGs that could run on DirectX8 Cards, which is the level most market pc video cards are at. users have already managed to run glass on one directX8 card (Geforce440mx) There is still the change which allow directX9 cards to make the GUI a scalable Vector graphic interface.
Beta 2 is going to add support for XAML animated wallpapers, alot of people belive that it's also going to be the UI complete.
Reply #13 Friday, April 21, 2006 5:46 PM
Reply #14 Friday, April 21, 2006 6:33 PM
Venom339: Microsoft have been very clear about DX9 level cards being needed for glass.
The info suggesting Microsoft are going to add support for DX7 cards (and the GeforceMX is a DX7 card) is highly suspect. Especially given the UI is currently pngs + blur (pixel shaders 2 needed).
Reply #15 Friday, April 21, 2006 9:20 PM
First off, I was talking about a Geforce 4 MX Which is a DX8 card. I kept an eye on the news because awhile back I had that card. I'm not sure about the blur being able to be produced since the card ran the glass but couldn't produce the blur. Microsoft is aiming to have a glass UI for most part run on most computers, since most versions of Vista besides basic are going to try show off Aero.
Not to advertise but if you visit the AeroXperience community you'll see that most of the beta testers already know what to expect from the next build. So far we've haven't seen the final UI, that much I know, but what I also know is that most of what we've seen will work on DX8 cards, maybe a bit of a loss of quality. Microsoft then is going to take advantage of DX9 & soon DX10 cards.
Anyway I don't really want to spark an argument, all I'm saying is that Microsoft still has alot of little tidbits hidden UI wise that is.
Reply #16 Friday, April 21, 2006 11:08 PM
I'm pretty sure that's because *some* people at Microsoft still follow the old Raymond Chen school of maintaining backward compatibility with popular applications rather than the new 'lets start from scratch and let software developers worry about fixing their broken programs' mentality that started with DOT Net. This means they tested WindowBlinds with Vista and fixed anything that wasn't working.
Not only is this new prevalent school troublesome (read the interesting Joel on Software article about this here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html ) by itself, as the quality level of documentation about new APIs in Microsoft has been falling dramatically. These days it's a nightmare finding reliable information about new APIs - Microsoft mostly gives a short, cryptic, explanation about the API with NO working examples whatsoever.
For instance, layered windows (responsible for per pixel alpha) are really easy to implement ONCE YOU KNOW HOW, but the available documentation at MSDN is so cryptic and 'bare bones' that I lost count of newsgroup posts with people asking how to implement this (with no reliable replies, mind you). No wonder only now, AFTER NEARLY 5 YEARS of XP being out, are layered windows becoming mainstream!
Neil, any examples on stuff that Vista managed to break?
Reply #17 Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:34 AM
Venom339: The Geforce4MX is actually a DX7 card not a DX8 card as it is not capable of pixel shaders (which is needed for DX8).
The only reason that card worked in some builds (and not anymore) was when the HW check was disabled the DWM ignored the fact that various calls failed. That particular card simply doesn't have the fillrate required to run the DWM well even if Microsoft intentionally added support. 64MB of ram also only gets you to 1024x768 with the DWM on which is low.
Microsoft have also stressed the importance of the blur in the titlebars in a recent article as well as stating pixel shaders 2 are the minimum required for the DWM.
Could Microsoft change things? Sure, but when your project is running months late and you have a hard deadline to meet, its highly unusual to start redesigning core bits. We will see minor tweaks here & there as we did with Luna. The non DWM enabled UI may well be modified as thats very ugly. DX10 effects are unlikely given no consumer has a DX10 card.
Reply #18 Saturday, April 22, 2006 4:44 AM
JcRabbit: We actually had to make changes to WB to make it work, not the other way round.
I would agree that Microsoft seem to care less and less about backwards compatibility. 'Let them rewrite it in .net' seems to be some peoples idea of fixing a problem. The Raymond Chen approach seems to be so much less common than it used to be.
Reply #19 Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:15 AM
Reply #20 Sunday, April 23, 2006 5:33 AM
| Speaking as someone who's also beta-tested Vista, I must say...I don't like it in the least. Sure, the GUI looks beautiful, but it lacks the basic functionality (especially in the folders view of Explorer) that all previous versions of Windows had. I love the Folders view: The fact that I can't duplicate that in Vista is extremely annoying. Put simply, Vista continues Microsoft's continued attempts to "dumb down" the OS: Make things look prettier, take away functionality and choices for the user |
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:03 PM