Vista design being forced on XP?

This is a discussion on Vista design being forced on XP? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Bubba Aero is sleek, fast, and nice eye candy. I did not have any problems with Aero ...

  1. #46
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Aero is sleek, fast, and nice eye candy. I did not have any problems with Aero on my system and I miss it on my XP. [...] How other apps utilized Aero was another story. Most of them tended to heavily abuse their newfound functionality. But the overall basic Aero interface for Vista itself was very nice. Aero rocks.
    Couldn't agree more.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  2. #47
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I swear, if you say it is pretty again I'm gonna smack you.

    You are indeed just a tad bit off the target. The issue is not about some people liking it, other not. The issue is about you not being able to do anything about it, if you don't like it. Especially when you already instructed your OS to not use the fluff as I have been doing ever since windows friggin'95 (before that we didn't have this problem).
    But the main question is... why is the fluff so bad? Resource hogging?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    It is also about the fact the GUI changes in completely unusual ways. This is disruptive. User friendliness is also about consistency. You shouldn't tell people to relearn how to operate their OS every new version. And finally its about usability, this GUI is simply horrid. There's no file menu anymore! The working area is enormously reduced because of the size of those ribbon things. The logic is confusing with help items being spread in the ribbon and on the help menu and... on the Application Icon! Same goes for other usual stuff like items that you used to see on the ever present View menu now being scattered even on the status bar.
    I agree on this one. Hiding menus and forcing to use ribbons and such is just annoying. It disturbs the way users have been working with programs for years. When you can't find what you're looking for, you're bound to get annoyed.
    Yes, keep is consistent.

    However, I don't see the problem with the viewing area. It's big enough to work with, unless you have a really, really low resolution.
    Does it eat up 50% of the screen?

    Quote Originally Posted by lightatdawn View Post
    I fail to see how it's pretier. It wastes time. It suppresses the beauty of my amazingly fast piece of electronics by pretending that a graphic button can't be loaded instantly.
    Speed is important, of course, but on modern computers, it's hardly (or should not be, otherwise it's a design flaw) noticeable. It will load just as fast as if all the fancy stuff didn't exist.

    There are plenty of attractive features of many applications that don't detract from the useability. It's when I realise that my archaic PII machines can run a DamnSmallLinux distro and surf the net, play music, display movies, and network with my LAN, at speeds rivalling my spanking new Boxes with 64-Bit Dual Cores and 4 gigs of RAM, that I begin to get irate.
    So why keep such an old computer around? Not willing to part with it?

    It is my profound hope that with the slowing of processor progress in the near future, and Microsofts proclamation to produce a sleeker, thinner, more trimmed down OS, that we'll see application makers finally step up in this area as well. I see no reason at all that my web browser shouldn't open instantly. I mean instantly. I've disabled just about every feature it has to offer (Java, ActiveX, Javascript, Plugins, Sound, AutoComplete, etc), so what am I waiting for exactly?
    Speed-o-freak! I like that
    I'd like to see fancy GUI with no loading times in the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    However in my huge list of complaints about Vista, the interface and it's performance were not on the list. Aero is sleek, fast, and nice eye candy. I did not have any problems with Aero on my system and I miss it on my XP. Now I don't miss anything else about Vista so don't peg me as some Vista fanboy because I'm not. How other apps utilized Aero was another story. Most of them tended to heavily abuse their newfound functionality. But the overall basic Aero interface for Vista itself was very nice. Aero rocks.
    I completely agree there. Vista had a few nice things, but mostly Aero. The performance of the OS however... sucked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #48
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    But the main question is... why is the fluff so bad? Resource hogging?
    For one. I already named them; resources, aesthetics, usability,... But mostly, I simply don't like fluff. I can't put it any more simpler than that. I always liked my applications simple, efficient and to the point. It's the way I am, from computers to clothing.


    However, I don't see the problem with the viewing area. It's big enough to work with, unless you have a really, really low resolution.
    Does it eat up 50&#37; of the screen?
    Again is the problem of efficiency. But this time applied to the use of space. The fluff at the top plus the fluff and the bottom together eat up almost 1/3 of the my vertical area. Resolution has nothing to do with it. I'm speaking of relative areas. But if you want to know i'm running at 1024x768.

    Now, take a good look at that screenshot again. Picture in your head what would happen if all that vertical space was optimized by the use of regular menus and a couple of toolbars. Can you see the tremendous gain in the working area?

    The problem is not so much my working area was reduced to a point its unusable. It wasn't. The point is the fluff is stealing working space. For me that's the anti-christ of a good layout.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #49
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Now, take a good look at that screenshot again. Picture in your head what would happen if all that vertical space was optimized by the use of regular menus and a couple of toolbars. Can you see the tremendous gain in the working area?
    I did look at it and it didn't bother me at all. So long as I have a large viewing area to work with, everything is dandy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  5. #50
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,484
    I did take a look at Ranking Toolbox 6

    1. There is a mimimal size of the screen with program could take. And it is 784 pixels in hight - if I reduce the window to the smaller size - the left panel gets the scrolling which takes "hours" to finish. And I saw no way to increase the scrolling speed. Also Scrolling arrows are to small in high, about hafl of the regular hight of the scrolling arrows in the regular scroll-bar - which does not makes easier to target them
    2. The toolbar in the top, and image menu-bar in the left, and "Start Center" menu in the right - all show the tooltip in the bottom "Info Panel". I do not feel comfortable to look for "tool-tip" of the current button in the opposite corner of the working Area...

    And this are only two greate inconvinincies found just by looking on the main screen - I didn't started the actual work with this tool, and do not plan...


    Also - this application does not followes the settings of the Windows - I have disabled all menu delays, and still - it opens submenu with annoying delays
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  6. #51
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    There is more to sliding menus, fading popups and rolling windows than just eye candy.

    Studies have shown that casual PC users have problems properly processing visual elements that are "just there" suddenly. They try to carry over their notions from the "real" world, where things don't just appear. They might unfold, they might slide in from outside the view area, they might fade away like smoke. But they're not here one moment and gone the next, or the other way round.
    Computers don't work that way. By default, everything will just be there and then be gone. There is no inertia on bits and bytes. And this behaviour did not appeal to casual users. It felt unnatural. It scared them, even. Thus, menus slide in, dialogs fade in, and windows fold up and fly into the task bar.

    To people who've grown up during the right time - exposed to computers from childhood, but while there wasn't enough power for eye-candy - there is no problem. Neither is there for those who've worked enough to get used to it. But we're still the minority, and Microsoft caters to the majority.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  7. #52
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    The question is how reliable those studies are. Because quite frankly I deal with casual users everyday at home, work, and socially, and never even once saw or heard anyone complaining when using my laptop. Quite on the contrary; I've heard a few good remarks.

    Conversely my ex-wife just recently switched to Vista after buying a new desktop and calls me every other day to help her locate things or handling things she doesn't know anymore where they are. The new security features alone almost drove me mad during the first week until her hollering over the phone made me go to her place and turn the bloody things off. For 2 years now I didn't have her asking me for help while she was using XP. She has to relearn the whole thing over again.

    So I don't know where those studies are coming from, or how reliable they are, or what are the qualifications of those conducting those studies. I've been listening to crap like that for 25 years now. It's the same with too much rice provoking cancer type-of-studies. All I know is that casual users are not being well served. Neither are experienced users.

    Let's face it. It's been getting worst.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 02-28-2008 at 09:17 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  8. #53
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by vart View Post
    I did take a look at Ranking Toolbox 6
    Sorry, Vart. Skipped your post and I think it deserved an answer. Thanks for having taken a look at it.

    And to add to all you said, lets not forget this application can be seen as an advanced software intended to be used by mid to advanced users. Mostly web programmers/designers.

    Naturally, one can expect the "ordinary" user to have a website built with the automated tools that abound these days. Tools, I might add, that do a terrible job at creating bot friendly websites. But he can't expect to use Ranking Toolbox efficiently because:

    a) He won't understand 80&#37; of the results (which are technical jargon or need more advanced solutions than the tools he has been using);

    b) He will have trouble navigating through that interface;

    c) Not understanding the results, not understanding how to use the application, and not having the technical expertize to optimize his website, he won't be doing anything about it.

    So, I classify this tool in the mid to mid-high range of complexity. And yet, it's design is aimed at ... well, I don't even know.

    - Retarded? No. I'm not retarded and couldn't understand the application interface.
    - Low end users? No. If I couldn't use this application efficiently, how can they?
    - High end users? No. They don't like the interface to step in their way.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #54
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,010
    Come on, just because the interface is "pretty" doesn't mean it's not aimed at professional/high-end users/whatever. You may not like the interface, but you are in minority. Most people do like pretty interfaces, so it is aimed at other people than you. Nothing stops it from doing its work, although perhaps it could have been done better.
    And concerning Vista... yes, most tech calls have not been actual operating system problems but that users simply can't find what they're looking for. Such is the price for moving around items where they weren't before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #55
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    I can only repeat what I learned in my user interface design classes at the university.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  11. #56
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    That is odd. I have learned no such thing. However I took my degree when Windows was in version 3.1. So I can see you having learned different things.

    The thing about universities was better described by a former employer of mine that, after having left mine and looking for a full-time job, replied at my second interview: "I.S.T., I see. Fine university, that is... Now, forget everything you learned in there".
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #57
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Computers don't work that way. By default, everything will just be there and then be gone. There is no inertia on bits and bytes.
    Not completely true. There certainly is inertia on electrons. And changing a bit from high to low or low to high certainly does take time. It just happens fast enough that to our preception it is instant. To a computer or the engineer setting up the circuit that time becomes significant.

  13. #58
    pwns nooblars
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    1,094
    EE Majors aren't real people So their perception doesn't count.

  14. #59
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    The bottom line is that for the more experienced users (especially those of us who started off in the command line only days) we don't like the cutesy fluff offered by the newer operating systems. To back my stance, I provide as an example Windows .Net Server. How many of you run/ran this?

    Why was it, again, that M$ said they dropped it for 2003?

  15. #60
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Touch&#233;!
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Trying to Install XP over Vista with SATA HD
    By Shamino in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 06:56 PM
  2. Sound worked in XP; not in Vista
    By lostpuppy in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:25 AM
  3. A question about windows programming
    By Hussain Hani in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 08:38 AM
  4. Windows XP (and Vista) shiney look and feel
    By lightatdawn in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-18-2005, 03:56 PM
  5. Question..
    By pode in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 07:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21