Yeah, makes you wonder how geeky we must be!!!

I have around 30 windows open on average...

//edit: I should probably add to this that I just tend to keep all the apps open that I use more or less regularly.  I never reboot my system, it is on 24/7, really the only time I reboot is when a critical patch requires it. 

It happens many times that instead of bookmarking an interesting webpage, I just keep the Internet Explorer window open for several weeks or even longer! (yeah, I'm not exaggerating, even now there are 2 IE windows sitting minimized on my taskbar that I opened nearly 2 months ago).

Also right now, there are 5 instances of Visual Studio .NET open, 3x VS2003 and 2x VS2005.

Outlook is another app that's always open for weeks on end without ever closing.

About the only time that I close a few windows (IE or shell windows) is when I once again get the message that windows is out or memory (or actually: most of the time you don't get that message but see funny things like menu bars or other window parts not showing)
=> is this something that will be impoved in Vista?
Because I'm sure that it's not due to the amount of RAM.

Come to talk about it, this is one of few things (or maybe even the ONLY important thing) that bothers me in Windows.
However, I must say that Windows 2003 never crashes, even all those times that memory is exhausted, it just DOESN'T CRASH!   You only see the missing window parts or new windows refusing to open, but you close a few windows and everything is fine again.

It must be my choice of hardware components for sure, because I have seen other Windows XP or 2003 systems crash, but never my own system.  I have still to witness the first fatal exception from my Windows 2003 systems in all these years, and yet I push my PC to the limit constantly!

Thanks Robert.  Couldn't you just create a script or something to put up the download videos automatically?  Does not bother me at all, but you should be able to automate it to save you some steps.

--wjs

Mike Steel wrote: What I want to know is what happened to the cool animation efects that were demoed on WinHEC 2003 (if I remember correctly), with windows waving (like a flag in wind) when moved, and an app (calculator on demo) being resized (with everything resizing smoothly)...?? I'm afraid that will be (once again) a case where MS demos some cool (already working) feature, and then drops it from the final product.

Yes, the foundation is there, and that's great for upcoming apps.

Now, for my rant.  J  Note that I really hope this is chicken-little stuff and beta2 will really start to put the spit and shine on the GUI, but this video doesn’t really get my hopes up considering that they seem to have the final design relatively close to completion.  Frankly I would never have written this without viewing this video, as everything I’ve heard is "Wait until Beta 2!  Wait until Beta2!  This GUI is just a placeholder!" – perhaps not.  This is disconcerting – and like some other posters, the ambivalence towards skinning compounds the problem.  I was hoping MS wouldn’t repeat the same mistake they made with XP’s themes by required you to hack the system to install some that don’t look like they were intended for a preschool audience, but perhaps not.  More clarification on this would be nice.

I've heard numerous times in the past from MS reps that they want Aero to have a "movie-like" experience for the end user, in that the GUI will in part resemble those over-the-top computer interfaces you often see depicted in films where everything smoothly pops in/out and is perfectly anti-aliased, etc.  Bear in mind while I'm not insinuating that most of us want an obnoxious GUI where everything is zooming/spinning in our faces when we’re trying to compose a document, I do think what's shown so far in terms of effects (but more importantly, polish) is incredibly tame, especially considering how long the competition has been out with their 3D accelerated display.  Yes, it’s not the same depth as Avalon/Aero (it will be if Apple ever enables Quartz 2D Extreme and goes truly resolution independent), but that’s even more disappointing when the original OSX had better effects running almost entirely on the CPU.   Sorry, but I’m not going to be amazed by windows not tearing, animated video thumbnails and apps that fade in/out – that’s all extremely basic stuff guys that’s been done before for years now with a composition engine that is not as advanced as WPF, and is the least anyone would expect from a GUI that makes heavy use of the GPU.

My main aesthetic gripes so far from the PDC build regarding Aero:

1)     Font Rendering.  Some of the concept screen shots of Aero "back in the day" had fantastic fonts, and before I knew they were concepts I had hoped MS had significantly re-tooled its font rendering engine. Cleartype helps to improve clarity on LCD’s and MS deserves credit to be the first to market with this technology in a major OS, but often the fonts still look "computerized" even with enabled, and frankly they stand out like a sore thumb in the current Aero screenshots.  This is a large reason why Aero at this point looks like a half-baked Windowblinds skin.

OSX really demonstrates Apple's attention in this area, and it's not difficult to illustrate.  Even with very small fonts, OSX's rendering makes the appearance of pages as close to WYSIWG as possible as compared to printer output - Cleartype doesn't.  Apple is doing some extra aliasing which bother some people on low DPI displays, but it will only look better and better as we move into high DPI.  \

2)     Icons.  They're incredibly plain, while I'm sure they scale smoothly they don't look anything beyond what XP can do now (albeit the game icons look very nice).  A little more detail is needed here.  Some are particularly awful, such as the back-forward arrows that are ever-present in the new explorer; you’ve got a very shiny blue orb with a flat 2d white arrow overlaid.  It looks like two disparate elements mashed together, in short it just looks cheap. The folder icons as well are particularly dull, it’s as if the majority of the icons so far are restricted to a 16 colour palette. Depth & detail folks!

3)     Colours.  I’ve seen some shots of Vista explorer with an orange gradient, bright green progress bars, glossly blue buttons, transparent titlebars with black/grayish borders.  W…T…H…?  I try to tell myself that this is all placeholder stuff and the final GUI will no doubt look far more cohesive, but then again I said that when I saw the first shots of Luna as well.

You want to know of an example that I hoped Longhorn would come close to?  Something like this: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/lh-winhec-03.png

Of course, that’s a concept shot and lacking many interface elements, but as mentioned I’m focusing on the aesthetics here and not the actual operation of the GUI (which so far I generally like actually, the move away from using pull-down menus to access most commands is quite a bold change IMO).  Why isn’t this possible with Aero?  I’m talking about smooth anti-aliased rounded corners (I heard from one Mac user that Windows always looked like it was "Designed with a T-Square", and I have to agree), a far more cohesive colour scheme, gorgeous icons with their own reflections/shadows, fonts that actually look like they will when printed, etc – this frankly is what I expected considering all the hype and time, and that was years ago.

With Office12, MS has demonstrated they’re not afraid of dragging their existing customer base through a significant GUI change, so why not try and make Aero look beyond what someone could do with a copy of Windowblinds in 10 minutes?

Come on MS - show me that you actually "get it".  The little things count in the overall picture, and if MS truly wants to be thought of having any sort of style, it has to pay attention to them.

bluvg wrote: - Transparencies--neat looking, but I'm very concerned about the title bars being translucent.  When you layer several over the top of each other, it looks cluttered, not clear.  The title bar shows useful information, so for clarity, I would think this should be clear information.  Perhaps make the text non-translucent?

Forgot to mention this and I agree as well, when you get more than 2 overlaid it just looks like a smeared mess.  I assumed when this aspect of the GUI was first introduced it was meant to demonstrate the pixel shaders in effect, not to actually be used in the final.  The effect is nice, but it quickly goes overboard.

Speaking of pixel shaders btw, that's another component of Aero that was hyped and seems to have gone missing - where are they being used?  From early on, we were told about the tiers of the GUI and how it would scale its effects from DX7 performing basic GPU composition of windows (basically what OSX does now) to DX9, which would be demanding but would make us wet ourselves with this "Hollywood interface" it would provide.  Ummm....?

There's nothing I've seen so far which couldn't be done with DX7, save likely for the refraction effect of the glass which really isn't that appealing in its current incarnation.  Heck, Nvidia's XP drivers allow you to turn the windows and taskbar transparent, and in doing so enable double-buffering on all windows, eliminating the tearing (albiet at a speed hit when you have many windows overlaid).  Combine that with the Royale theme, and in many aspects I'd say XP could actually look better without third party add-ons.

I guess we're asking - Where's the Beef?  At this point though, I'd settle for some tofu.

I was just thinking about what Nitz said about the Office 12 team throwing the old GUI into the wind, and although I think we're talking apples and oranges relative to Vista, I think that is a good point.  Though I'm concerned about how Office 12 is going to handle some customized toolbars where I work, I think the overall change will be worth it.  Clearly, as they described the evolution of the product, it was necessary for the UI model to change.

Applying this to Vista, I'll just throw this out there as well.  I recognize the need for some semblance of familiarity for a variety of reasons--and I'm an IT admin, so things like consistency of Start Menu and Desktop shortcuts for scripting and whatnot make life easier... of course, we're already used to dealing with different file locations and UI metaphors in each Windows version, so why should this be any different?  But consider this--I get asked by our company's execs about things like OS X all the time.  These are pragmatic folks, so usually they aren't considering a switch at the office, but they DO consider it for home use (luckily it works well with our remote access solution!).  One of the biggest reasons is the interface--not only the surface appearance, but the consistency, the design aesthetics and metaphors, the font handling (though they may not realize exactly what it is), the simplicity, etc.  I'm not a big Mac fan personally, but there does seem to be quite a bit of consensus that the OS X GUI is superior (overall) to that of XP.  I guess I was really hoping for the surprise GUI introduction/innovation that would really challenge the notion that the Mac has a monopoly on great GUI design and aesthetics--and, judging by the people that sign the checks, they would be excited about this as well (they aren't as resistant to change as some might think... well, as long as it doesn't look like a circus!).  Personally, I think functionality-wise, the XP UI has the edge over the OS X UI, and with Vista, the framework is there for very powerful, very useful UI/UX innovations.  However, providing the framework alone is like preparing a huge buffet but not inviting yourself to eat, leaving the food untouched and sending guests pictures of what a great buffet could look like.  I think Microsoft has a huge opportunity here--perhaps even an obligation--to set the bar high from the outset, driving innovation in UI/UX, rather than simply housing the party and asking others to come in, dance, and make it a memorable event.

I don't mean for this to become a "my OS can beat up your OS" debate, but that is inevitably going to happen after (and before and during) Vista's release.  For better or worse, the tech media will go on at length in comparing the two, and this coverage generates interest--usually at the expense of Windows--even amongst exec types.  What I'm trying to say is... the concern to look similar to old Windows versions is probably not as important as one might think.  If the people that sign the checks would consider switching primarily because of the interface, I think there is almost an expectation that Microsoft will come back at some point with both guns blazing, taking interface design to the next level.  And, for the companies that are very resistant to change (they probably won't be moving up to Vista anyhow... not until their storage room supply of dumb terminals runs out... ), they can always put up a lower-tier experience (or perhaps there could be "Business" and "Consumer" themes?). 

(This all said... I hope this doesn't come across as a rant against the Aero team, who have obviously put in a great deal of nice work (Yes, Flip3D looks very cool, and is truly useful!  Nice job!!).  I'm just hoping that they won't use that all of that awesome fire--the INFERNO, in fact--in Vista simply to warm themselves.... )

bluvg wrote:  However, providing the framework alone is like preparing a huge buffet but not inviting yourself to eat, leaving the food untouched and sending guests pictures of what a great buffet could look like.  I think Microsoft has a huge opportunity here--perhaps even an obligation--to set the bar high from the outset, driving innovation in UI/UX, rather than simply housing the party and asking others to come in, dance, and make it a memorable event.

Give me hope though that MS is at least really taking the style issue seriously.  Here's an idea: How about a contest to see who can design the most attractive Aero mock-ups?  Set the guidelines for what must be followed with regards to widget placement and overall functionality, but from there the sky's the limit.  Winner gets a cash prize and are credited with their submission when Vista ships.

Just throwin' in out there.  Don't look at me though, I know what I like but that doesn't mean I can create it.

camsoft wrote: Was I the only person disapointed with that video?

camsoft wrote: The Flip 3D feature looks crap, they are some visual glitches when using it. Also requires alot more clicks to select a window. How is this useful. Expose on Tiger is far better.

camsoft wrote: OK, thats all my complaints. I really have to appluad Microsoft they have done a great job on the Composition Engine and Avalon etc. but the shell does not impress me. I am praying that there is more to come.