dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 14:58:

soggi wrote on 2024-12-03, 10:47:

dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 07:19:

Aero looks great. IMO, Vista and Win7 are the pinnacle of desktop UI.

Yes...on first sight. I really was astonished back then when I saw it first. But after a very short while I switched it to "classic", like Luna on WinXP. Aero is simply impractical for working with a PC...it's just useless eye candy.

For me it was the other way around. For a few years I ran Vista in classic mode, because I was used to it, and it felt "right". Then I tried Aero and was like "wait a minute, there is nothing wrong with it". Eye candy is not supposed to be "useful". It is supposed to look nice. There is nothing "impractical" in it. Besides, due to the way it was implemented, in Vista/7, Aero actually improves performance on a semi-capable GPU compared to "classic".

I also believe the job of the OS is to run other software therefore use as little resources as possible keeping them available for the programs, games, etc.
It's why I always turned off Luna in XP which uses slightly more resources then classic.

I did this in Vista, but the OS should also be functional and I found the preview of hovering the mouse over minimised programs useful, so now accept the extra resource usage.

Side note, it wasn't till I started using XP on retro builds did I keep the Luna theme, as now it's trying to capture an era, even though I never used it myself.

I still use XP fairly frequently.

Still have a couple laptops with dual-boot partitions, Win7 and XP.

Have gone to Win7 on my main desktops... mainly for 64-bit (never had 64bit
XP) - I often have a 1-4g RamDisk.

I've got many years worth of DOS tools, which run well under XP, but not at
all on Win7-64. So either boot into XP, or use DosBox a LOT.

I also have a VMWARE bootable virtual machine with XP on my main desktop.
One thing I use it for quite a bit ... years ago I found a nice little tool
called LVIEW which can do screen captures/crops/gamma-correction and can make
very small (and still visually looking good) images - this is something I use
quite a bit. But the version of LVIEW that I have (and like) is a 16-bit
program, and won't run in Win64.
(yes, I've found newer 32-bit versions, but I don't like them nearly as much)

So I have a virtual XP which mounts my RamDrive on the host.
So easy to copy files back and forth. I take a big (megs) .JPG from
a camera, copy it to XP - display it, screen capture and crop the parts I
want, gamma-correct it to best lightness, and save it back as only a few
k image - this is how I generated most all of the images on my site, and
the ones I've posted here!

Long like XP!

Dave ::: https://dunfield.themindfactory.com ::: "Daves Old Computers"->Personal

chinny22 wrote on 2024-12-04, 00:21:

I also believe the job of the OS is to run other software therefore use as little resources as possible keeping them available f […]
Show full quote

dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 14:58:

soggi wrote on 2024-12-03, 10:47:

Yes...on first sight. I really was astonished back then when I saw it first. But after a very short while I switched it to "classic", like Luna on WinXP. Aero is simply impractical for working with a PC...it's just useless eye candy.

For me it was the other way around. For a few years I ran Vista in classic mode, because I was used to it, and it felt "right". Then I tried Aero and was like "wait a minute, there is nothing wrong with it". Eye candy is not supposed to be "useful". It is supposed to look nice. There is nothing "impractical" in it. Besides, due to the way it was implemented, in Vista/7, Aero actually improves performance on a semi-capable GPU compared to "classic".

I also believe the job of the OS is to run other software therefore use as little resources as possible keeping them available for the programs, games, etc.
It's why I always turned off Luna in XP which uses slightly more resources then classic.

I did this in Vista, but the OS should also be functional and I found the preview of hovering the mouse over minimised programs useful, so now accept the extra resource usage.

Side note, it wasn't till I started using XP on retro builds did I keep the Luna theme, as now it's trying to capture an era, even though I never used it myself.

I for one think that the look&feel of the OS does matter a lot.
Especially if you have to work with it for years, day by day - a lot of your lifetime in short.
It should be eye friendly, should follow logical structure and have clear outlines.

A skeuomorph design helps, too. It makes identifying objects easier, even when tired.
In so far, both Aqua and Aero Glass (Vista) did it right. Both were elegant, easy to the eye but not too insistent.
The transparency was useful, even, so windows could overlaid and be seen through.

PS: Could it be that some of you 16c friends have issues with sensoric overload?
Maybe that's why an UI with low colour count, simple forms and minimalism design does make you comfortable to work with.

In parts, it might be a similar reason as to why I don’t play modern 3D video games,
but do enjoy 3D wire frame games such as Star Fox (SNES) or 2D games from NES era.
These modern 3D games do stress me out, even the harmless Wii games from the 2000s.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-04, 05:47:

I for one think that the look&feel of the OS does matter a lot. Especially if you have to work with it for years, day by day - a […]
Show full quote

I for one think that the look&feel of the OS does matter a lot.
Especially if you have to work with it for years, day by day - a lot of your lifetime in short.
It should be eye friendly, should follow logical structure and have clear outlines.

A skeuomorph design helps, too. It makes identifying objects easier, even when tired.
In so far, both Aqua and Aero Glass (Vista) did it right. Both were elegant, easy to the eye but not too insistent.
The transparency was useful, even, so windows could overlaid and be seen through.

PS: Could it be that some of you 16c friends have issues with sensoric overload?
Maybe that's why an UI with low colour count, simple forms and minimalism design does make you comfortable to work with.

In parts, it might be a similar reason as to why I don’t play modern 3D video games,
but do enjoy 3D wire frame games such as Star Fox (SNES) or 2D games from NES era.
These modern 3D games do stress me out, even the harmless Wii games from the 2000s.

My thinking is how often are you looking at the OS itself?
Most of the time you'll have a program open covering most the OS's interface.
I've no problem with the program looking pretty, but the OS itself should be function over form.
Thats why I "allowed" Aero glass, as you said the transparency was useful.

but I also don't like unnecessarily busy screens. These days I don't bother changing the default theme, but desktop wallpaper has to be fairly plain so the desktop icons stand out.

chinny22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 00:39:

My thinking is how often are you looking at the OS itself?

In my case, 99% of time, exept doing some fullscreen stuff, OS is always visually there, in taskbar, in window decorations, every action i do, always! if im listening music and want to volume up/down i look at bottom right corner for tray volume icon, if i need to open something i just do oppposite click to left, move mouse a little up or win+r and there is run.... but specially when i spend most of time is customizing OS, and programming stub files, etc for sure I spend at least 1 or 2 hours every day in OS itself

dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 14:58:

soggi wrote on 2024-12-03, 10:47:

dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 07:19:

Aero looks great. IMO, Vista and Win7 are the pinnacle of desktop UI.

Yes...on first sight. I really was astonished back then when I saw it first. But after a very short while I switched it to "classic", like Luna on WinXP. Aero is simply impractical for working with a PC...it's just useless eye candy.

For me it was the other way around. For a few years I ran Vista in classic mode, because I was used to it, and it felt "right". Then I tried Aero and was like "wait a minute, there is nothing wrong with it". Eye candy is not supposed to be "useful". It is supposed to look nice. There is nothing "impractical" in it. Besides, due to the way it was implemented, in Vista/7, Aero actually improves performance on a semi-capable GPU compared to "classic".

Another big advantage of Aero was the forced vsync on 2D apps. Watching YouTube without Aero enabled was just asking for a bunch of ugly screen tearing.

Funnily enough, I don't remember that being an issue on XP, which didn't have any form of compositing window manager. Course, last time I watched YouTube under XP they were still using the old Flash player, which could've been why.

chinny22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 00:39:

My thinking is how often are you looking at the OS itself? Most of the time you'll have a program open covering most the OS's in […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-04, 05:47:

I for one think that the look&feel of the OS does matter a lot. Especially if you have to work with it for years, day by day - a […]
Show full quote

I for one think that the look&feel of the OS does matter a lot.
Especially if you have to work with it for years, day by day - a lot of your lifetime in short.
It should be eye friendly, should follow logical structure and have clear outlines.

A skeuomorph design helps, too. It makes identifying objects easier, even when tired.
In so far, both Aqua and Aero Glass (Vista) did it right. Both were elegant, easy to the eye but not too insistent.
The transparency was useful, even, so windows could overlaid and be seen through.

PS: Could it be that some of you 16c friends have issues with sensoric overload?
Maybe that's why an UI with low colour count, simple forms and minimalism design does make you comfortable to work with.

In parts, it might be a similar reason as to why I don’t play modern 3D video games,
but do enjoy 3D wire frame games such as Star Fox (SNES) or 2D games from NES era.
These modern 3D games do stress me out, even the harmless Wii games from the 2000s.

My thinking is how often are you looking at the OS itself?
Most of the time you'll have a program open covering most the OS's interface.
I've no problem with the program looking pretty, but the OS itself should be function over form.
Thats why I "allowed" Aero glass, as you said the transparency was useful.

but I also don't like unnecessarily busy screens. These days I don't bother changing the default theme, but desktop wallpaper has to be fairly plain so the desktop icons stand out.

I see. Form Follows Function vs Function Follows Form. 😉

It's just a bit ironic that architects of functional, modern houses do prefer to live in traditional houses, with ornaments and all sorts of decoration.

Edit: That makes me wonder, are fans of Windows 95 GUI also fans of brutalism (architecture)?
Both styles involve boxy structures, concrete/tombstone colour and a minimal set of decoration (if any).

I couldn't give a crap what my house looks like in the outside - within reason.
I'm function first.

myne wrote on 2024-12-05, 06:57:

I couldn't give a crap what my house looks like in the outside - within reason.
I'm function first.

People are different, it would certainly matter to me.
It defines a house's personality and the people living in it, I think.

If I had a choice, I wouldn't want to live in an GDR or soviet block architecture (stereotypical prefab apartments).
- That being said, the architecture is good for otherwise home less people. Though I'm afraid that in real life the home less would rather choose to live on street than in such buildings.

Likewise, I don’t like furniture that's "kitsch". Such as tables with lion feet.
Or 1950s radios with white "teeth" buttons. Yikes.
In this case, I prefer the functional look of classic plastic kitchen radios or small plastic portable TVs.

Wooden TVs and radios of the 1920s/1930 with simple but elegant ornaments and other engravements are fine, though.

Reading through i realise just how much i am ok with almost any os...

I do like XP a lot, windows 7 too and am fine to use them, even preferring them to others. I'm also ok with win 3.1, win9x, win 10/11. maybe less so with win 8... I'm ok with most mainstream linux gui variations too

i even tend to just go with defaults now, not spending ages getting everything set up "just so"

i can understand preferences but for some people i've worked with it seems that they believe (or rather, want listeners to believe) that unless some specific set ups are followed and particular OSes favoured then there is a 99% loss of efficiency or some such... no, there isnt, its ok just to have a preference.

on linux windows pretension matters, TDE-Trinity (currently maintained fork of KDE3.5) still has a 2K/ME/XP-looking Redmond and a wizard can default to Windows behaviors. Distros don't carry TDE though. There's also a "Redmond 95" color scheme and some "Plastik" (luna) and "Quartz" (watercolor) decorations.

There's still the eternal linux applications-will-never-match-yours issue though.

Standard Def Steve wrote on 2024-12-05, 04:50:

Another big advantage of Aero was the forced vsync on 2D apps. Watching YouTube without Aero enabled was just asking for a bunch of ugly screen tearing.

Funnily enough, I don't remember that being an issue on XP, which didn't have any form of compositing window manager. Course, last time I watched YouTube under XP they were still using the old Flash player, which could've been why.

Never noticed that...but I can't remember if I ever watched YT on Win7!? On WinXP there are/were no such problems so far.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 07:38:

If I had a choice, I wouldn't want to live in an GDR or soviet block architecture (stereotypical prefab apartments).

For one year I lived in one of those...but that was in West Germany! I don't know why this urban legend that this is typical for (ex) COMECON states is still around, the architecture of cities and satellite cities f.e. in West Germany in the 60s to 80s is/was just as ugly.

kind regards
soggi

Standard Def Steve wrote on 2024-12-05, 04:50:

dr_st wrote on 2024-12-03, 14:58:

soggi wrote on 2024-12-03, 10:47:

Yes...on first sight. I really was astonished back then when I saw it first. But after a very short while I switched it to "classic", like Luna on WinXP. Aero is simply impractical for working with a PC...it's just useless eye candy.

For me it was the other way around. For a few years I ran Vista in classic mode, because I was used to it, and it felt "right". Then I tried Aero and was like "wait a minute, there is nothing wrong with it". Eye candy is not supposed to be "useful". It is supposed to look nice. There is nothing "impractical" in it. Besides, due to the way it was implemented, in Vista/7, Aero actually improves performance on a semi-capable GPU compared to "classic".

Another big advantage of Aero was the forced vsync on 2D apps. Watching YouTube without Aero enabled was just asking for a bunch of ugly screen tearing.

Funnily enough, I don't remember that being an issue on XP, which didn't have any form of compositing window manager. Course, last time I watched YouTube under XP they were still using the old Flash player, which could've been why.

Hi, i watch youtube everyday and I comfirm that is not bad at all, in fact i dont see much difference watching youtube in my XP PC and win11 laptop

For some reason happen same to me, in win7 with classic theme and same browser (thorium legacy) i get more tearing than XP

Another big advantage of Aero was the forced vsync on 2D apps.

On paper - yes. But it breaks quite often. Although Windows 7 has VRR support that fixes that.

soggi wrote on 2024-12-05, 11:06:

For one year I lived in one of those...but that was in West Germany! I don't know why this urban legend that this is typical for […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 07:38:

If I had a choice, I wouldn't want to live in an GDR or soviet block architecture (stereotypical prefab apartments).

For one year I lived in one of those...but that was in West Germany! I don't know why this urban legend that this is typical for (ex) COMECON states is still around, the architecture of cities and satellite cities f.e. in West Germany in the 60s to 80s is/was just as ugly.

kind regards
soggi

Urban legend.. 🙄 Just like the obligatory "Schrankwand", right? 🙂
Anyway, let's blame MDR channel for its documentaries. Agreed? 😁

soggi wrote on 2024-12-05, 11:06:

For one year I lived in one of those...but that was in West Germany!

They existed here, too, as a result of WW2. Especially the industrial regions had been hit very hard.
In the western regions, a lot of houses thus had been built in a rush.

The economic miracle and the rise of the car in the 1950s had made things even worse.
We made the mistake to make cities car-centric. We built for things, rather than for living beings, for people.
It's hard to reverse this mistake now, but city planners try to figure out a way out.

By contrast, historic cities like Dresden spent a lot of time and money to recreate the historic city parts.
Not all cities in Germany had this luxury, though. Not all got the political and financial support needed.

Last but not least, there had been those blocky family appartment homes built by the US in their occupation zones. They've also built schools in that architecture.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 18:50:

Urban legend.. 🙄 Just like the obligatory "Schrankwand", right? 🙂
Anyway, let's blame MDR channel for its documentaries. Agreed? 😁

Don't know what you want to say with thet comment!? As I have said above...it's an urban legend that prefabricated buildings are only typical for (ex) COMECON states like the GDR...such buildings have been also built in western countries like West Germany (BRD) and other western countries...I saw them in so many Cities in West Germany and other western countries. And you say it in your own post...it's the "optimized" architecture of the 60s-80s for cars and people which should get fast to work with them living in a flat which looks like a million others.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 18:50:

By contrast, historic cities like Dresden spent a lot of time and money to recreate the historic city parts.
Not all cities in Germany had this luxury, though. Not all got the political and financial support needed.

The "recreated historic city part" in Dresden is a very small area in the historic city surrounding the reconstructed church of our lady and it's just facade, not originally rebuilt (except the church of our lady itself)...very most parts of the historic city district have been built up in 50s, 60s and later in 90s/00s/10s in the architecture of their time following the flat land it was after the clearance of WWII ruins. The "Kurländer Palais" was the last WWII ruin there. And BTW I don't know if it's luxury (and for whom?) if the "recreated historic city part" is mostly owned by investors from West Germany, that's very often the case with East Germany's cities. Dresden isn't a rich city...and now it has one bridge less.

kind regards
soggi

soggi wrote on 2024-12-06, 00:38:

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 18:50:

Urban legend.. 🙄 Just like the obligatory "Schrankwand", right? 🙂
Anyway, let's blame MDR channel for its documentaries. Agreed? 😁

Don't know what you want to say with thet comment!? [..]

My apologies, I didn't mean to anger you. My wording wasn't properly chosen, I do realize now. My bad.

I was refering to the GDR documentaries that are usually being aired on MDR.
That TV channel serves Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia and is known for a lot of GDR related programme.

Such as aforementioned documentaries, which often gave an insight on East German daylife before re-union.

That's why I jokingly mentioned the Schrankwand (wall unit), which was another -perhaps stereotypical- item often being associated with East German homes.

Because, according to the documentaries, the wall unit was an integrated part of the prefabricated buildings.:

In every home, so the story goes, citizens had their wall unit at exact same spot.
(Know one home and you know them all, so to say.)

Because that's what the floor plan had been provisioned for.
Other places in the home didn't have enough space for the wall unit.

Because, the wall unit was considered an standard item, just like the prefab buildings themselves.

Citizens who didn't want a wall unit also existed, of course.
They got quite creative in search of alternatives, refurbished old furniture from the flea market and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteldeutscher_Rundfunk

Anyway, my apologies for my comment. I had naively assumed you know what I meant to refer to.

That being said it's not first time I have trouble communicating with people from other side of the country. 😥

An acquaintance of our family was from Bernburg and our sense of humor, random thoughts and political views are quite conflicting to say at least.
Maybe due to a generational conflict, as well. But that's another story.

The whole reference to prefab buildings came to mind because of that acquaintance of ours, though.
That person does visit us once in a while and talks about the good old days, while simultanously having sort of an aversion against MDR as a broadcaster.
The presentation of the past is, um, inaccuracte according to that person.

Still, it's the only TV channel we can leave running in background without worrying during the visit. Also because of re-runs of old GDR TV shows, which are welcomed.
Other channels, especially news channels do make that person upset or uncomfortable.

Okay, I hope that posting wasn't too long.. I just felt you deserve an more thorough explanation here. I hope you don't mind. 😅

Best wishes, Jo22

Hmmm...my point just was that prefabricated buildings have been also built in western countries (a lot of them), not only in the GDR (and other COMECON countries)! The latter is the urban legend.

Nothing to apology, no blame - I just didn't know why you came up with "Schrankwand" and the MDR, because it has nothing to to with prefab buildings on first sight!? Nonetheless we also had several wall units and one of them and some other parts are still alive...but this is also something which was quite popular in West Germany in the 70s/80s. I never lived in a prefabricated building except for one year in the early 00s in Bayreuth...but in GDR times many if not most people wanted to live in them because there was central/district heating and running warm water. In our own house we got gas heating and running warm water in 1997, before that we had tiled and other stoves and one electric hot water boiler in the kitchen.

BTW I know all German ÖR TV radio programs. MDR sometimes is special, I know - but documentations about life in the GDR can also be seen on ZDFInfo or Phoenix and I also know people who say "I must have lived in another GDR!"...personally I only can speak for what attentive children can notice and I can remember many things, but nothing political, mostly daily life things. I also remember what the inner city of Dresden looked like in late 80s/early 90s and also saw photographs what it looked like before WWII and shortly after, there were sheep in front of the church of our ladies' ruin in the 50s.

kind regards
soggi

I see screen tearing in any OS without the compositor, doesn't matter if it's Windows 7 without DWM, XP or any flavor of Linux configured to run X without compositor.

Still have some printed material about XP (books, magazines). Must have turned every nook and cranny back then. There were some bells and whistles I never got to try on XP, at least I'm aware of hardware accelerated audio and EAX effects on Creative's sound cards.

When I got new computer in early 2009, I initially put XP on it while waiting for Windows 7 to come out. Sometime later, I noticed some maps in CoD:MW2 rendered noticeably slower on XP x86 than they did on 7 x64, gameplay just wasn't smooth. That was using one of the fastest graphics cards of the time, a Radeon HD 4890.

And this was the last time I ever ran 32-bit XP on bare metal, 15 years ago.

I don't really see vsync as a big deal on the GUI. It exists where it matters: inside a video player with the overlay mixer and full-screen games. Off the top of my head, I don't remember how DirectDraw windowed games looked like. Watching a video inside the web browser is not normal and is a compromise of efficiency. It would probably display OK if they embedded a conventional ActiveMovie window without overlayed controls that obstruct the view. I wonder if vsync for dragging windows would be technically possible without a performance impact.

Windows has always seemed to be behind in window composition. If you look at a game that has movable windows, such as Transport Tycoon Deluxe, the windows can be dragged around much more smoothly in a VESA mode on a low powered PC. I can't understand why Windows comes preset with smooth scrolling and newer versions with high colors when they look quite poor without an accelerated video driver and deliver a bad first impression when you have to unfold the timezone list or the keyboard selector in setup.

Living inside a Russian apartment has functional issues that trump its appearance. No control over heating and water supply, no ability to attach any cables to cement walls, filth from the tragedy of the commons, low level of privacy, giant modern windowed walls with poor insulation. I prefer the colors of a GUI that enables me to read it easily with comfortable contrast, so that it fulfills its function, not by my feelings towards a particular shade of grey. A grey UI panel allows items to be both highlighted and darkened to bring order. The Windows GUI got progressively bleached until it became completely white like a whitewashed hospital. Try to read a classic tab bar (without new common controls) on Windows 10, and they all blend together because there is no highlight possible.

The icon design peaked in Windows 2000/Me. You can't get those icons back by simply reducing the colors. Some remnants may exist in XP/Vista as the 16-color icons, while others are simply the truecolor icons reduced with banding and dithering. Installing drivers on Windows 98 did bring a nice enhancement to my eyes. The reddish panels of Windows 2000 are about as light as the GUI should get.