Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Here's an interesting article: Vista UI Is a 'Step Back' for Microsoft

For a moment, I thought someone must have an odd job measuring "the fluidity and/or reactivity of an operating system to commands." But then again, the time it takes from clicking on a menu to when it completely appears is measurable. It's just I haven't heard of someone actually having done it. Anyway, to be able to support statements like these, you have to have the timings and compared it with XP.

Here's the interesting conclusion. The eye candy that is Aero (new UI for Vista) is actually worse than Luna (new UI for XP when it came out) in terms of wasting time - in the 3 benchmarks measured - menu latency: 20% slower; common desktop tasks (opening a folder, deleting files, etc.): 14% slower; mouse precision: 30% worse.

The article did not mention XP had its own ways of wasting time for the sake of making things look "nicer." I have turned these off, namely the fade effect/scroll effect for menus and tooltips and the shadows under menus. They may add only a fraction of a second to the act of showing a menu but with an aging computer, with loads of crud in the background, the effect is more pronounced. It turns out the latency in Aero will be even more - 20% more.

I know these things are probably not that significant in the grand scheme of things. Vista is such a huge beast that quibbles like these can easily get lost in the discussion. But it should have been addressed. After all, Microsoft spent billions of dollars and 5 years to develop it. I was hoping to Vista will fix simple everyday XP irritations like spending forever to show the contents under Start-All Programs or the interminable wait for the context menu to appear when I do a right click in Windows Explorer just so I can create a new folder.

I was considering Vista for when the time comes to get a new PC. But things are getting stacked against it. Higher cost, higher power consumption with Aero, incompatibility with my software and peripherals, etc. And now this. Maybe I can still find a vendor who sells XP OEM with a Vista upgrade coupon.

Sunday, February 04, 2007


I can't believe it's been some time since my last entry. So much has happened since.

One of the big news is the Windows Vista launch. Of course, this is somewhat anticlimactic. People have been beta testing it for so long and we read about it everyday on the web and in magazines for the past months. In fact, after reading too much, I think I have a good idea about using Vista for everyday computing. But before getting too much ahead, here are my major gripes. I have more but these are really annoying:

- Vista demands extravagant system requirements. Now, I understand that running a more capable, more modern operating system will require the appropriate hardware, which should be more powerful, as a consequence. And I'm prepared for that. In fact, I can wait and save up for the new hardware if it's necessary. But the question is, what does Vista do that justify the hardware it requires? Aero? IE7? Building indexes for the new search feature? Making it more secure with a new firewall and spyware? That's it? All of these things can be done by my current computer running XP and select freeware apps. Having the eye candy that is Aero is the biggest draw for most. After all, having a beautiful, new interface will always get people's attention. But that alone will not justify the cost of the new and more demanding hardware.

- Suppose you bought a new computer with Vista. You can not make 100% use of that new, superfast, dual-core processor and 2 GB of RAM. This is a gripe I have not just of Vista, but of Windows in general. Windows will take some overhead, that's for sure, and that's a given, especially with Vista. By the way, do you know (or need) all of those services Windows installed and have running in the background? But beyond these are the antivirus, firewall, and the collection of anti-spyware you will need to have peace of mind before plugging in online. Why is this a gripe? This is something every responsible computer user should have, right? Not really if Windows is more secure than it is. Apple is trumpeting zero viruses on OS X in their ads -- on TV. If that's not inviting virus, trojan, or worm attacks, I don't know what is. That's confidence in security.

- If you have a program, don't expect it to work with Vista. This is particularly true with antivirus and firewall software. But if you have applications you depend on, make doubly sure it will work on Vista. Else, it's back to spending some more for new versions.

- Aero will use up more power. This isn't nitpicking. Those new video cards that Aero requires will consume a lot more power than what your previous computers did. Even if you already had a powerful video card before, and were using it for heavy duty 3D gaming, you were only drawing more power while playing. With Aero, you are doing full 3D all the time. Even when you're only typing in Notepad.

I won't complain about device drivers. Microsoft has done pretty well in creating built-in drivers for a lot of devices. But it can not be expected to account for each and every device ever made, old and new, and have Vista drivers for these. That doesn't help if you have hardware that won't work with Vista. For me, I think I'll wait a while and see.

The fact that there were no long lines of people outside of stores for sales to start at midnight has a big symbolic meaning. Vista is not a must have. It's a nice to have. For now.