Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jan 2006 21:43 UTC
Windows In an interesting turn of events, Microsoft has said that the current Aero interface in the latest Vista build (the December CTP) is not the final UI, saying: "There are going to be GUI changes in Vista by the time the final release comes." However, not too long ago they claimed the current Aero UI was final. Will the real Microsoft developer please stand up?
Thread beginning with comment 89909
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: luna
by prismX on Fri 27th Jan 2006 02:23 UTC in reply to "luna"
prismX
Member since:
2005-08-19

Your arguments are very strong.
But The biggest problem of Windows GUI is that it does not really let to tweak it significantly changing parameters or just customize as it can be done for ex. in KDE. The concept of Windows GUI seems most logical, but this limited customizable pisses off a lot of people.
I always wondered why Windows cannot include a basic GUI packages and advanced buttons for further customization. The same could be said regarding the security, MS could configure different level of security and give choice to people during or after Windows install, or at least from the Control panel. If somebody is smarter, so always could be an advanced option.
The same mistake are made now in Vista, at least to this point: not everybody likes these colors (though I do like), so why not to give a choice to people...
Think about it...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: luna
by n4cer on Fri 27th Jan 2006 05:12 in reply to "RE: luna"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

But The biggest problem of Windows GUI is that it does not really let to tweak it significantly changing parameters or just customize as it can be done for ex. in KDE. The concept of Windows GUI seems most logical, but this limited customizable pisses off a lot of people.

Vista will have more customization options than XP. Currently the main customization options are around the color scheme. I don't know what additional options MS may add in later builds. I doubt there will be any way to dramatically change the rendering of windows, for example, without needing to use third-party tools like WindowBlinds.

There are shots of some of the current build's UI options here:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_5270_gallery_05.asp

The same could be said regarding the security, MS could configure different level of security and give choice to people during or after Windows install, or at least from the Control panel. If somebody is smarter, so always could be an advanced option.

Security is already configurable. Click on your user icon in the Start Menu (if you're using XP) and create a limited user account. You can also get more control over user permissions by right-clicking on My Computer | Manage | Local Users and Groups. You can edit system policy by typing gpedit.msc at the command prompt or in a Run box.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: luna
by yoursecretninja on Fri 27th Jan 2006 15:09 in reply to "RE: luna"
yoursecretninja Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm willing to bet that the reason why Windows has limited customizability is for marketing purposes. Windows is a brand not just a product. The Windows GUI, while designed for usability, has also been designed as part of the brand development. If you walk by someone using a Windows PC it is immidiately evident that they are running Windows and conciously (or subconciously) you take note of that. For a lot of people this influences there purchasing decision - they think about seeing all those people running windows. Same goes for Mac OSX. People probably don't notice machines running linux for the exact opposite reason (it allows tons of customization) unless they take the time to ask the person what operating system they are using.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: luna
by Ookaze on Fri 27th Jan 2006 16:04 in reply to "RE[2]: luna"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

The Windows GUI, while designed for usability, has also been designed as part of the brand development

From my experience with usability in Gnome and Windows, and with brand development on the Net, I have the strong belief that brand development and usability are not compatible, and so is very hard to do.
Even when your brand focus on usability like Apple does, it's still hard.

If you walk by someone using a Windows PC it is immidiately evident that they are running Windows and conciously (or subconciously) you take note of that

BS. It is not evident, because the contrary is false.
A lot of people asked me before how they could get their Windows to look great like mine. That's when I tell them that I run Linux. Then they stay in shock.
So I would rather say that those that know what Windows is are brainwashed (subconcious thing like you said) to assume that all PC run Windows.
Those that don't know what Windows is (most people I know) ask how they can make their 'computer' looks like mine.
Those that know what Linux is, tell me : "Wow, I need to install Linux soon". Given if they say "Linux" or a specific name of distro, I know right away their level of understanding.

For a lot of people this influences there purchasing decision

BS again. You imply that they have a choice. Those that know have a choice (and most of the time it's a losing battle), the others do not.

People probably don't notice machines running linux for the exact opposite reason unless they take the time to ask the person what operating system they are using

Same BS as before. Actually, people don't care, and people are brainwashed with the Windows way.
But they notice pretty well that it's not Windows that's running, but when it's all they know, they ask if it is what they know for the sake of not looking too ignorant.

Edited 2006-01-27 16:20

Reply Parent Score: 2