Feeds

back to article 'Dated and cheesy' Aero ripped from Windows 8

Microsoft must really love Windows 8, or hate its legacy install base. The Aero interface introduced with the hated Windows Vista and perpetuated with the loved Windows 7 is being canned from Windows 8, the company has revealed. In another achingly long Windows 8 blog post, Microsoft called the Aero interface it once championed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Well you have to be fair here...

"Using journalists as your defence while expressing a problem with the negative comments of your actual audience on the Windows 8 blog? Things must be worse than we thought."

Everything that I have seen about Win 8 simply tells me that I am going to have to stick with XP, but really, the people most moved to used forums are people who want to complain. So the prevalence of negative comments on the Sinofsky's blog has to be taken with a little grain of salt. I would hope that Microsoft, and devs in general, have better ways of judging the opinions of their actual paying users, than *simply* and *solely* judging by the responses on official blogs. (Not that I am all that enthused about relying on journalists and bloggers either...)

10
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well you have to be fair here...

I hope they put blanks in the gun, or they might really shoot themselves in the foot over this.

However, sadly it will prevail as it will come standard on all new PC's.

I have always upgraded, but not this time, I hate the look of a mobile phone on a PC.

I shall wait for windows 9 which will, no doubt, put things right.

11
1
Anonymous Coward

Wow, I think you noticed it...

"Using journalists as your defence while expressing a problem with the negative comments of your actual audience on the Windows 8 blog? Things must be worse than we thought."

My thoughts exactly. Is this not what happened with the Mass Effect Game? But that's ok, as MS can patch Windows with an extended ending too. :D

(Anon, because it's only an opinion, the OS could end up good after all...)

9
0
Thumb Down

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

Lets see here:

Windows 95 sucked

Windows 98 was decent

Windows ME sucked

Windows XP good

Windows Vista was the second coming of ME

Windows 7 good

Windows 8 I predict will suck worse than the other failures combined.

And yes I know that there is more than good or bad with each of those OS but this list was to be general at best.

Thumbs down for Microsoft on this one. They need to find something that people don't want to kill then for and nurture it instead of piss off their customer base. As a pc gamer the choice for me is ovbious but the time is going to come where an alternative is as good or better. Mark my words.

23
8
Silver badge

If you want some sort of consistency with Windows

Go to the server versions. From a desktop point of view you have everything you need, without all the crappy stuff in the "consumer" versions, like simplified access right dialogues which allow you to lock yourself out of your data.

Just face it, Windows is legacy software, Microsoft won't make something affordable to replace Windows 2000 or XP. What they want to do now is consumer stuff.

8
0
Windows

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

havre to slightly disagree with that list

Windows 95 pretty good

Windows 98 buggy unstable mess

Windows 98R2 was Decent

Windows ME sucked

Windows XP good

Windows Vista was the second coming of ME

Windows 7 good

Windows 8 I predict will suck worse than the other failures combined.

6
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

I too disagree with that revised list

Windows 95 Buggy

Windows 95 OSR2+ not bad

Windows 98 buggy unstable mess

Windows 98se was Better

Windows ME sucked

Windows XP Buggy insecure mess

Windows Xp SP2+ Good

Windows Vista Good, but too demanding

Windows Vista Sp2, Good and Not that different to Win 7 but to late to the game

Windows 7 good

Windows 8..... Im not going to comment because I think you should just use it for a few weeks are see for yourself, Love it or Hate it, I don't care but do yourself a favour and try the bloody thing yourself and don't just assume or take other peoples words for the whole truth

So anyhow, this tick tock nature of Windows, good bad, that people seem to dream up is somewhat "rose tinted" with a couple of exceptions almost all Windows Major versions have been "fixed" and turned in to decent Operating systems after a service pack or two. Windows XP people was not good by a long shot to start with

We also seem to have forgotten 2000, and Windows 3.11 Both of which are good, which doesn't fit with the tick tock. Of course there is some irony with 3.11 given hat we are essentially moving back to that style of UIin Win 8 but, its worth pointing out that people of the time were in uproar about the Win 95 UI, saying its slow and inefficient.

12
2
Linux

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

Here's my experience:

Windows 95 pretty good

Windows 98 buggy unstable mess

Windows 98R2 was Decent

Windows ME sucked

Windows XP good

Windows Vista...

Ubuntu 6.04

OpenSUSE

Fedora

Ubuntu

Linux Mint

etc...

15
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

im not sure what you mean by those lists of Linux Distros, with out version info I assume That's your experience and your trying to be funny about ditching MS and moving to Linux after Vista? So since Vista was released, you've changed your OS at least 6 times?

give than Vista is what.. 5 an a half years old? and lets also assume that you actually tried out the OS for a while before binning it, means you have changed your OS once every few months. The really funny thing is that XP was like that, after a year it tended to grind to a halt oh the good old days ;) I upgraded my Vista PC to 7, vista in turn hadn't been reinstalled since 2008, so essentially ive not clean reinstalled for over 4 years and yet you feel the need to reinstall every few months a new distro…

Curious, but I cant say your selling the idea of Linux very well though.

apologies if I got you all wrong, but your list makes no sense.

8
5

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge

Re: If you want some sort of consistency with Windows

Except the makers conspire with MSFT to stop you

Server will only run signed drivers and the HW makers only supply 'server' drivers for their 'server' HW - that's why the same PC from DELL costs 2x as much on the server page

3
5

Re: If you want some sort of consistency with Windows

What hardware is hard to get going under Windows Server? I've connected all sorts of weird stuff to Windows 2003 R2 and 2008 R2 servers without issue - including some obscure USB anti-piracy dongles and at least 2 Nvidia Geforce cards.

3
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

I agree with everything apart from your last paragraph, you shouldn't be anon though, such words are refreshing an as a brief history of Windows its spot on

I think we can forgive the exemption of the NT branded lines though, it was a different development tree which started to join 9x (or more accurately replace 9x) at XP

They should have canned 9x and built upon NT4 long ago, NT4 wasn't bad at all, all be it, had shoddy USB and direct x support but it was a solid OS unlike its 9X cousins

2
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

> started to join 9x (or more accurately replace 9x) at XP

Nope. Win2K was from the NT tree. It even announced intself as NT 5.0.

> They should have canned 9x and built upon NT4 long ago

They did.

Vic.

4
1
Bronze badge
Holmes

@Vic - Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

>> They should have canned 9x and built upon NT4 long ago

>They did.

But not soon enough. The whole Win95/98/ME train wreck could have been avoided because even entry level PCs would have been capable of running a lightweight version of NT from about 1996 (when NT 4.0 was released). I ran the full version at the time, on a rig that was not cutting edge.

The reason MS persisted in two parallel lines of Windows (DOS>Win3.x>Win95>98>ME versus NT>2000>XP>Vista>7) was internal rivalry in MS that Gates put up with, instead of banging their heads together as he should have. Maybe he thought internal competition was good.

The public reason for persisting with the 95 line for so long, rather than offering an NT-Lite, was that "games would not run on NT" (because NT would not allow software to have direct hardware access). In fact, the games writers soon adapted when they had to.

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @Vic - Wow, I think you noticed it...

> The whole Win95/98/ME train wreck could have been avoided

I disagree. Ignoring ME (which should have been avoided at any cost), 95 and 98 did the task they were designed to do, and did it adequately.

NT4, on the other hand, caused more consternation than any previous version of Windows - perhaps more than any other version ever. It was OK if you had an IT department to look after the rollout; moving the general public to NT4 would have been disastrous for Microsoft as a company.

> I ran the full version at the time, on a rig that was not cutting edge.

As did I. But note that we are hardly the typical "home user" that Microsoft was trying to entice.

> In fact, the games writers soon adapted when they had to.

IIRC, it was more Microsoft's moves to enable direct(ish) hardware access that made gaming possible. NT was originally built with the "brilliant" idea to trap all graphics memory accesses and re-write to a window canvas. This immediately gave you windowing capability for any application - it didn't need to be written in a window-aware manner - but at the cost of being *really* slow. The assorted DirectX APIs allowed you to get around that.

Vic.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Vic - Wow, I think you noticed it...

@Nuke. Some say a fly on the wall on some of the Windows planning meetings in 1992 would have come away with the idea that NT would replace the DOS line in about 1995/6. Office politics yes, rivalry not really that was more in period before OS/2 became NT.

Whether that is indeed true I couldn't possibly comment.

It should never have taken 10 years to XP but to be fair MacOS was even more of a shambles in that era and Linus/Unix a total mess too. Personally I put it down to the rapid shift in hardware capabilities and the desire to do more that was actually realistic to do properly on PCs in the mid to late 90s.

0
0

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

I was at the UK launch of Windows 95 way back then. It was gratifying to hear the Microsoft presented say how bad Windows 3.11 was and how much better '95 was. So, that is their sales strategy. Tell the punters what a load of c**p they are using and promise them something, err, different!

0
0
Facepalm

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

My colleagues are working on a suboxone/methadone treatment for win-doze recidivists.

0
0
Bronze badge
Go

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

Actually:

Windows 98 SE ok, but Windows NT 4.0 much better.

Windows ME pile of poo, Windows 2000 much much better.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

im not sure what your point is, 2000 is from the NT line, I didn't dispute that, and it was the direct successor to NT4....but it was released at the end of 1999 and aimed at the professional market, a year later we had the bastard love child of ME which was 9x based but with much of its guts ripped out, XP came later and was the significant point at which NT and 9x "joined"

We also had various 9x builds after NT4, my point was they should have canned 9x when they got NT4 sorted out, not several years later, so whats your point?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Vic - Wow, I think you noticed it...

no one said we should have moved NT4 to the public because your right it wasn't designed for some people, what was said was that we should have moved directly from NT4 to an OS for the public. bypassing 9x

95 and 98 didn't do the task they were designed to do...."very well!" yes they did it, but it was a mess, a mess we had to live with for years to come

0
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

> 2000 is from the NT line, I didn't dispute that

You said : "it was a different development tree which started to join 9x (or more accurately replace 9x) at XP" - and that's simply wrong. It was Win2K which was intended to replace the 9x series. ME was purely for the hold-outs.

> aimed at the professional market

Not so. 2K was the fusion point - that's why they renamed it to 2k at the last minute. It had been NT5 up until then (and remained so under the covers).

> so whats your point?

My point is that they moved consumers onto the NT line at win2K, not WinXP as you asserted. IOW, they did pretty much what you bemoan their not doing...

Vic.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

Im sorry but your talking rubbish, Windows 2000 has the official name of Windows 2000 "Professional" I don't like quoting Wiki given that its not from the horses mouth so ill quote MS instead

"Among other improvements, Windows 2000 Professional simplifies hardware installation by adding support for a wide variety of new Plug and Play hardware, including advanced networking and wireless products, USB devices, IEEE 1394 devices, and infrared devices. "

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/history

You'll note that THIS is what I believe should have replaced 9x after NT4 but it wasnt, and it wasn't a "home" user desktop

but ill put Wiki in here for reference material only, I don't take this site however as 100% truth..

"It is the successor to Windows NT 4.0, and is the final release of Microsoft Windows to display the "Windows NT" designation.[5] It was succeeded by Windows XP for desktop systems in October 2001 and Windows Server 2003 for servers in April 2003. Windows Me was released seven months after Windows 2000 and one year before Windows XP, but Windows Me was not intended to be, nor did it serve as the successor to Windows 2000. Windows Me was designed for home use, while Windows 2000 was designed for business."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000

XP home was intended to replace 9x while XP professional was supposed to replace the direct NT linage, NT4 and 2000, only initially they took all that was good, mostly stable and mostly secure with 2000 and threw it out the window to "aid" the home users.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wow, I think you noticed it...

apologies copy paste fail

this is the quote from MS

More than just the upgrade to Windows NT Workstation 4.0, Windows 2000 Professional is designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on all business desktops and laptops. Built on top of the proven Windows NT Workstation 4.0 code base, Windows 2000 adds major improvements in reliability, ease of use, Internet compatibility, and support for mobile computing.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/history

0
0
Gold badge

Everything is supposed to look grey, flat and boring instead now?

This is part of the problem with Windows. It's can't simply evolve gradually, Microsoft have to keep knocking it down and rebuilding it all the time. Have they not learned from Facebook that a good number of people don't like drastic change?

16
1

If we're still using Facebook as an example, that probably means that people will bitch and moan for half an hour then actually notice that yes, the extra functionality that's been introduced in the new UI is actually quite good and then just get on with it.

Not to say that this'll happen with W8 but stranger things have happened.

6
6
Childcatcher

You know, reading these comments and having seen a thumbnail preview of the "new" look, it seems Microsoft is going back to the future since Win 8 looks like Win 3.1 without the window borders.

2
0

except that with Win 3.1 you could actually get to the programs you wanted with a few simple clicks, and not have to do away with the main interface to find anything. Aero is dated and cheesy, lets go back to big color blocks instead.

7
0
Silver badge

That would require..

The presence of said functionality.

I don't think Windows 8 has any.

0
0
Thumb Down

Tail wagging dog

I don't care whet they do with Aero, as long as I can run my desktop apps without having to find the right pixels at the bottom left of the display to start them!

10
1
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

"dated and cheesy"

This is why I love MS - they just can't help but embarrass themselves time after time after time. Ohh Microsoft what are you like!

Paris as she also seems to get off on public humiliation!

24
1
Paris Hilton

Re: "dated and cheesy"

Embarrassment? The only embarrassing thing I see is a tacit admission that Aero Glass, Windoze 7, and the "Ribbon" interface are just MickSoft pricking around with the interface, making changes for the sake of change.

Paris, also attracted to bright shiny new things.

2
1

Win 7

I'll be sticking with Windows 7, I just don't want to have to get used to the way Windows 8 works, it feels overly complicated, having to go through a billion windows just to add a user (who needs a windows live account) is a pita. Can see it being good for touch screen though but touch screen for a desktop isn't exactly an upgrade over a mouse.

Gnome Locker on Youtube though seems to detest Win 8 on tablets, got his father using it and his old man was all "yeah, if it's the same price as an iPad I'll go Windows on a tablet" so he led with questions where the only answer would be "oh, I'd go iPad". So, if a tablet comes with Windows 8 and is the same as or cheaper than an iPad, get it.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Win 7

"Can see it being good for touch screen though but touch screen for a desktop isn't exactly an upgrade over a mouse."

I was having this conversation with a colleague and made more or less the exact same point as the above. I said that I thought it was absolutely great on a tablet, but that for a desktop, whilst it wasn't exactly a disaster, was definitely a bit of a downturn.

They replied that the future was tablets and that desktops were on their way out. And I suddenly realized they might be right. In business use, people still want a monitor and keyboard. But outside of developers, most users would probably be happy just having Metro launch their "apps". They're not power-users. For leisure, browsing, etc. people are increasingly just wanting something they can lie on the sofa with and surf or ping friends or whatever. For which a tablet is better. There are a dozen scenarios where a proper desktop is better than a tablet. But they only add up to a smaller fraction of the total times a computer is used compared to when people are just surfing, doing v. light email and whatever. I was sure Metro was a real mistake. Now, I'm starting to wonder if MS have actually just skipped forward and taken things to their logical conclusion.

3
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Meh

Re: Win 7

@AC -

Your response indicates you think developers are too stupid to use a launcher.

Actually, most responses in this thread seem to be "I am too stupid to use a launcher".

And requiring business software means using the launcher to launch the business software. It's not rocket science, unless you're absolutely retarded.

I can't believe how many people commenting on the Reg forums consider themselves to be stupid and incompetent.

1
1
Silver badge
Linux

Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

Please?

12
0
Linux

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

Have you seen Gnome3? They just tried the same "Radical" "Innovative" & "belongs-on-a-damn-tablet" changes we see in Win8. I hate it just as much as Balmer's Metrosexual CP. I hope people have some choice other than what the Metro Consumer Preview looks like. At least with 'nix you have MANY choices for appearance.

16
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

Kde3 TO kde4 - cough sputter, cough sputter... Gnome2 to Gnome3, cough, sputter, bleah... where did the vomit bucket go.

Windows is actually late to the "let's through decades of productivity research out of the window and make everything Tablet/Phone-like" party.

KDE and Gnome tried to get there first. KDE is also the worst of the two by far because it tries to retain some backwards compatible look while replacing old UI concepts with "Activities" and other similar iPhonesque/Androidesque abominations in their APIs.

3
3
Silver badge

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

At least with KDE you can spend ten or fifteen minutes turning it back into something nicer. With Unity, I was pretty much stumped as to what I could do to improve it.

7
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

With KDE on Fedora its pretty stripped down straight off the USB Drive, cant speak to how it is on any of the other distros, but you dont even really need the 15 minutes trying to make it not look like some kind of mutated android-satan spawn.

In regard to unity, I think the only thing that can save it is a mercy killing. And Canonical seems to behave like Microsoft, if people hate it, they spend time, money and development resources on fixing it instead of making something right the first time.

In regard to Windows, whoever said buying the server versions seems to have it dead on, though from what I understand they're taking the GUI out of Server in the next version, which isnt the end of the world, but it will slow many many users, technicians and admins down, and honestly Id rather train to be more proficient in Bash than have to get pissed off that the Windows Shell doesn't do the same things.

3
0
Gold badge
Pint

Unity? Gnome 3? KDE4? Metro/WinRT?

Cinnamon. Problem solved.

For Debian base: http://linuxmint.com/

For RedHat base: http://linuxfordummies.org/installing-the-cinnamon-desktop-environment-in-fedora-16/

(Please also contribute to the Fedora bug here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 to help push the Fedora maintainers to include Cinnamon as a first class desktop environment in FC17!)

0
2
Gold badge
Thumb Down

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

Er, nothing wrong with KDE4 now.

When it first came out though........OMFG.

6
0
FAIL

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

I don't know where you get your information on KDE from but it is seriously misinformed

KDE defaults with a traditional-Windows feel with a slightly Mac-ish aesthetic, aand a lot better than that sounds. Unlike either of them two (or Gnome 3/Unity for that matter), KDE is infinitely customisable. That's where the whole Activities\Widget thing comes into it. Activities gives you a way to predefine what is displayed on the desktop (alongside desktop icons, you can get KDE to display other useful items too)

Put simply, Activities is not about redefining the desktop by any stretch, but allowing the end user to do so for their own needs if the traditional desktop doesn't work so well for them. The whole thing is about choice. Something Win8 won't give us

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Can we get Gnome and KDE to do three-point-turns, too, now?

Fluxbox.

*waves*

0
0

Er

wasn't highly rendered glass and graphically complex textures cheesy and dated when Aero was launched?

has it ever been anything other?

7
10
Silver badge
WTF?

Dated and Cheesy

Nope - it was that when it was released ... seriously - does anyone think that metro is going to make inroads into the main commercial installed base?

The UI is getting to be really stupid for many applications - I was watching the teller at my bank entering a deposit last week ... keyboard, mouse, keyboard, mouse, keyboard, mouse, cashdraw, mouse, keyboard, mouse .... print receipt ... duh!

4
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.