Author Topic: Vista Aero vs. Linux Compiz (Read 67354 times)

zridling · « **on:** April 14, 2008, 06:01 AM »

One of the things I've been impressed with from the start are the graphical capabilities on GNU/Linux. For example, programs that are coded — and not just ported — for Linux seem to have better graphics and UI than Vista. And while Vista's aero has grown on me, as has its customizability, the Compiz window manager is freaky-good.

Glyn Moody says: "I can attest to the fact that GNU/Linux is not just usable, it's a downright pleasure to use. In fact, I constantly marvel at how transparent open source has become: most of the time I'm simply not aware that I'm using it — it just works. This raises the interesting question: so what's missing? What more does open source need to do in order to capture the attention of the general user? I think the answer can be found on this YouTube video. As the aptly-named 'Digital Tipping Point' comments":

This video is a digital tipping point for several reasons. First, it is shows that Linux is now competing with market leader Microsoft's best products head-to-head on features. Second, this video is a digital tipping point simply because it has been viewed 3,312,062 times as of the time of this writing.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:29 AM »

LOL - Eye Candy is about right.

Trouble is Linux can compete on GUI Eye Candy but until serious software companies start producing Linux versions of software Linux is not really practical for the real world.

OK you can use it is an Office computer with Open Office - fine

Want to do anything with Graphics, Audio or Video - especially using pro type tools - then forget it.

I do think the video is disingenuous though - Windows is meant to be plug and play aware for hardware installation and in production versions of Windows it has (in my experience) done a pretty good job of acheiving that. A BSOD at a launch conference is pretty embarassing, true, but not as embarassing as Linux hardware support.

In order to run Linux effectively you have to buy hardware that is specifically supported - it usually isn't cutting edge hardware and in many cases you get an emulation of some clunky old hardware and non of the support for extra features for things like printers, scanners etc. just some generic driver that emulates an old Epson printer or similar.

Linux and WiFi - forget it unless you want to hunt down the odd adapter that works on eBay.

Anyway I thought one of the big criticisms of Vista was eye candy - why is Linux even trying to compete in the shallow eye candy stakes?

Sorry I promised I wouldn't write this response but couldn't stop myself.

f0dder · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2008, 07:12 AM »

Compiz is unstable anyway (OK, so it's a few months since I played with it), and once you've played with it for some days, you generally end up turning off the eyecandy because it's too distracting anyway.

Oh, and OpenOffice is unstable too, at least on Windows

(unless it's because of ClipX, clipboard extenders can cause weird problems... then again, I had those problems before using ClipX).

Anyway I thought one of the big criticisms of Vista was eye candy - why is Linux even tryi9ng to compete in the shallow eye candy stakes?

Because they're all a bunch of hypocrites, and because it's funnier writing graphical effects than documentation and bugfixing.

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2008, 11:16 AM »

As stated above, I dont understand what the big fuss is. Linux still lacks in application usability, compatibility, and functionality. You can dress it up all you want but even if you polish a turd, its still a turd. The lack of sufficient documentation for almost every application, the lack of an easy to understand and operate interface or option set, the abundance of bugs that are never fixed (check the age of some of the firefox bugs for an example), the feature wish lists added which are not added because none of the developers deem an idea as necessary. I can go on and on. There are several blaring issues that exist with linux which make it far from suitable as a desktop OS (I left out the biggest one, hardware support). Eye candy doesnt make an OS worthy, and I stand by this comment with vista as well.

Edvard · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2008, 11:36 AM »

Gee, for some reason I must have missed the boat here...
According to the reasoning of folks who in all likelihood may be much wiser than me, I should have a spare fire extinguisher, emergency radiation suit and life insurance policy upgrade because I choose to run Linux at home.
I do all kinds of stuff with my Linux boxes, and less (I said LESS) headaches than I ever had with Windows. Seriously. I won't go into details.

If anybody has such an Issue with Linux, I have a simple solution:
Don't use it.
I too, fail to see what all the fuss is, so let us fanboys happily compute away with an operating system that somehow magically works for us and nobody else.

Sorry I promised I wouldn't write this response but couldn't stop myself.

Spot on, Carol. I've already said once that I was going to take my GNU and go home.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2008, 11:55 AM »

even if you polish a turd, its still a turd
-Josh (April 14, 2008, 11:16 AM)

Have you tried this ?

I too, fail to see what all the fuss is, so let us fanboys happily compute away with an operating system that somehow magically works for us and nobody else.
-Edvard (April 14, 2008, 11:36 AM)

Fine - I am not saying that Linux doesn't work or that Open Source OSes are bad in principle. The problem is that there isn't the software available that a lot of people need to make Linux a workable option and hardware support is at best patchy.

For example, I use PhotoShop a lot - the GIMP (whilst worthy) is not a viable alternative for me. Similarly for Sony Vegas etc. for video.

If all I wanted to do was to write letters, a bit of spreadsheet stuff, surf the web and send/receive emails then Linux would absolutely be the way i would go - and I would buy a suitable printer and scanner to make it worth my while. Unfortunately I want my expensive computer to do more than that.

Edvard · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2008, 12:40 PM »

For example, I use PhotoShop a lot - the GIMP (whilst worthy) is not a viable alternative for me. Similarly for Sony Vegas etc. for video.

My point exactly. If those things work for you, please use them. I can't figure out Photoshop or Illustrator for the life of me, but I can't work up enough about it to complain, I'm doing amazing things in Inkscape (amazing to me, anyways), and I know of more than one professional who uses Gimp exclusively and no-one questions the quality of their work. To each his own, I guess.

If all I wanted to do was to write letters, a bit of spreadsheet stuff, surf the web and send/receive emails then Linux would absolutely be the way i would go - and I would buy a suitable printer and scanner to make it worth my while. Unfortunately I want my expensive computer to do more than that.

Carol, you know as well as I do that Linux can do WAY more than that, and do it well. From other things you wrote, I gather much of your beef with Linux is that there is not a Photoshop version for it, WiFi is still spotty, and it won't recognize your scanner. If I were in your shoes, I certainly would find those things annoying in the least, and those types of things are exactly the "Digital Tipping Point" we're all waiting for.

But don't blame those things on Linux, please.
Blame Adobe (they made a fully capable Adobe Reader for Linux, what's the hold-up with the rest of their offering?).
Blame hardware manufacturers with Microsoft's fingerprints on their bankroll that won't allow them to release a decent API for open source driver developers.
Remember, the folks coding the drivers and interfaces are most of the time flying blind in their spare time, and still they've managed to cobble together a serious contender to the biggest player in the field.

As for documentation and bugfixing, I agree. At least you can email and bug the author about them. Even if it doesn't get fixed, you have had your voice. Try emailing the author of MSOffice's "Ribbon". Oh wait... you can't.

Back On Topic:
Open Source has done more than it's fair share of trying to grab attention, and it has succeeded (you don't get sued because you sat in the corner...). As I just mentioned, what is needed is more support from outside, namely more commercial apps available for Linux. (Games and "Professional" applications are the biggies here...)and Open API's for hardware interfaces.
I can't think of much more, but those are certainly the big ones I can see...

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:00 PM »

Blame hardware manufacturers with Microsoft's fingerprints on their bankroll that won't allow them to release a decent API for open source driver developers.

Please, don't blame Microsoft for this. Blame Linus for refusing to do a stable kernel ABI, and the GPL mentality of refusing closed-source stuff. And blame intellectual property, as well as the fear of being ripped off when you've paid millions of dollars for research and development.

Amazingly enough, though, AMD/ATI is opening up their graphics hardware documentation, Intel has already released very comprehensive full 2D/3D documentation for their embedded graphics, and it's rumored that Nvidia might be following suit.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:15 PM »

even if you polish a turd, its still a turd
-Josh (April 14, 2008, 11:16 AM)

Have you tried this ?
-Carol Haynes (April 14, 2008, 11:55 AM)

It's been done before!

Spoiler

http://goldenstool.org/

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:28 PM »

Blame Adobe (they made a fully capable Adobe Reader for Linux, what's the hold-up with the rest of their offering?).
Blame hardware manufacturers with Microsoft's fingerprints on their bankroll that won't allow them to release a decent API for open source driver developers.
-Edvard (April 14, 2008, 12:40 PM)

Actually I have contacted a number of hardware manufacturers (including Linksys, Netgear and Canon) to ask why their hardware doesn't have Linux support. The two common threads in response seem to be first (and most important) money - why should they develop drivers for hardware that would sell in tiny quantieis for Linux - there is simply no return on such investment whereas supporting Windows (and even Mac) has a cash benefit. Secondly the number of competing distros makes developing anything much difficult especially as they all have their own quirks for installation and folder structures etc.

Carol, you know as well as I do that Linux can do WAY more than that, and do it well. From other things you wrote, I gather much of your beef with Linux is that there is not a Photoshop version for it
-Edvard (April 14, 2008, 12:40 PM)

Not really - although this is a consideration. Photoshop is just an example - I'll stick with it because it makes the point but it equally applies to audio and video authoring software. If users have invested hundreds or even thousands of pounds/dollars in software it is unrealistic to expect them to move to an OS that supports none of that mainstream software and because of that the migration of the larger user base is slow to non-existant.

There are open source alternatives for most software titles but they are usually not as easy to use (the GIMP, for example, has always been impenetrable to me and I have tried to get to grips with it numerous times), usually playing catch up in terms of what they can do and don't produce file formats that are generally accepted in the professional market. At the end of the day the professional world drives the software market - which is why PhotoShop has become the de facto standard in image editing. It is unrealistic to expect Adobe to code products for Linux when there is no market to buy the product. This is also partly the fault of the open source community because most people who use Linux seem to expect that all software to be free and there is no way Adobe is going to spend millions developing a product which they give away for nothing.

As for documentation and bugfixing, I agree. At least you can email and bug the author about them. Even if it doesn't get fixed, you have had your voice. Try emailing the author of MSOffice's "Ribbon". Oh wait... you can't.
-Edvard (April 14, 2008, 12:40 PM)

Really - how do I email somebody called zog somewhere in the Ukraine ?

Seriously - how would I write to the developers of the GIMP and expect an answer - it just isn't realistic. If it were there would be no development at all as they would be permanently swamped with good ideas from users.

Realistically if this is a criteria you should hope that Linux distros and apps remain a niche geek market - if it ever becomes anything like mainstream there will be major issues about contacting developers as there is in every major software market.

Parting shot and then I'll shut up - if Linux is so perfect (as most Linux worshippers seem to think it is) why can't they even give it away?

Darwin · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:31 PM »

even if you polish a turd, its still a turd
-Josh (April 14, 2008, 11:16 AM)

Have you tried this ?
-Carol Haynes (April 14, 2008, 11:55 AM)

It's been done before!

-cranioscopical (April 14, 2008, 01:15 PM)

How do you come up with these things, Chris?! What search terms did you run through Google?

Edvard · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:42 PM »

Actually I have contacted a number of hardware manufacturers (including Linksys, Netgear and Canon) to ask why their hardware doesn't have Linux support. The two common threads in response seem to be first (and most important) money - why should they develop drivers for hardware that would sell in tiny quantieis for Linux - there is simply no return on such investment whereas supporting Windows (and even Mac) has a cash benefit. Secondly the number of competing distros makes developing anything much difficult especially as they all have their own quirks for installation and folder structures etc.

Both VERY bad justifications. Especially when NOT developing for Linux is going to LOSE them money to competitors who WILL. As for the folders thing, that's a cop-out. There are places where drivers go that does not change. They would know this if they did any serious research. As long as the kernel can communicate with it, and it does what it says on the tin, well... good. Nvidia figured this stuff out a long time ago, and I don't see them losing a dime over it. And if you want to install a fancy gui and some power user tools there's always /opt.

there is no way Adobe is going to spend millions developing a product which they give away for nothing.

They don't have to. Nobody ever said that just because you're running Linux, you're automatically looking for a handout from big bad software corporation. Yes, it's a niche market. But look at how many of the current software "killer apps" started out as a niche market? Adobe can charge the same price and nobody would flinch, they would be seen as a market leader and folks who have been itching for an excuse to go to Linux for whatever reason would now have one more reason to do so and Adobe wouldn't lose a customer. So far, nobody has been that brave. Adobe has already done it with Reader- a free product. Real has done it. Flash has been successfully ported to Linux. Trust me, when they figure out how to make money with it (and many already have) it will happen, period.

Really - how do I email somebody called zog somewhere in the Ukraine ?

If it's open source, you probably would never have to. But you could.

Seriously - how would I write to the developers of the GIMP and expect an answer - it just isn't realistic. If it were there would be no development at all as they would be permanently swamped with good ideas from users.

Personal response is not necessary. Read any major software project's bug tracking logs. All logged by users emailing or posting "I got bug X in build XYZ". Maybe not the most helpful, but at least there is a place for that to happen. Bugs get fixed the same way they do with other software... because enough people squawked. Easy bugs get fixed before hard bugs, and sometimes not at all, that's just the way it goes. Windows software is not immune from this either.

Parting shot and then I'll shut up - if Linux is so perfect (as most Linux worshippers seem to think it is) why can't they even give it away?

Some friends of mine had a dog they wanted to give to me. Purebred, all papers included, sweet tempered, loves children, house trained, everything. Perfect.
One problem.
I did not want a dog.
Nothing wrong with dogs, nothing wrong with this particular dog, but they could not give it to me because I did not want it. Under different circumstances, perhaps I would be overjoyed at my friend's kindness to me in offering such a wonderful dog for me to own, free of charge.

You do not want Linux....

P.S. I never said Linux was perfect, and worshipping it is absurd. I am only doing what (very) little I can to defend my usage of it against the torrent of misconceptions about it.
Now I'll shut up too...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2008, 03:23 PM »

You do not want Linux....
-Edvard (April 14, 2008, 02:42 PM)

Actually that is the point - I DO WANT LINUX.

I have downloaded numerous distros (Fedora, UBUNTU to name just two that get good reviews) installed them and tried them , I have downloaded boot from CD versions and have even bought 3 different 'Pro' versions of distros (Corel/Debian, Mandrake and SUSE) over the years in the hope that one day I can ditch Windows - it is even more important given the pile of poo that is Vista. Trouble is I have yet to find any version that works without a large amount of compromise - not even taking into account the lack of software availabilty even if you are willing to pay.

Until I can do it without chucking out practically everything I want to do with a computer or making seriously bad compromises I can't see how it is a viable option.

Since the first time I tried Linux I have owned 5 different printers (including HP. Lexmark and Canon) and 3 different scanners - not one of them had a driver that worked properly in any version of Linux I have tried. What am I supposed to do if I can't use my printer properly? I am not saying I couldn't print but the quality that the kludge drivers provided was laughable.

OK I can buy a proprietary piece of software that will allow me to use my current Canon printer (costs $30 so no big deal really) so the drivers are out there but even that, whilst providing good paper printout and specifically supporting my printer model, does not support all the functions of the printer such as choosing paper source or printing to printable CDs.

I have also had numerous sound cards - audio is important to me as I have my machine partly set up as a recording studio - and yet the only drivers I can find that work (sometimes, sometimes not) are ancient 16 bit Soundblaster drivers. Even windows has numerous open source projects for audio drivers (eg. ASIO4ALL and KMixer) so it can't be beyond the wit of man to produce something that works consistently for Linux and has something approaching quality.

I don't understand why I have been saying for years that I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO LINUX at least as a dual boot for most of my stuff but for the last 5 years it has simply not been possible.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2008, 04:31 PM »

I, too, like the idea of a move to Linux.
Business stuff that I use (both hardware and custom software) locks me into Windows.
Were I to close out the business stuff I'd probably be happy to change.

For me, it's not worth the bother of running different OS's on different machines. I did that for enough years, in the past, that the fun has rather drained out of it. Come to think of it, it never was all that entertaining having to reconfigure the floppy drives (yet again) to handle a different dialect of, say, CP/M.

Edvard · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2008, 04:53 PM »

Sorry, that was a response to your "parting shot" not an assessment of yourself

Seriously, my best advice would be to keep trying. You're in that percentage of potential users whose hurdles are higher than most, and folks like you are what the "community" is supposed to be for...

I have an HP all-in-one I bought about 5 years ago. When I first hooked it up, the driver situation was bad. Then again, the open-source drivers and toolkit was a fledgling project in a corner of HP's website and I was trying to compile on a Slackware 10 system. 2 years later I discovered Ubuntu and gave it a go.
Today, I am using Xubuntu and it all works. Printing, scanning, the whole bit (I haven't figured out faxing, but who in the heck faxes anymore?). Admittedly, the printing situation in Linux is in different territory from Windows and some things just aren't there, but the moral of the story is it will be.
I also had a Lexmark and well, we won't go there...

I have had more success with sound cards than with anything. What kind do you have?
I have used (successfully) a handful of different Sound Blasters, an Ensoniq 13-something and an Intel 4270 (i think) that doesn't work unless I set the sample rate to 48000

(but I get 8.4 msecs of latency... w00t! :thumbsup: ). Eventually I will upgrade to a M-Audio Audiophile or Delta-4 (at least), and I have been assured that Linux drivers for them are not lacking.

Yes, you will have to make some compromises, many painful. But if you want it bad enough, you'll get there. Really.
In my experience, you have to do a lot of reading to piece together what may be wrong when something goes wrong.
You have to spend a lot of time at a terminal to get at the guts of whats going on.
You have to spend a lot of time at the Google looking for answers and trying... every... one... (that's not easy on a dialup connection

)

I am sure there will come a day when every software package comes in a Linux version, all hardware works as well as it does on Windows, and sitting in front of a Linux machine will be a welcome break from Microsoft's train wreck, instead of the other way around. But it won't happen if people keep giving up.

Don't give up.

Business stuff that I use (both hardware and custom software) locks me into Windows.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is keeping a LOT of folks who COULD and WANT to switch from actually doing so. It's called vendor lock-in and it tastes funny. But if it works, and there is not an alternative, then "want to switch" isn't going to taste any better.

Lashiec · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:17 PM »

Uh, I thought this thread was about Aero vs. Compiz...

Going back to the original topic of the thread, both fail because they're in opposite corners. Aero is a wonderful technology, but Microsoft couldn't make anything remotely useful with it, Flip3D looks cool at first, but it does not enhance the computing experience in any way, and gets old after a while. Thank God for 3rd party developers (Microsoft, copy Expose, god dammit!).

Compiz is also really cool, but it's cloying IMO. They pack too many animations that does absolutely nothing, apart from getting in the way. One of my friends has this cool looking effect for minimizing windows in her laptop, which simulates a paper plane, but oh my, it's makes computing so slow. Thankfully, most things can be configured, though there are too many. I guess Mac OS X got it right from the start *hides*

BTW, I find funny the guy shows the superior 'hip' effect of Beryl, yet at the same time the guy seems to be working on something for "Rincón Macorisano"

Intel has already released very comprehensive full 2D/3D documentation for their embedded graphics
-f0dder (April 14, 2008, 01:00 PM)

Intel + 3D graphics + embedded chips = Not computable

. And they had sound cards as well?

For the record, I'd say that so far I had excellent luck with hardware support under Linux, all of my peripherals and components were supported out of the box, including the printers. Good karma, I guess

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:30 PM »

Intel has already released very comprehensive full 2D/3D documentation for their embedded graphics
-f0dder (April 14, 2008, 01:00 PM)
Intel + 3D graphics + embedded chips = Not computable . And they had sound cards as well?
-Lashiec (April 14, 2008, 06:17 PM)

To be fair, not all of the integrated intel graphics are bad - won't do high-end gaming, but that's not the idea of integrated graphics after all. Also, I think a big part of the problem with integrated intel graphics the last few years is driver-induced, not because of bad hardware...

As for sound, I don't think they've actuall done sound cards (or integrated sound) - I thought they did, but it seems that intel's part is "just" the HD audio bus, while <whatever> other stuff is handled by 3rd party vendors, like realtek and analog devices.

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:40 PM »

I can't speak for Compiz, but I rely heavily on AERO anymore to keep my workflow going (open ~15+ windows and try to talk to 5+ people online at once and see how far you go before you ponder insanity).

Several applications I use rely on the AERO interface to run (Switcher, for example). I hate having to use an XP machine anymore because I lose not only the "feeling", but also the capabilities that I have to utilize. No little pop-up images of programs in alt-tab or over taskbar buttons. No 3D window flipping. ObjectDock window previews don't work without AERO. The list goes on. And plus, it is just way more eye-catching than a big blue taskbar (or the gray one on Xubuntu).

Armando · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2008, 01:18 AM »

I can't speak for Compiz, but I rely heavily on AERO anymore to keep my workflow going (open ~15+ windows and try to talk to 5+ people online at once and see how far you go before you ponder insanity). Several applications I use rely on the AERO interface to run (Switcher, for example). I hate having to use an XP machine anymore because I lose not only the "feeling", but also the capabilities that I have to utilize. No little pop-up images of programs in alt-tab or over taskbar buttons. No 3D window flipping. ObjectDock window previews don't work without AERO. The list goes on. And plus, it is just way more eye-catching than a big blue taskbar (or the gray one on Xubuntu).
-wreckedcarzz (April 14, 2008, 06:40 PM)

That is all fine if you bought your computer/laptop this year. Compiz-fusion is much more "old hardware" friendly than aero, and, yes, compiz is damn fluid (and IMO, MS should be ashamed of Aero... All that money for... zzzzwwwaaaattth??). In any cases, I like/am used to my old windows classic theme... sorry!

[off-topic] I haven't been using Linux a lot recently. Like Carol and others, I'm following the progress but have become a bit tired of trying to use it on a regular basis -- haven't got to many hardware problems with my dell Inspiron 6400 (really -- see my comments on that subject in another thread), but there are these software I just can't stand NOT having.

However, I'm not loosing hope... To be fair, I find that Linux and OpenSource software have made incredible progress in the last 8 years. Really. Much more than windows, I'm pretty sure (compare the last PCLinux OS, Ubuntu or Mandriva with Caldera's Open Linux, or the old RedHat and Suse... And compare Windows NT 4.0 with XP/Vista. See which one progressed more... in terms of user friendliness, flexibility, stability, security, etc.). So I'm still hoping. Like Carol said : "Actually that is the point - I DO WANT LINUX."

And just for the sake of healthier (desktop) computing... Linux is an incredibly important player. No? [/off-topic]

PS : BTW the blue screen at the end of the video (zaine's link)... priceless. Buggy closed source software ? You bet. I've had sooo many bugs in software that I've paid for. Let's talk about those... Shall we ?

JoTo · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2008, 01:35 AM »

Can't understand all this fuzz!

For me, eye candy is absolutely useless! I need Aero or any other graphical hype like a fish a bicycle needs. Meaning: NEVER!

There were really good programs, i uninstalled again only because their authors have the opinion to invent and use new graphical sensations in their GUI. Even if the program itself was a real pearl.

I want to work with my pc and so i prefer a fast, informational GUI without any whistles and bells. The only case i need eye candy is, when i play a game and need the "game atmosphere" as well. But then the games normally bring its own GUIs with them.

Go away from me with this cpu and hd-space consuming, irritating, candyshop, good for kiddies stuff.

Windows-XP Classic style for my desktop pc and bash shell for my linux server is all i need.

Sorry, call me a dinosaur or a philistine! But this is my opinion!

Greetings
JoTo

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2008, 03:58 AM »

Several applications I use rely on the AERO interface to run (Switcher, for example). I hate having to use an XP machine anymore because I lose not only the "feeling", but also the capabilities that I have to utilize.
-wreckedcarzz (April 14, 2008, 06:40 PM)

Here is Windows XP. I have 12 applications on the taskbar - if I want to choose quickly between them I use a single mouse click which shows me an image of every task currently open on my desktop. I simply click the one I want.

Vista Aero vs. Linux Compiz

It is just as functional as Aero - thumbnails and scrolling 3-D nonsense. In fact I think it is rather clearer than the 3-D nonsense which I find simply distracting, plus you have to scroll through all of the windows to find the one you want.

What software an I using? A microsoft mouse with their driver MS IntelliPoint installed. I reprogrammed one on the side buttons on my mouse to do this (2 clicks in the driver settings). (There is also a freebie in the form of one of the Windows XP PowerTools that does almost the same thing - and not even Vista Ultimate gets the PowerTools any more - some of the most useful addons MS has ever produced for Windows!)

Actually if you want to scroll through your apps on Windows XP like the Aero interface it is built into windows ... Alt TAB does precisely that ... it also has the benefit that you see every application full screen and fully rendered.

iphigenie · « **Reply #21 on:** April 15, 2008, 04:30 AM »

I agree with Carol

Yes the interface cleverness is important, but it is the applications that matter - else we would all be using next or OS/2

I regularly try linux/bsd on the desktop, and what stops me is not the window manager, it is the thought of having to relearn how to use a whole bunch of applications. Finding what to use to reproduce the tools and shortcuts that I use.

It's not really the big apps - I can imagine learning to use any of the linux photo software over time, and I havent had years of training and use in one piece of software to unlearn (which would be very hard - although there is a gimp add on which makes it more like photoshop in the interface and keyboard shortcuts, i am told). It is all the utilities, the email client, website archive, and all the little interface tweaks. It's 10 years of trying stuff and keeping the best and building a toolbox that fits me.

Comfort and habit with the tools is a good thing for productivity.

Even Vista irritates me, I am so used to XP

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #22 on:** April 15, 2008, 05:08 AM »

I can't speak for Compiz, but I rely heavily on AERO anymore to keep my workflow going (open ~15+ windows and try to talk to 5+ people online at once and see how far you go before you ponder insanity). Several applications I use rely on the AERO interface to run (Switcher, for example). I hate having to use an XP machine anymore because I lose not only the "feeling", but also the capabilities that I have to utilize. No little pop-up images of programs in alt-tab or over taskbar buttons. No 3D window flipping. ObjectDock window previews don't work without AERO. The list goes on. And plus, it is just way more eye-catching than a big blue taskbar (or the gray one on Xubuntu).
-wreckedcarzz (April 14, 2008, 06:40 PM)

Funny you should say that,
I feel the exact opposite,...
I'm so used to 2d GUI's and minimalism, that whenever I get too much eye candy on my desktop I start to miss the 2d feel. And honestly most of it seems very impractical to me. I like the snappyness of a simple gui. I don't want to wait the extra 10ms for some thing to fade or flip or whatever other effect. Also, I find that many times the added visual complexity just works counter-productive. I have used compiz for about 2 weeks or so, until I finally got rid of it. At first I really loved it. The eye candy is really beatiful. I had the rotating 3d cube, wobbly windows, etc,.. It was very pleasing to the eye, however, after a while when the novelty wore off, I had to get rid of it, simply because I felt i was working less efficient.

[Off topic]
I've been using GNU/Linux as main OS for everything now. I havent' touched windows in a very long time and every time I do it feels very clumbsy. I couldn't imagine ever using it as a production OS anymore.

As far as wifi goes, I only recently started to use wifi, and I must say I'm impressed with the quality of the GUI tools. Using a linksys pcmcia card, which was immediatly detected. I never had to touch a config file. I'm sure it won't be the case with all hardware, but out of the 4 computers I run Gnu/Linux on, not a single one has had problems with drivers or hardware. It must be just me.

I'm honestly a bit dissapointed that this topic started with such immediate Linux bashing(which seems to be a trend lately in any topic remotely related to Linux) while instead it was about Compiz and Aero.

Obviously some people have a lot of beef with it, and for other people it works great, somehave a lot of beef with the mainstream OSes... I think we've been beating the dead horse enough now,...

f0dder · « **Reply #23 on:** April 15, 2008, 06:30 AM »

I agree with Gothic wrt. snappiness and eye-candy. 10ms is a loooong time to wait for a window to minimize/whatever. I like my visual theme simple & elegant - sworn user/lover of 2k/XP classic theme for quite a while. After seeing the screenshot in this post, I ended up patching uxtheme.dll (shame on MS for not allowing 3rd party themes...), then ran off and installed ClearLooks. The widgets are approximately the same size as windows classic (ie., not much wasted screen space), and the look is pleasant.

Now, as for eye-candy, there's a (very) few Vista/Aero things I miss in XP. NT has been hardware-accelerated for quite a while, but not with double-buffered graphics. This means that if you move a window rapidly, you will see tearing/shearing - Vista/Aero does away with this. Also, the realtime updated taskbar-processes mouse-over and alt-tab views of what's going on in other apps is very nice. This can be faked on XP, but it does so clumsily and error-prone by taking screenshots.

Aero does require a bit too much juice on older computers though, I dunno if it's because of bad design or just some current driver issues etc. Also, the lack of customization possible when aero turned on is absolutely horrible, wtf. can't I change the "selected item bar" color, for instance? The aero default is about impossible to see on a laptop screen as soon as there's the smallest amount of sunlight.

nontroppo · « **Reply #24 on:** April 15, 2008, 09:06 AM »

I've seen compiz runnnig fine on a laptop Aero refuses to run on. And compiz looks prettier to boot!

As I'm engaged in the great Vista experience at the moment, but having been used to OS X, Aero fails pretty miserably in functionality terms. And I founds apps as functional as Vista for XP for window managment. So Vista has nothing I can't get out of XP. Neither can get me close to the functionality I'm used to in OS X. And Vista utterly fails to run on hardware Compiz or OS X does. I still prefer Aero aesthetically to XP classic (though it still suffers from lots of little ugly details), and I intend to persevere with Vista as part of my experiment. But underwhelming is my experience of Aero so far. I've not had to work with compiz, but it looked more flexible from what I saw...