Friday, October 14, 2005

Vista screenshots

I've seen a few pix of what Vista will look like. Enough to know it's horrible - but then, I thought the same about XP, so no surprise there. I still use the Classic look: It may not be pretty, but at least it's not hideous.

So: Is it just me, or does anybody else get the impression that Microsoft finally latched onto the "Transparency is a cool feature" idea (After Linux and Apple have had it for ages, of course) but have no actual clue on how to use it in a particularly useful way?

See some screenshots if you haven't already

I mean, how does having the toolbar give a blurry impression of the window underneath improve the looks or the functionality? Are people really going to spend all the money on the high-quality monitors and graphics card Vista is going to require, just so they can have a blurred desktop?

Transparency for things like drop-shadows around windows are great - they add a real 3D quality that makes it much easier on the eye. And transparency in things like icons can be helpful, as you don't get glaring inconsistencies when you change the background colours.

But really - what does the Vista (Aero?) approach of turning the top of every window into a blurry mess really contribute to the look&feel? It looks like it was designed by a newbie who discovered a new toy and shoved it into every thing he could think of, instead of a professionally-designed, commercial desktop.

What a waste. . .

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home