I knew it..Pretty Interfaces are just slow

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Dale White, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. Dale White

    Dale White Guest

    Dale White, Mar 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale White

    Justin Guest

    This was already brought up a while ago. See the thread, "An objective
    study that compares 3 OSs"
     
    Justin, Mar 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dale White

    Rich Guest

    This was already brought up a while ago. See the thread, "An objective

    Anything that has to call itself or be called objective ... isn't

    akin to the 'reality based' left ;)

    The new UI is plenty fast here ... and faster that the XP UI with the same
    set of installed applications

    now what?


    Rich
     
    Rich, Mar 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Dale White

    Dale White Guest

    Did you read the article, it was talking about user speed not system, speed.
     
    Dale White, Mar 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Dale White

    Dale White Guest

    Yeah, I figured someone already beat me to it. I didn't noticed until after
    the post that it was dated in Feb.

    As the great thespian Homer J Simpson once said...'DOH!"
     
    Dale White, Mar 21, 2007
    #5
  6. Dale White

    Rich Guest

    Did you read the article, it was talking about user speed not system,
    Thats even worse .. objectivity about someone else's navigational abilities
    on a new OS?

    thats has to be the summit of cherrypicking nits.

    "I bitch, therefore I am?"

    Rich
     
    Rich, Mar 21, 2007
    #6
  7. Dale White

    Dale White Guest

    I don't know about that. It's supposedly a measurable item. They tell X
    number of users to do X number of tasks, and they see how long it takes the
    users to do such tasks. By the report, it took the users 14% longer to do
    the same task with Aero than XP.

    An example of some of the time loss, is due to things like menu fading,
    which looks cool, but if you're waiting for one menu item to close and the
    other to open, it's lost time.

    The point of the article is that most OSes strive to make this time faster,
    but in Vista's case, the new interface slows users down..
     
    Dale White, Mar 21, 2007
    #7
  8. Dale White

    Justin Guest

    That's a bunch of bull. I want to see what exactly these people where told
    to do. I have 5 users that I upgraded from XP to Vista Business and they
    all screamed at first that it sucked and it's different, blah blah blah.
    When I took their new puppy away from them later on down the road they all
    screamed to get Vista back.

    That, among other things, is the exact data I needed for my upgrade
    proposal.

    As for "fade", XP has plenty of fade and scroll effects of its own. I bet
    they turned them all off, used low resource machines and left Aero alone.
     
    Justin, Mar 22, 2007
    #8
  9. It sounds like you don't like the results of the test. There is nothing that
    implies they cheated or that this researcher had an axe to grind with Vista
    or Microsoft. It was even noted, that you could turn off Aero to fix the
    "friction" but that would defeat the purpose of the test.

    Also, just because end users like the new Aero look, doesn't means it's
    faster or doesn't have "user friction" Another point that I thought was just
    me, is they talked about Mouse pointer precision, in which you click the
    wrong thing. I myself do this every so often in both XP and Vista, whichis
    why I hate that they have delete and rename so close together.

    This researcher also did the comparision with the MAC OS-X.

    I myself always run everything turned off, as I don't need or care for all
    that pretty stuff. So I gues now I can say that I run with less friction
     
    Dale M. White -LV32, Mar 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Dale White

    Justin Guest

    Not liking results has nothing to do with it. In fact there are no results
    in which not to like. In order to have results you have to something in
    which to result from. That article had no "from".

    Just because a "French analyst" makes up his own term "UIF" doesn't mean it
    equates to anything tangible.

    As was already mentioned, that French guy has written nothing more then a
    opinion piece. He never ties anything together. He mentions very specific
    things which MAY have been slower on HIS machines then tell us Vista is
    slower then XP. Never does he mention any of the improvements. For
    example, "menu latency". Menu what? What menus, which application menus
    and how are they slower? The common application menu bars are not slower
    then XP (they are both instant) and the start menu is leaps and bounds
    faster then XP. New system? Old system? The people performing the tasks,
    did they know XP? Did they know Vista? Which did they know better? There
    are far too many holes in his "theory" and far too many questions are
    raised. That alone shoots down the entire article. The basis of the
    research is biased unless he found people that either knew both systems well
    or didn't know either system at all.

    So, like I said, I want to see what exactly these people where told to do.
     
    Justin, Mar 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Dale White

    Charlie Tame Guest

    What that means is that your XP install had issues and was running slow....
     
    Charlie Tame, Mar 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Dale White

    Guest Guest

    More friction eh, posts like these are a continuation of consumer preference
    by other means.
     
    Guest, Mar 22, 2007
    #12
  13. Dale White

    Guest Guest

    Also in terms of menu latency MS's research is that setting it too low means
    many people can't use the menus.
     
    Guest, Mar 22, 2007
    #13
  14. I don't know Justin, it wasn't that hard to google his name and get the
    report
    http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/trend_vistauif.html

    Here's the actual report http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

    I would suspect that if PCworld posted it, it must have some credibility to
    it. It would see from reading most of the report, that their goal is simply
    to measure user friction of a user shell and report back. They clearly state
    that it's not meant to be a complete measurement of Vista.

    --Snip--
    What were we looking for?

    These User Interface Friction benchmarks are not intended as a complete,
    all-encompassing assessment of Windows Vista or of the new Aero user
    interface: the key goal of these efficiency measures was to establish how
    Windows Vista impacts some key areas of User Interface Friction observed in
    previous releases of the Windows operating system.

    The benchmarks compared Windows Vista running the new Aero user interface to
    Windows XP SP2 on one hand, and to Mac OS X 10.4.8 on the other.

    --Snip


    Seems like he's doing more than just writing an opinion about some random
    people he saw at the local internet cafe.
     
    Dale M. White -LV32, Mar 22, 2007
    #14
  15. I'd like to see the research that says, a menu that pops open the second I
    click it is a problem. The problem that the researcher noted is that windows
    menus, though visual pleasing , is apparently too slow for a productive
    user.

    This is why, even under XP, I turn all the different menu fading, and
    everything else off. I click it opens, I click it's gone. Obviously a
    personal choice, but I'll take speed over pretty.
     
    Dale M. White -LV32, Mar 22, 2007
    #15
  16. Dale White

    Guest Guest

    Not everyone has great psycho-motor skills. Solitaire was incl in Windows to
    teach the psycho-motor skills. Clicks don't have a delay - hovering over a
    sub menu has the delay. It's a setting and default is 400 ms.
    --
     
    Guest, Mar 22, 2007
    #16
  17. Dale White

    Justin Guest

    That PDF only strengthened my comments. There are too many holes and too
    many questions in the end.

    In addition to all this, you can turn off "GUI extras". I kill the fades
    and scrolls simply because I don't like the way they look.
     
    Justin, Mar 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Dale White

    Justin Guest

    Who said fade was pretty? Just curious.
     
    Justin, Mar 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Dale White

    Rich Guest

    Sorry Charlie ...

    Thats what you want it to mean.
    I actually means something you do not WANT it to mean

    Know what I mean?

    heh


    Rich
     
    Rich, Mar 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Dale White

    Dale White Guest

    I dunno, don't you think the menu fade was put there to be aesthetically
    pleasing ? Afterall, under the advance tabs, there is the options for Best
    Appearance and an option for Best Performance. Choosing best performance,
    task away all the "Appearance items" Whether anyone says, oooh that menu
    fade "was pretty" or whether they say 'That's cool that way it does that" is
    not overly important, and unless I'm missing something, options like Menu
    fade, Taskbar slide and the likes, don't offer anything in terms of being
    productive, Turning them off doesn't take away features
     
    Dale White, Mar 22, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.