Suggestion / questions - build 5308

I installed this this morning and been playing with it since.

A few comments:

Where is all the eye candy we were supposed to have? Where is everything
that justifies the requirements for powerful GPU with a lot of mem?

Sure there are some pixel shaders (the shine around minimize/maximize), and
transparency and shadows below windows, but I've seen all that already with
WindowFX (StarDock program) on Windows 2000 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about he demos MS showed on WinHec (I think it was 2002) with windows
flewing when moved like a flag in a wind, and it was possible to resize
running programs (calc, Notepad) so that everything (icons, menus) grew.

I really really really hope that this isn't the final UI, because if it
is...oh boy. The Apple / Linux folks will have a field day with this.

And no, I don't think Vista should be full of eye candy to make it
un-usable, but it should have the option to turn animations etc on if the
users so wished.

And what about smooth-scrolling (as seen on Max)? Why isn't that part on
Vista (when resizing WIndows Explorer etc)?

Why hasn't NotePad, WritePad, Calculator or Paint been improved in anyway?
Paint is the same program it has basicly been for 15 years!!!!!! Mail
(=OutLook 7) might be nice program, but all the new stuff seems to be under
the hood, at least I didn't find really anything different between OL6 and
Mail.

I'm sorry, but if Vista is only new stuff under the hood (=Indigo, Avalon,
new kernel, security etc etc) without any eye candy or improvement to the
actual programs...a lot of people will just shake their heads and wonder what
took MS 5 years.

All those "under-the-hood" stuff could have just been inserted into Windows
XP SP3....

Please someone prove me wrong.

5308 did not.

> Where is all the eye candy we were supposed to have? Where is everything
> that justifies the requirements for powerful GPU with a lot of mem?

The Glass, the pixel shaders, the new technologies? It's not all about eye
candy, it's about the overall performance!

> Sure there are some pixel shaders (the shine around minimize/maximize),
> and
> transparency and shadows below windows, but I've seen all that already
> with
> WindowFX (StarDock program) on Windows 2000 6 years
> ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite true, but that's not true pixel shading. That's just rollover imaging
;o)

> What about he demos MS showed on WinHec (I think it was 2002) with windows
> flewing when moved like a flag in a wind, and it was possible to resize
> running programs (calc, Notepad) so that everything (icons, menus) grew.

It could well be possible. That was just a demonstration to show that Aero
is flexible and the sort of things you *can* do with it. They never said
that particular tweaking tool which they used would be part of Windows.

> I really really really hope that this isn't the final UI, because if it
> is...oh boy. The Apple / Linux folks will have a field day with this.

It was confirmed on a video with Jenny Lam that yes, this is the final UI in
5308 however they still need to "polish off the edges" still.

> And no, I don't think Vista should be full of eye candy to make it
> un-usable, but it should have the option to turn animations etc on if the
> users so wished.

You can - just go back to Windows Classic theme!

> And what about smooth-scrolling (as seen on Max)? Why isn't that part on
> Vista (when resizing WIndows Explorer etc)?

It is - my computer does it excellently, but you have to remember that some
of the applications in Windows Vista are not made with WinFX unlike
Microsoft "Max" is, and you have to make sure that your computer is powerful
enough to render the graphics properly.

> Why hasn't NotePad, WritePad, Calculator or Paint been improved in anyway?
> Paint is the same program it has basicly been for 15 years!!!!!! Mail
> (=OutLook 7) might be nice program, but all the new stuff seems to be
> under
> the hood, at least I didn't find really anything different between OL6 and
> Mail.

Paint has changed, not much but it has. Calculator - what else do you need?
It's just for adding and taking things away and a few more fancy things! You
could say the same about the things in Mac OS 10.4!! And remember that
Windows Mail is a seperate team under the Vista hood - their still
developing, their still working on it and it'll seem much better towards
Beta 2.

--
Zack Whittaker
Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor)
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net
» ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum
» VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!


--- Original message follows ---
"Mike Steel" <MikeSteel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E4FDB11-34A7-4407-831E-2B185226DA0E@microsoft.com...
>I installed this this morning and been playing with it since.
>
> A few comments:
>
> Where is all the eye candy we were supposed to have? Where is everything
> that justifies the requirements for powerful GPU with a lot of mem?
>
> Sure there are some pixel shaders (the shine around minimize/maximize),
> and
> transparency and shadows below windows, but I've seen all that already
> with
> WindowFX (StarDock program) on Windows 2000 6 years
> ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What about he demos MS showed on WinHec (I think it was 2002) with windows
> flewing when moved like a flag in a wind, and it was possible to resize
> running programs (calc, Notepad) so that everything (icons, menus) grew.
>
> I really really really hope that this isn't the final UI, because if it
> is...oh boy. The Apple / Linux folks will have a field day with this.
>
> And no, I don't think Vista should be full of eye candy to make it
> un-usable, but it should have the option to turn animations etc on if the
> users so wished.
>
> And what about smooth-scrolling (as seen on Max)? Why isn't that part on
> Vista (when resizing WIndows Explorer etc)?
>
> Why hasn't NotePad, WritePad, Calculator or Paint been improved in anyway?
> Paint is the same program it has basicly been for 15 years!!!!!! Mail
> (=OutLook 7) might be nice program, but all the new stuff seems to be
> under
> the hood, at least I didn't find really anything different between OL6 and
> Mail.
>
> I'm sorry, but if Vista is only new stuff under the hood (=Indigo, Avalon,
> new kernel, security etc etc) without any eye candy or improvement to the
> actual programs...a lot of people will just shake their heads and wonder
> what
> took MS 5 years.
>
> All those "under-the-hood" stuff could have just been inserted into
> Windows
> XP SP3....
>
> Please someone prove me wrong.
>
> 5308 did not.

I have to write this because I'm getting tired of reading posts that are
criticizing "BETA" release products.

Even as a small potatoes software developer in comparison, it is often
counter productive to let users see betas of software, for the simple reason
that people never look at what you intend them to look at. For example; if I
want someone to focus on data accuracy, but all they come back with are
comments about an ugly interface it becomes counter-productive to read those
emails for the simple fact that I have to weed through email after email to
find comments about the data accuracy and respond to emails assuring folks
that the UI they are seeing isn't complete, or is makeshift until the actual
one is done...operative word: DONE.

I'm sure Microsoft could answer posts all day long from people who don't
grasp the concept of pre-release software.

Bottom line is IT'S NOT DONE YET!!! IT'S PRE-RELEASE.

You're fortunate to get to see what you do, and rest assured MS developers
are BUSY BUSY BUSY. So please, save these comments for a late public beta
that is touted as feature-complete, and give my eyes a rest from rolling
every time I read one of these posts.


-TheDigitHEAD


"Mike Steel" wrote:

> I installed this this morning and been playing with it since.
>
> A few comments:
>
> Where is all the eye candy we were supposed to have? Where is everything
> that justifies the requirements for powerful GPU with a lot of mem?
>
> Sure there are some pixel shaders (the shine around minimize/maximize), and
> transparency and shadows below windows, but I've seen all that already with
> WindowFX (StarDock program) on Windows 2000 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What about he demos MS showed on WinHec (I think it was 2002) with windows
> flewing when moved like a flag in a wind, and it was possible to resize
> running programs (calc, Notepad) so that everything (icons, menus) grew.
>
> I really really really hope that this isn't the final UI, because if it
> is...oh boy. The Apple / Linux folks will have a field day with this.
>
> And no, I don't think Vista should be full of eye candy to make it
> un-usable, but it should have the option to turn animations etc on if the
> users so wished.
>
> And what about smooth-scrolling (as seen on Max)? Why isn't that part on
> Vista (when resizing WIndows Explorer etc)?
>
> Why hasn't NotePad, WritePad, Calculator or Paint been improved in anyway?
> Paint is the same program it has basicly been for 15 years!!!!!! Mail
> (=OutLook 7) might be nice program, but all the new stuff seems to be under
> the hood, at least I didn't find really anything different between OL6 and
> Mail.
>
> I'm sorry, but if Vista is only new stuff under the hood (=Indigo, Avalon,
> new kernel, security etc etc) without any eye candy or improvement to the
> actual programs...a lot of people will just shake their heads and wonder what
> took MS 5 years.
>
> All those "under-the-hood" stuff could have just been inserted into Windows
> XP SP3....
>
> Please someone prove me wrong.
>
> 5308 did not.

Excellent rebuttal. I am also sick of people complaining about whether the
user interface meets their GUI fantasies. The bottom line is that Microsoft
is making available Avalon and has shown what are the capabilities and
possibilities with WinFX. It is up to us now to design and develop the new
generation of apps that will amaze Vista users. (Which can be a scary thing)


--
Robert S. Ramos
Software Developer/Designer
Southern California, USA


"TheDigitHead" wrote:

> I have to write this because I'm getting tired of reading posts that are
> criticizing "BETA" release products.
>
> Even as a small potatoes software developer in comparison, it is often
> counter productive to let users see betas of software, for the simple reason
> that people never look at what you intend them to look at. For example; if I
> want someone to focus on data accuracy, but all they come back with are
> comments about an ugly interface it becomes counter-productive to read those
> emails for the simple fact that I have to weed through email after email to
> find comments about the data accuracy and respond to emails assuring folks
> that the UI they are seeing isn't complete, or is makeshift until the actual
> one is done...operative word: DONE.
>
> I'm sure Microsoft could answer posts all day long from people who don't
> grasp the concept of pre-release software.
>
> Bottom line is IT'S NOT DONE YET!!! IT'S PRE-RELEASE.
>
> You're fortunate to get to see what you do, and rest assured MS developers
> are BUSY BUSY BUSY. So please, save these comments for a late public beta
> that is touted as feature-complete, and give my eyes a rest from rolling
> every time I read one of these posts.
>
>
> -TheDigitHEAD
>
>
> "Mike Steel" wrote:
>
> > I installed this this morning and been playing with it since.
> >
> > A few comments:
> >
> > Where is all the eye candy we were supposed to have? Where is everything
> > that justifies the requirements for powerful GPU with a lot of mem?
> >
> > Sure there are some pixel shaders (the shine around minimize/maximize), and
> > transparency and shadows below windows, but I've seen all that already with
> > WindowFX (StarDock program) on Windows 2000 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > What about he demos MS showed on WinHec (I think it was 2002) with windows
> > flewing when moved like a flag in a wind, and it was possible to resize
> > running programs (calc, Notepad) so that everything (icons, menus) grew.
> >
> > I really really really hope that this isn't the final UI, because if it
> > is...oh boy. The Apple / Linux folks will have a field day with this.
> >
> > And no, I don't think Vista should be full of eye candy to make it
> > un-usable, but it should have the option to turn animations etc on if the
> > users so wished.
> >
> > And what about smooth-scrolling (as seen on Max)? Why isn't that part on
> > Vista (when resizing WIndows Explorer etc)?
> >
> > Why hasn't NotePad, WritePad, Calculator or Paint been improved in anyway?
> > Paint is the same program it has basicly been for 15 years!!!!!! Mail
> > (=OutLook 7) might be nice program, but all the new stuff seems to be under
> > the hood, at least I didn't find really anything different between OL6 and
> > Mail.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but if Vista is only new stuff under the hood (=Indigo, Avalon,
> > new kernel, security etc etc) without any eye candy or improvement to the
> > actual programs...a lot of people will just shake their heads and wonder what
> > took MS 5 years.
> >
> > All those "under-the-hood" stuff could have just been inserted into Windows
> > XP SP3....
> >
> > Please someone prove me wrong.
> >
> > 5308 did not.

"Robert S. Ramos" wrote:

> It is up to us now to design and develop the new
> generation of apps that will amaze Vista users. (Which can be a scary thing)

-No. That's a bit like saying that car manufactures don't need to put a
great stereo or seats in new models because "we can buy a new stereo later"...

What's the point of a "new" operating system and new gfx engine if even
Microsoft isn't using it in their own progs?

What's great about WPF is the GUI still looks like something that could have
been as easily in Win98?

Why do I need to have a DX9 card with 512MB of mem if the operating system
is doing nothing with that power?

I'm sorry, but eye candy matters. If everything "new" is under the hood (new
kernel, Indigo, new sound engine, new network stack etc etc), for the end
user Vista offers nothing new.

- Search? Already have that with MSN Desktop Search.
- WMP11? Yeah, nice, but WMP10 is just fine.
- WinMail? Looks like OutLook Express 6.1
- IE7? About time...but still looks more like IE6.1
- Picture manager, DVD Maker, Movie Maker - all these look like freeware
versions of better (and on many occasions, free) tools.

So for some reason MS has chosen to add new programs to Windows, instead of
improving the old ones.

"Shall we create a new Paint?"
"No, let's create a new digital image gallery!"
"...and put great features and tools in that?"
"No, just very basic features so that my grandma can use it."

Basicly MS makes Vista for newbies, advanced users are left in the dark with
sub-par "lite" versions of programs.

Why can't we have the excellent Paint.Net on Vista? Why wasn't Mail make
completely from scratch? Why make a great foundation (WPF, DX10), and then
not use it to make the UI really something special?

It just seems like MS took the easy route with the UI. The screensavers, the
animations, transparency, shadows...they all simply looks like something that
could have been done years ago with DX6 and a 16 meg GPU.

I have no idea why MS has this habbit of first promising great features (and
even demoing them working fine in alpha versions), before cutting them from
final versions.

This (5308) is not the Vista were were promised. I hope the final version
will be, but...

Where is all this we were promised:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1154262,00.asp

This was demoed in May 2003?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? Where is it?
This is the Vista/Longhorn I got interested in, not the
scaled-back-and-easy-on-grandma version that is 5308.

I agree with you. GUI Asthetics matters.

I hate to say this but when I look at the Mac's Widgets, it feels so
modern and sleek that instantly makes Windows old hat...

MS should make Windows Calculator a gadget, and make full use of WPF...


"Mike Steel" <MikeSteel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4EC0CE8F-4D5C-4DDA-ADB5-59FCC55F76EB@microsoft.com...
> "Robert S. Ramos" wrote:
>
>> It is up to us now to design and develop the new
>> generation of apps that will amaze Vista users. (Which can be a
>> scary thing)
>
> -No. That's a bit like saying that car manufactures don't need to put
> a
> great stereo or seats in new models because "we can buy a new stereo
> later"...
>
> What's the point of a "new" operating system and new gfx engine if
> even
> Microsoft isn't using it in their own progs?
>
> What's great about WPF is the GUI still looks like something that
> could have
> been as easily in Win98?
>
> Why do I need to have a DX9 card with 512MB of mem if the operating
> system
> is doing nothing with that power?
>
> I'm sorry, but eye candy matters. If everything "new" is under the
> hood (new
> kernel, Indigo, new sound engine, new network stack etc etc), for the
> end
> user Vista offers nothing new.
>
> - Search? Already have that with MSN Desktop Search.
> - WMP11? Yeah, nice, but WMP10 is just fine.
> - WinMail? Looks like OutLook Express 6.1
> - IE7? About time...but still looks more like IE6.1
> - Picture manager, DVD Maker, Movie Maker - all these look like
> freeware
> versions of better (and on many occasions, free) tools.
>
> So for some reason MS has chosen to add new programs to Windows,
> instead of
> improving the old ones.
>
> "Shall we create a new Paint?"
> "No, let's create a new digital image gallery!"
> "...and put great features and tools in that?"
> "No, just very basic features so that my grandma can use it."
>
> Basicly MS makes Vista for newbies, advanced users are left in the
> dark with
> sub-par "lite" versions of programs.
>
> Why can't we have the excellent Paint.Net on Vista? Why wasn't Mail
> make
> completely from scratch? Why make a great foundation (WPF, DX10), and
> then
> not use it to make the UI really something special?
>
> It just seems like MS took the easy route with the UI. The
> screensavers, the
> animations, transparency, shadows...they all simply looks like
> something that
> could have been done years ago with DX6 and a 16 meg GPU.
>
> I have no idea why MS has this habbit of first promising great
> features (and
> even demoing them working fine in alpha versions), before cutting them
> from
> final versions.
>
> This (5308) is not the Vista were were promised. I hope the final
> version
> will be, but...
>
> Where is all this we were promised:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1154262,00.asp
>
> This was demoed in May 2003?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? Where is
> it?
> This is the Vista/Longhorn I got interested in, not the
> scaled-back-and-easy-on-grandma version that is 5308.
>

This is going to be a long post, but hopefully it is worth it, as I share Mike's passion on this topic.

Mike - I totally get your desire for us to go full throttle on the desktop experience, and it is something that I would like us to do as well (and I am confident we will do more of in the future).

Let's begin by taking a look at how we are using the hardware today on the desktop and why, as well as what things will look like for the future.

-- A bit of background for other folks reading this:
One of the minimum requirements in relation to graphics for Windows Vista is a Dx9 level card with a WDDM driver (this is the new driver model in Windows Vista). However, even for graphics systems that fulfill this requirement, there is a huge range of performance and capabilities between the entry level and the top of the line cards (and a matching price delta as well). There will even cards that go well beyond this requirement and provide Dx10 functionality.

This variety is good, as it enables computer manufacturers to create computers at different price points (or capabilities when it comes to desktop vs portable vs ultra portable systems), and enables them to differentiate their offerings. It is net good for the consumer as well, as folks can get computers from below $500 to several thousand dollars price point.

When it comes to the desktop experience, Dx9 makes it possible for us to create the "glass" effect, transition animations for windows, live thumbnails, 3D stacking, and live previews in Alt-Tab. Without Dx9 and the new driver model, we would not be able to deliver on this.

As Robert correctly noted in his posting, we also enable a wider segment of the developer community to use the power of graphics through the Windows Presentation Foundation programming interfaces. This new platform provides a huge step forward, in many cases revolutionary, in terms of what developers will be able to do on Windows. And it is not just for software developers. Graphics designers will be able to generate content that benefits from hardware too (some cool tools http://www.erain.com/products/zam3d/DefaultPDC.asp and http://www.mobiform.com/ for example), and even the text rendering in documents benefits from the hardware acceleration as well.

So, we now have the desktop and we have applications benefiting from the graphics capabilities on the computer. However, since the desktop is always running, the desktop and the applications share a finite resource (graphics processing and memory). The DirectX team did an outstanding job in developing the new driver architecture (and the third party graphics developers as well in delivering the drivers) which enables the graphics processing and resources to be virtualized (similar to the scheduler and virtual memory for the OS). But, both graphics processing and memory are still finite resources. So, in fact, the desktop and applications are competing for finite resources.
-- Now back to Mike's ask

On the opposite end of the scale in relation to Mike's ask for even more coolness on the desktop, I have folks that are worried (needlessly as you will see later) that the desktop experience is going to take away from the resources that are available to the applications that they depend on for their living and lower their productivity. And most of these folks are in the very high end corner of the market, they are using graphics cards that cost several thousand of dollars.

This brings us to the balance that we have struck, between providing a step-up in the experience and in not taking a lot of resources away from the main thing that you do as an end user, which is running applications/content (as much as I love the Windows desktop, folks do use the computer for other things :-) ).

So, in Windows Vista, while the desktop experience takes advantage of the capabilities in the Dx9 graphics card to provide a new experience, it does so in a manner so as not to substantially impact the main task that end users will perform, that of running applications. We actually spend a lot of time tuning the performance, to make the desktop have as little impact as possible on applications. We can not assume that everyone has a high end Dx9 card, and, as a matter of fact, the majority of people will have the lower end Dx9 parts (because those usually come at lower price points).

It is important to note that the infrastructure/platform we put in place for Windows Vista does enable us to do the things you saw in the WinHEC videos (and more, most of which we haven't shown publicly). We have chosen not to expose the things you saw in the videos in this release. In the Windows Vista release we strike a balance between productivity features (live previews, 3D stacking), quality (tear-free composition of the desktop), and visual enhancements/eye candy (glass effect). We will tweak the investments along these three axis in the future in different ways. Also, the hardware baseline will move up over time (the high end is still moving faster than Moore's law) and will enable even better experiences.

I do have to agree with Robert's point though, the greatest value will come from the applications and content that will be built on Windows Presentation Foundation. Folks, perhaps you Mike, will develop things that will go well beyond what the desktop does, and those things can take over all the resources on the machine if the end user wants them to, without any complaints, in order to deliver the best experience possible (just like we find mainly games doing today).

Windows Vista is not an endpoint, it is a beginning. It presents a new platform for developers, it also provides developers with a consistent minimum bar for graphics capabilities (which developers will be able to rely upon), and it introduces the infrastructure that will enable us to deliver even more exciting desktop experiences, at a much faster rate.

Mike - you can be sure that we will try our best to deliver the type of experiences that you are asking for, and we will do so in a manner that doesn't take away from the main thing that people use their computers for.

Thanks for all the feedback, keep it coming. And make sure to drop by at WinHEC for a chat if you are attending.

-Pablo


"Mike Steel" <MikeSteel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4EC0CE8F-4D5C-4DDA-ADB5-59FCC55F76EB@microsoft.com...
> "Robert S. Ramos" wrote:
>
>> It is up to us now to design and develop the new
>> generation of apps that will amaze Vista users. (Which can be a scary thing)
>
> -No. That's a bit like saying that car manufactures don't need to put a
> great stereo or seats in new models because "we can buy a new stereo later"...
>
> What's the point of a "new" operating system and new gfx engine if even
> Microsoft isn't using it in their own progs?
>
> What's great about WPF is the GUI still looks like something that could have
> been as easily in Win98?
>
> Why do I need to have a DX9 card with 512MB of mem if the operating system
> is doing nothing with that power?
>
> I'm sorry, but eye candy matters. If everything "new" is under the hood (new
> kernel, Indigo, new sound engine, new network stack etc etc), for the end
> user Vista offers nothing new.
>
> - Search? Already have that with MSN Desktop Search.
> - WMP11? Yeah, nice, but WMP10 is just fine.
> - WinMail? Looks like OutLook Express 6.1
> - IE7? About time...but still looks more like IE6.1
> - Picture manager, DVD Maker, Movie Maker - all these look like freeware
> versions of better (and on many occasions, free) tools.
>
> So for some reason MS has chosen to add new programs to Windows, instead of
> improving the old ones.
>
> "Shall we create a new Paint?"
> "No, let's create a new digital image gallery!"
> "...and put great features and tools in that?"
> "No, just very basic features so that my grandma can use it."
>
> Basicly MS makes Vista for newbies, advanced users are left in the dark with
> sub-par "lite" versions of programs.
>
> Why can't we have the excellent Paint.Net on Vista? Why wasn't Mail make
> completely from scratch? Why make a great foundation (WPF, DX10), and then
> not use it to make the UI really something special?
>
> It just seems like MS took the easy route with the UI. The screensavers, the
> animations, transparency, shadows...they all simply looks like something that
> could have been done years ago with DX6 and a 16 meg GPU.
>
> I have no idea why MS has this habbit of first promising great features (and
> even demoing them working fine in alpha versions), before cutting them from
> final versions.
>
> This (5308) is not the Vista were were promised. I hope the final version
> will be, but...
>
> Where is all this we were promised:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1154262,00.asp
>
> This was demoed in May 2003?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? Where is it?
> This is the Vista/Longhorn I got interested in, not the
> scaled-back-and-easy-on-grandma version that is 5308.
>

> It is important to note that the infrastructure/platform we put in place
for Windows Vista does enable us to do the things you saw in the WinHEC
videos (and more, most of which we haven't shown publicly). We have chosen
not to expose the things you saw in the videos in this release.

-First of all, thanks for the answer! I can understand that finding the
balance between eye candy and usability can be hard.

BUT - I think this should be left to the user to choose, so the user should
be abe to enable/disable the eye candy, or left fot the computer to decide
(depending on your machine specs).

Saying "It is important to note that the infrastructure/platform we put in
place for Windows Vista does enable us to do the things you saw in the WinHEC
videos (and more, most of which we haven't shown publicly). We have chosen
not to expose the things you saw in the videos in this release" is a bit like
saying, "yeah, this new Ferrari is the fastest car in the world, and can go
over 400km/h, we just chose not to let you drive it that fast, so we don't
use all the power in the engine".

I'm sorry, but if the user has to choose between a max 400km/h Lamborghini,
and a 300km/h Ferrari (that really could go faster, but Ferrari just chose
not to expose those horsepowers), which do you think (s)he will buy?

"Yeah but you can buy later 3rd party turbokits" is not the answer, nor is
"yeah, nut the developers can expose more".

What's the point of making great features and beautiful animations (that
work just fine), and then cut back on those saying (once again), "...just
wait for the next version...".

I have already a powerful machine, so it should be my decision to make to
use / not use those animations etc.

I feel the biggest problem (and one that drives a lot of people to Linux) is
Microsoft's mentality "we know better whats good for you", and not letting
the end user make the decision.

Just see how much people love skins on WindowBlinds, WinAmp, WMP etc etc.
People like choice. And MS (once again) is not giving that.

I just don't understand why. Why all the decisions must be made based on the
slowest low-end system available? Why must people with high-end machine
suffer because some one with a 5 year old machine can't run the eye-candy? In
a way what MS is saying is "Vista will use all the power in a modern PC, but
not really...actually we made it for people with 2-3 old PCs, and those with
newer ones won't get any benefits. We could have made it to use all the
power, but we chose not to."

This is the biggest gripe - design by committee. "Let's give everyone what
nobody wants".

Oh no! Not a car analogy!

If I like the looks of the Ferrari because they were more understated and
elegant than the Lambo, I'd choose the former. And last I knew of such
things, the Countach had no room around the pedals for my enormous clown
feet anyways.

Hi,

Nice points there. But the fundamental problem is still not solved -
applications in Windows Vista *should* take *full* advantage of WinFX,
*just like* 3rd-party developers are doing.

I think your point of not taking away the resources to allow users to
get on their job just means the baseline UI, but not applications.

I consider Windows Paint to be an application just like any 3rd-party
drawing program. Therefore, it should be "WinFXed"

Windows Mail is just like any other 3rd-party e-mail client. It should
also be "WinFXed"

Right now, the programs don't seem to show that quality and commitment
to utilize the full power of WinFX in the "applications".

Other than that, thank you for your response.


"Pablo Fernicola [MS]" <pablo@fernicola.org> wrote in message
news:ey$yH2dPGHA.1088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This is going to be a long post, but hopefully it is worth it, as I
share Mike's passion on this topic.

Mike - I totally get your desire for us to go full throttle on the
desktop experience, and it is something that I would like us to do as
well (and I am confident we will do more of in the future).

Let's begin by taking a look at how we are using the hardware today on
the desktop and why, as well as what things will look like for the
future.

-- A bit of background for other folks reading this:
One of the minimum requirements in relation to graphics for Windows
Vista is a Dx9 level card with a WDDM driver (this is the new driver
model in Windows Vista). However, even for graphics systems that
fulfill this requirement, there is a huge range of performance and
capabilities between the entry level and the top of the line cards (and
a matching price delta as well). There will even cards that go well
beyond this requirement and provide Dx10 functionality.

This variety is good, as it enables computer manufacturers to create
computers at different price points (or capabilities when it comes to
desktop vs portable vs ultra portable systems), and enables them to
differentiate their offerings. It is net good for the consumer as well,
as folks can get computers from below $500 to several thousand dollars
price point.

When it comes to the desktop experience, Dx9 makes it possible for us to
create the "glass" effect, transition animations for windows, live
thumbnails, 3D stacking, and live previews in Alt-Tab. Without Dx9 and
the new driver model, we would not be able to deliver on this.

As Robert correctly noted in his posting, we also enable a wider segment
of the developer community to use the power of graphics through the
Windows Presentation Foundation programming interfaces. This new
platform provides a huge step forward, in many cases revolutionary, in
terms of what developers will be able to do on Windows. And it is not
just for software developers. Graphics designers will be able to
generate content that benefits from hardware too (some cool tools
http://www.erain.com/products/zam3d/DefaultPDC.asp and
http://www.mobiform.com/ for example), and even the text rendering in
documents benefits from the hardware acceleration as well.

So, we now have the desktop and we have applications benefiting from the
graphics capabilities on the computer. However, since the desktop is
always running, the desktop and the applications share a finite resource
(graphics processing and memory). The DirectX team did an outstanding
job in developing the new driver architecture (and the third party
graphics developers as well in delivering the drivers) which enables the
graphics processing and resources to be virtualized (similar to the
scheduler and virtual memory for the OS). But, both graphics processing
and memory are still finite resources. So, in fact, the desktop and
applications are competing for finite resources.
-- Now back to Mike's ask

On the opposite end of the scale in relation to Mike's ask for even more
coolness on the desktop, I have folks that are worried (needlessly as
you will see later) that the desktop experience is going to take away
from the resources that are available to the applications that they
depend on for their living and lower their productivity. And most of
these folks are in the very high end corner of the market, they are
using graphics cards that cost several thousand of dollars.

This brings us to the balance that we have struck, between providing a
step-up in the experience and in not taking a lot of resources away from
the main thing that you do as an end user, which is running
applications/content (as much as I love the Windows desktop, folks do
use the computer for other things :-) ).

So, in Windows Vista, while the desktop experience takes advantage of
the capabilities in the Dx9 graphics card to provide a new experience,
it does so in a manner so as not to substantially impact the main task
that end users will perform, that of running applications. We actually
spend a lot of time tuning the performance, to make the desktop have as
little impact as possible on applications. We can not assume that
everyone has a high end Dx9 card, and, as a matter of fact, the majority
of people will have the lower end Dx9 parts (because those usually come
at lower price points).

It is important to note that the infrastructure/platform we put in place
for Windows Vista does enable us to do the things you saw in the WinHEC
videos (and more, most of which we haven't shown publicly). We have
chosen not to expose the things you saw in the videos in this release.
In the Windows Vista release we strike a balance between productivity
features (live previews, 3D stacking), quality (tear-free composition of
the desktop), and visual enhancements/eye candy (glass effect). We will
tweak the investments along these three axis in the future in different
ways. Also, the hardware baseline will move up over time (the high end
is still moving faster than Moore's law) and will enable even better
experiences.

I do have to agree with Robert's point though, the greatest value will
come from the applications and content that will be built on Windows
Presentation Foundation. Folks, perhaps you Mike, will develop things
that will go well beyond what the desktop does, and those things can
take over all the resources on the machine if the end user wants them
to, without any complaints, in order to deliver the best experience
possible (just like we find mainly games doing today).

Windows Vista is not an endpoint, it is a beginning. It presents a new
platform for developers, it also provides developers with a consistent
minimum bar for graphics capabilities (which developers will be able to
rely upon), and it introduces the infrastructure that will enable us to
deliver even more exciting desktop experiences, at a much faster rate.

Mike - you can be sure that we will try our best to deliver the type of
experiences that you are asking for, and we will do so in a manner that
doesn't take away from the main thing that people use their computers
for.

Thanks for all the feedback, keep it coming. And make sure to drop by
at WinHEC for a chat if you are attending.

-Pablo


"Mike Steel" <MikeSteel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4EC0CE8F-4D5C-4DDA-ADB5-59FCC55F76EB@microsoft.com...
> "Robert S. Ramos" wrote:
>
>> It is up to us now to design and develop the new
>> generation of apps that will amaze Vista users. (Which can be a
>> scary thing)
>
> -No. That's a bit like saying that car manufactures don't need to put
> a
> great stereo or seats in new models because "we can buy a new stereo
> later"...
>
> What's the point of a "new" operating system and new gfx engine if
> even
> Microsoft isn't using it in their own progs?
>
> What's great about WPF is the GUI still looks like something that
> could have
> been as easily in Win98?
>
> Why do I need to have a DX9 card with 512MB of mem if the operating
> system
> is doing nothing with that power?
>
> I'm sorry, but eye candy matters. If everything "new" is under the
> hood (new
> kernel, Indigo, new sound engine, new network stack etc etc), for the
> end
> user Vista offers nothing new.
>
> - Search? Already have that with MSN Desktop Search.
> - WMP11? Yeah, nice, but WMP10 is just fine.
> - WinMail? Looks like OutLook Express 6.1
> - IE7? About time...but still looks more like IE6.1
> - Picture manager, DVD Maker, Movie Maker - all these look like
> freeware
> versions of better (and on many occasions, free) tools.
>
> So for some reason MS has chosen to add new programs to Windows,
> instead of
> improving the old ones.
>
> "Shall we create a new Paint?"
> "No, let's create a new digital image gallery!"
> "...and put great features and tools in that?"
> "No, just very basic features so that my grandma can use it."
>
> Basicly MS makes Vista for newbies, advanced users are left in the
> dark with
> sub-par "lite" versions of programs.
>
> Why can't we have the excellent Paint.Net on Vista? Why wasn't Mail
> make
> completely from scratch? Why make a great foundation (WPF, DX10), and
> then
> not use it to make the UI really something special?
>
> It just seems like MS took the easy route with the UI. The
> screensavers, the
> animations, transparency, shadows...they all simply looks like
> something that
> could have been done years ago with DX6 and a 16 meg GPU.
>
> I have no idea why MS has this habbit of first promising great
> features (and
> even demoing them working fine in alpha versions), before cutting them
> from
> final versions.
>
> This (5308) is not the Vista were were promised. I hope the final
> version
> will be, but...
>
> Where is all this we were promised:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1154262,00.asp
>
> This was demoed in May 2003?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? Where is
> it?
> This is the Vista/Longhorn I got interested in, not the
> scaled-back-and-easy-on-grandma version that is 5308.
>