Windows 9 Screenshots Leaked  

Don't know about the eye candy not being part of the cosmetics that people look for in a new OS.
Most people who are Not users like the us, don't care too much about performance and enhanced
this or that. They just want a PC and OS that can do what they bought the machine to do.

If they encounter errors or have questions then, they come to us to help solve them.

I for one, do like the eye candy and have a PC that can handle both performance and eye candy.
If I am to buy a W9 then , it had better have all the bells and whistles I want to see in a new OS.

Flashorn.

Indianatone said:

You would !

I didn't like 8 and only moved over at 8.1.

Frankly, Windows 8 (or 8.1) did not offer an appealing design. The colors were from the last century and the square shapes reminded me of Win3.1. I think even XP looked better (before it became too boring after so many years). 7 certainly looks better, although I can understand that some people might choose to turn off Aero and not use any of the glass features. But that's the point - in 7 there is a choice, you can set up the desktop any way you like it. In 8 the choice is gone - everything is flat and square. I did not try third-party stuff, such as WindowBlinds, after all, why do I need to run third-party stuff for something as basic as windows?

As to whether it's important or not - it's clearly a matter or personal preference. I like Aero, but many others do not. It's clear that there has to be a choice.

badrobot said:

I don't care about Aero (I disabled it on Win 7 and using Basic Theme) or eye candy stuff. That's cosmetics. I just want a plain start menu and faster OS. Those cosmetics can be done by anyone based on their preference. Eye candy stuffs should just be an option. It has nothing to do with performance (actually it just degrades performance if the system has to worry about rendering those eye candy crap).

I agree. Aero was cool 5 years ago. Nowadays, I couldn't care less what's sitting behind what i'm really using. Most of my time is spent in various apps and IE.

Looking forward to testing this puppy out on the 30th!

Indianatone said:

OK three of you. You do realise I am kidding right? I would like a fast OS that has improvements over 7 & 8. What we need are choices. I would like Aero. Coke Robot does not want Aero. There was a time when I had a weaker video card and a single core CPU I ran 7 in the Default Windows Classic 2000 mode. I would like to see that return too. For corporate users desktops are locked down and they want a specific look and function. I would like it to be faster on the same equipment I have but I would also want all the visual bells and whistles. Hence Aero rounded corners, transparency etc. Looks nice IMHO. Some of you just want an upgraded 8. For those of us who did not ride on the Windows 8 train we would like a nice gradual change from 7 not some gaudy 16 colour scheme from a 4 meg video card on Windows 95.

Choices are nice, but decisions have to be made on what code is justifiable to maintain just to provide an option. For example, the lack of Windows Classic theme in 8. That's simply not used by enough people to have the theme there, to have the .dlls, to have the resource files, or even as a fallback to more efficient operation. In Safe Mode, there is no such thing as a Classic mode because the WDDM driver architecture so vastly efficient over 7, there's no point in making Safe Mode to run the Classic theme.

Also, aesthetics. If you have noticed, the Xbox platform, Windows Phone, Bing, Outlook.com, Windows and everything else Microsoft is ditching the old Aero styling or xp era styling of gaudy push buttons and faux lighting and faux textures in lieu of modernist Bauhaus inspired design. Having Aero transparency or even Aero styling as an option in Windows 9 kind of throws a shiny, gradient drop shadowed wrench at that. They want to push a unified aesthetic that is digital and modern versus pushing your GPU just to show some eye candy. And continuing on that note, the target devices that will run Windows 9, like anything battery operated, needs to run as efficiently as possible. An example of that working is the HTC One M8 with Windows versus android. When the HTC One uses Windows Phone, the battery life lasts three hours longer than using android, a platform that pushes eye candy and everything opposite Windows Phone and more Windows vista.

Opinions and preferences are nice and all, we'd all love as many options as we'd like, but a line has to be drawn. Better efficiency and battery life trump pushing the GPU to just simply display the UI of the platform. And personally, I'd rather have an efficient desktop system than one using more power than necessary just to run the OS. I'd rather dedicated the remainder for Photoshop CC and GTA IV (YAY!) and other processor hungry programs.

But that's just me.