Flatter, uglier, lighter?

[Compman55]

Can anyone describe why we are heading down this direction? Hardware is getting better all the time, power managment is getting better, but both apple and ms are destroying the cosmetics of their os's stating it is lighter, and uses less resources. Why?

Should they be going to better cosmetics that uses less resources?

 

[ninaholic37]

I think MS axed cosmetics to get their bloated OS into tablets quickly because Apple/iOS was eating into their sales but they are now heading back into the "bringing cosmetics back" direction as more things work with non-RT version.

 

[Gunbuster]

Content forward "flat" design is the trend. It has nothing to do with some hardware on tablets conspiracy.

“Cosmetics” takes you down the road of skeuomorphism. I’m happy without a leather bound calendar and bubbly transparency everyplace thank you very much.

 

[Compman55]

Content forward "flat" design is the trend. It has nothing to do with some hardware on tablets conspiracy.

“Cosmetics” takes you down the road of skeuomorphism. I’m happy without a leather bound calendar and bubbly transparency everyplace thank you very much.

And that I truly repsect. I am the same with cars. However why force us either way. Windows vista / 7 and mac OS X 10.6 ~ 10.8 looked great, and could be plained down. Moving forward they don;t give us options. I always thought it was to speed it up, keep it lighter.

 

[Skaendo]

I always thought it was to speed it up, keep it lighter.

Windows has never sped up or got lighter, ever. Then take into account updates that reside on your PC until a new version has been released, then it also starts to bloat away. The only reason that Windows has 'sped up' is because of newer, faster hardware. Example: SSD vs HDD. The only true fast and light OS is Linux.

 

[Gunbuster]

Windows has never sped up or got lighter, ever.

Sorry, wrong. Win 7 and 8 are faster than Vista. Vista had terrible memory management. If you look at the system requirements hardly anything has change from Vista to 8.1, heck 8.1 has a lower HDD size requirement.

 

[ninaholic37]

It has nothing to do with some hardware on tablets conspiracy.

We're probably analyzing the brains of it's creators more than they deserve credit for. Easier just to say "this was created by morons" and not buy it, I think, then contemplate things that are on a higher level of intellect instead. Lol

 

[Skaendo]

Sorry, wrong. Win 7 and 8 are faster than Vista. Vista had terrible memory management. If you look at the system requirements hardly anything has change from Vista to 8.1, heck 8.1 has a lower HDD size requirement.

At first, when they were just released, maybe.
But, take a Vista era computer and put Win7 or 8/8.1 on it and they will be slower. And you cant tell me now that they have all been around for a few years that they are not bloated beyond control. My Win7 machine w/Office 2013 is at about 45GB fully updated, and no other apps except for K-Lite Codec Codec pack. In contrast my Debian Jessie (testing) laptop is at 9.9GB fully updated with LibreOffice and many more apps.

 

[ninaholic37]

In contrast my Debian Jessie (testing) laptop is at 9.9GB fully updated with LibreOffice and many more apps.

:thumbsup:

My Slacko distro is using only 240MB, and has everything I need including office/graphics utilities, music/video players, DosBox, Firefox 33, and a much better GUI than Windows 8. :biggrin:

 

[pw257008]

Content forward "flat" design is the trend. It has nothing to do with some hardware on tablets conspiracy.

“Cosmetics” takes you down the road of skeuomorphism. I’m happy without a leather bound calendar and bubbly transparency everyplace thank you very much.

:thumbsup:

 

[PliotronX]

It is the whole touchscreen influence. Hard edges, fugly flat color schemes. Highly disappointed as well, who wants to look at a 4K monitor of flat colors? Yeah, awesome

 

[Skaendo]

My Slacko distro is using only 240MB, and has everything I need including office/graphics utilities, music/video players, DosBox, Firefox 33, and a much better GUI than Windows 8.

I forgot to mention my Debian has KDE, which I assume is the bulk of my install.

 

[Ketchup]

At first, when they were just released, maybe....

Nope... still. If you put Vista on a modern computer, it is still slower than 7. Put 7 on a modern computer, it will still be slower than 8. I know it's hard to tell from a preview, but I think 8 and 10 are going to turn out about the same.

I agree with the OP. I am not sure why Microsoft thinks they need to make an OS that would make the desktop OS look just like a Tablet and Mobile OS(since they don't, and probably never will, have much in those markets) but they think it's the best.

My thinking is that this goes back to the original mindset behind Windows - build something you like, and users will have no choice but to like it as much as you do.

 

[escrow4]

At first, when they were just released, maybe.
But, take a Vista era computer and put Win7 or 8/8.1 on it and they will be slower. And you cant tell me now that they have all been around for a few years that they are not bloated beyond control. My Win7 machine w/Office 2013 is at about 45GB fully updated, and no other apps except for K-Lite Codec Codec pack. In contrast my Debian Jessie (testing) laptop is at 9.9GB fully updated with LibreOffice and many more apps.

Using a codec pack and taking about bloat?

The Win kernel is obviously not Linux. It needs all the bits built in, it isn't exactly modular, hence the size. The win rot win bloat thing is old news. It doesn't happen anymore. We've moved on from XP.

As to cosmetics, I prefer basics over flash. I used Aero with 7, but prefer 8.1. The OS doesn't need to light up like a Christmas tree when you click something or fart in its general direction. Part of the reason I hate OS X. Something about the dock|layout|colours just drives me up the wall.

 

[Skaendo]

Using a codec pack and taking about bloat?

The Win kernel is obviously not Linux. It needs all the bits built in, it isn't exactly modular, hence the size. The win rot win bloat thing is old news. It doesn't happen anymore. We've moved on from XP.

The codec pack does not account for the over doubling in size to the OS footprint due to updates for Win7. Win7 does in fact have a bloat issue.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Win10 once it is released and starts updating.

*Most all codecs are built in on KDE.

 

[OlyAR15]

Well, you are still free to use 3rd-party software to re-skin Windows.

Personally, I like the simpler, cleaner look of the modern OS.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Sorry, wrong. Win 7 and 8 are faster than Vista. Vista had terrible memory management. If you look at the system requirements hardly anything has change from Vista to 8.1, heck 8.1 has a lower HDD size requirement.

But 8 and 8.1 are more bloated than 7, and 7 SP1+updates is more bloated than just a clean 7 SP1. I know this from testing.

 

[escrow4]

But 8 and 8.1 are more bloated than 7, and 7 SP1+updates is more bloated than just a clean 7 SP1. I know this from testing.

Does it matter anymore? Win 7 and 8 have been stuck with the same poky old requirements for a while. If the minimums jumped to a 2GHz+ CPU and 4GB+ RAM with a mandatory DX 10+ GPU we would likely see a far more nimble and modern OS. MS is artificially limiting themselves with these old ass specs:

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 (more info)

RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)

Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

Its 2014 not 2005. If you can't run it too bad. This is the 21st century, MS should have a 21st century OS.

 

[tential]

The Operating System is how we interact with the applications. It's simply a tool we use to interact with the other applications we can use.

Making it "Lighter" should be of utmost importance. Why would you want an extremely complex and heavy OS? If the OS is 100GB and takes a minimum of an i3 to run then it's using a TON of resources and you ahven't even gotten to the primary part of using a computer, the applications.

No one just sits there in Windows and never runs something. Your goal is to run an application and with the OS taking up so many resources you'd need a far faster PC. What's the point of an extremely complex OS that's running Firefox, vs Windows 8.1 (or even a Linux Distro), that could do it using far less resources and thus allow you to do multiple things?

In the end, the OS lets us interact with the applications. It's goal should be to be light and capable. Making it heavy, complex, and take extra resources is in no way the ideal.

 

[Skaendo]

The Operating System is how we interact with the applications. It's simply a tool we use to interact with the other applications we can use.

Making it "Lighter" should be of utmost importance. Why would you want an extremely complex and heavy OS? If the OS is 100GB and takes a minimum of an i3 to run then it's using a TON of resources and you ahven't even gotten to the primary part of using a computer, the applications.

No one just sits there in Windows and never runs something. Your goal is to run an application and with the OS taking up so many resources you'd need a far faster PC. What's the point of an extremely complex OS that's running Firefox, vs Windows 8.1 (or even a Linux Distro), that could do it using far less resources and thus allow you to do multiple things?

In the end, the OS lets us interact with the applications. It's goal should be to be light and capable. Making it heavy, complex, and take extra resources is in no way the ideal.

:thumbsup:

 

[ArisVer]

I like the Aero feature of Win7 and I have the option to turn it off. The least they could do was to have the option in Win8 and Win10.

As far as space requirements go, I wonder why you care considering today's disk capacities. And almost everyone here has a second spinner disk for other files.

 

[ninaholic37]

This is the 21st century, MS should have a 21st century OS.

Are you saying they should keep working on Windows 2000/XP until the year 2100?

 

[fleshconsumed]

Eh, it's all about personal preference. I like simplicity, so to me Windows 8.1 looks great. Simple clean lines that make it very easy to see what's happening on screen. To me it looks a lot better than Vista/Win7 Aero themes with their semi-transparent windows. I really struggle to understand why people like Aero "bloat". Back around the time when Vista came out and everyone marveled over the fading minimizing windows, you'd see a bunch of youtube videos showing off fancy visual effects on linux such as cube desktops. Linux guys would point to them and say, hey we've had this for years, YEARS I TELL YOU, linux forevah! And I always found it funny because the first thing I would always do on a clean Vista install was disable all those fancy video effects because I was just too impatient to wait half a second before the window minimized. I had a fast computer at the time and I expected immideate response to my action, I did not want some artificial delay inserted between the time when I clicked minimize and when it actually minimized. That was just stupid. Same with Aero styles. The flat Windows 8 style is easier to navigate, it's easier to see which window has the focus. Some may like the Aero "bloat", well fine, but that's a personal preference of style over function. The flat style is no uglier than semi-transparent aero, but I'd argue it is more functional. Anyway, it's all personal preference.

 

[Skaendo]

I'm not very big on themes and effects either. I am happy with how my OS comes 'out of the box' for the most part. I only ever change the background to something I like. It may seem like an obsolete point but the extra effects and themes are wasting valuable computing resources to me. The less effects that are going on the faster overall my PC is going to be with the things that I need to get to or get done.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Can anyone describe why we are heading down this direction? Hardware is getting better all the time, power managment is getting better, but both apple and ms are destroying the cosmetics of their os's stating it is lighter, and uses less resources. Why?

Flat is in. That's basically the gist of it. It's possible for the reduced graphics load to improve battery life but colors and shapes have nothing to do with that. Any savings are going to come from cutting or reducing the duration of animations and effects or reducing the number of apps running.

Should they be going to better cosmetics that uses less resources?

But what's missing that needs to be there?

I'd argue that OS X is probably as complex as it's ever been - the newest version is littered with translucency, color effects, and animations. Windows 8's desktop theme has only lost rounded corners and translucency. Neither of those are necessary for usability or a good theme (think of this second point as more generally).

It is the whole touchscreen influence. Hard edges, fugly flat color schemes. Highly disappointed as well, who wants to look at a 4K monitor of flat colors? Yeah, awesome

Alternatively, just because I have more pixels or more physical space on a display, does that mean Microsoft should add a textures and design that don't help? Corners should be rounded just because?