0

I think we've all observed the trend of eye candy incrementally increasing in the user interface of consumer operating systems, particularly the commercial ones. Vista's Aero and OS X's Aqua are perfect examples: both use large amounts of transparency, and contain "sparkle" in the windows designed to enhance a user's experience in an operating system.

However, not everyone likes it this way. Many people claim that this eye candy is just a novelty that wears off, or that it uses too much of their system resources than it's worth. Microsoft acknowledges these users by providing a "classic Windows theme" for those who think they can live without all the extra eye candy.

Still others argue that it's not about the amount of eye candy, but the quality. They claim that when used correctly in the right places, it makes the operating system look more professional without hindering the usability of the OS.

Regardless, I'm sure each of you have your own opinions on this (no doubt influenced by your needs and interests), and I'm curious as to what they are and the reasoning behind it. Discuss.

5
Contributors
11
Replies
12
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jbennet
0

My problem with Eye Candy is that it uses too many resources without enhancing the user experience, especially when a user has invested many years in using the standard interface.

0

my Ubuntu has KDE3.5, and a theme that makes it look like Vista (I dark dark themes). No Compiz though - Intel 945 is not the card to use compiz on.

As for windows - since 95 my interface is the same - basic interface with all eye candy disabled and the dark theme implemented

0

i like low

i run vista with the windows 2000 - style grey theme, and i hate office 2007 (i use 2003) as i like the standard FILE-EDIT-TOOLS layout

0

Okay, a lot of you have said what you use. But why? Is it simply because your system's performance suffers? Or do you dislike eye candy? What is your opinion on operating system designers placing more and more eye candy in the user interface? I'm just curious.

0

because its easier to navigate

personally i think the new interfaces for vista are terrible . You can never find what you want

0

Well i dont like Eye candy Joe,it bogs down your computer and doesnt look good...

A plain basic system is quite fine with me :)

0

because its easier to navigate

personally i think the new interfaces for vista are terrible . You can never find what you want

But since you've already noted that you prefer the classic Windows interface, wouldn't you agree that the reason you experience difficulty navigating the new interface is because you're unfamiliar with it?

0

partly

if it aint broke dont fix it

ms have used file-edit-tools for years. its become standard. why change it?

if someone went and suddeny changed all keyboards to be ABCDEFG instead of QUERTY no-one would be able to cope . its the same sort of thing.

0

I agree with jbennet.
If you're going to make such a change, you'd best have a very good reason for it, and I don't see any such reason.
The File/Edit/View bar is missing in the default IE set up. What's up with that?
I've turned off Aero in every Vista set up I've done so far, and no one has complained about not having to learn a new interface.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.