# Longhorn Vista Pics & Movie



## senne (Aug 1, 2005)

Check it out here.

The close/minimize/maximize effects are very similar to Tiger's effects.. A problem with their version is that the difference between the minimize effect and the close effect are minimal, which results in confusion! They just don't get it...


----------



## RGrphc2 (Aug 1, 2005)

its seems like Vista is using the Scale effect to minimize programs...   

i heard IE 7 might cause a fuel to switch people to firefox


----------



## HateEternal (Aug 1, 2005)

Not too impressed with that little effect. I wonder how fast his computer is, it seemed like it took a while for stuff to load in those windows he opened.

To me it looks like it still has all the annoying things that I hated about XP +  a slightly nicer looking GUI. Looks may be decieving though. I will wait till I can actually try it to judge.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 1, 2005)

Frankly, I'm not impressed at all with Vista at the moment.  So windows fade in and out...big deal.  Mac OS X had been doing effects (and better than Vista) for a long time now.  Looks as though Microsoft is losing the battle.  It gets uglier with every release.


----------



## Reality (Aug 1, 2005)

Not that great of a scaling feature but its not "to bad" either. It'll be enough to please the windows folks I guess. But Apple's scaling makes that one look like a OS version behind...which it is...or is it 2?


----------



## JonKemerer (Aug 1, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Looks as though Microsoft is losing the battle.  It gets uglier with every release.



You can't be serious.  I'll agree I'm not too impressed with what it looks like right now, but it certainly isn't getting worse.  Besides, if history is any indiction, I recall the Whistler Beta 1 having a watercolor theme before it got the axe in Beta 2 with the release of the luna theme (the current XP look).  Point is, you can have an opinion about the GUI now, but Beta 1 isn't going to show much in ways of the GUI so...


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 1, 2005)

Actually, I'm impressed. I thought Window transparency was retarded, but Vista isn't just doing that. It's actually blurring the background and even appying "shine streak" effects to it. It's actually pretty neat. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple do something similar now that they have Core Image, and I guess this means MS is keeping up and has a Core Image-like technology of their own (either that or the UI will be a terrible processor hog).

As for the effects, I don't know. I've never much liked Apple's effects at all. I have to say, Vista's combination of scaling + fading makes a bigger impact that OS X's scaling. Since both are little more than eye candy, I say Vista wins out.

Then again, the problem I have with OS X's scaling is that it's often choppy in real-world use. I imagine the same will be true of Vista, and that'll probably be even worse with it fading as well.

The "pop" effect of opening windows is a little excessive, IMO. I do think there should be some animation, though. In the classic Mac OS, we had zoom rects for this kind of thing, and they did a great job. But now zoom rects would be a fashion faux pas, so we get nothing.  Well, okay, you can optionally have the Finder zoom its windows open and closed, but the effect is too complex and creates lag. These things need to be kept very simple to be effective. Apple overcomplicated it, and Microsoft is overcomplicating it even more, it seems.

Should windows fade closed? Err....no. Again, we're creating unnecessary lag. I know that Vista will be running on much faster hardware than OS X has been for the past 5 years, but even so, I expect this to cause a lot of lag in real-world use. OS X's lag has trained me to almost never minimize my windows. But no amount of training can make to stop _closing_ windows. Please don't introduce lag potential into mundane activities.


For the first time ever, I feel like Apple should be concerned. MS is going a few things that Apple hasn't  effect layers on top of transparency and window opening effects, specifically  and these are things I feel like Apple probably would have done if they could have. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see something similar in Leopard, now that Apple does have the technology (Core Image), but now it would look like a copy of Vista.

I guess that's one advantage to Microsoft's more open policy regarding software development. Apple likes to keep everything secret for as long as they can, whereas MS trumpets every planned feature long before they even know if they can do it. So to the public's eye it'll look like MS has a jump even if they don't.


----------



## sirstaunch (Aug 1, 2005)

It seems to be have the side bar effects to, just like OSX except not using borders

this pic http://www.flexbeta.net/images/vistabeta1/solutions_to_problems.PNG Windows Registry Not Working, already? Gee, I spent a night on my friends XP thingi, fixing 186 Windows Registry problems. And I couldn't finish it because the shareware demo version app had a minimun of how many registrys it will fix. Plus of course I had to clean out the Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, Adware, and the computer still runs slow.

Notice how big the notice for AntiVirus is, not installed of course, you'd think M$ would put it some antivirus stuff. It's their OS, they should protect it for their customers, so many people out there who don't run antivirus because they just can't afford the updates and not realise of the free one AVG and Spybot for spyware. 

The movie had some sort of notice coming out of the taskbar at login, may have been the antivirus notice or an alert for the Key registry LOL

The looks not to bad I guess when you look at those pics. The icons look massive and seem they did that to give the shadowed details.

I don't really understand if it's got new features or just looks. Maybe just the Spotlight feature and RSS feeds, who knows? Yet the Parental Control for games, yeah good idea if you have kids that jump on the computer while you're not around, there are to many violent games out so that's cool.

But over all, It's gunna be another, Mac had it first debate with Windows friends, show all ya Windows friends your Mac, send em screenshots, little movies, anything, put a signature Made on A Mac with the date and time stamp


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 2, 2005)

JonKemerer said:
			
		

> You can't be serious.  I'll agree I'm not too impressed with what it looks like right now, but it certainly isn't getting worse.  Besides, if history is any indiction, I recall the Whistler Beta 1 having a watercolor theme before it got the axe in Beta 2 with the release of the luna theme (the current XP look).  Point is, you can have an opinion about the GUI now, but Beta 1 isn't going to show much in ways of the GUI so...




I am absolutely serious.  Even now with XP (once called Whistler) I can't stand the default Luna themes.  They are too bulky and too ugly.  I always end up back withthe old Classic look.  At least THAT was cleaner!

Mac OS X has always had a nice clean look, even with the aqua-ish details.  And to be honest, some of the themes that are available to OS X from third parties look even better than the original.  Even the third party themes I've seen for XP are not that great.  They just don't impress me at all, and it's more of the same with Vista's themes so far.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 2, 2005)

To add, all I see right now from this video is a lot of eye candy...even more than Mac OS X has.  As was mentioned earlier, how much will this eye candy tax the system?  Is it really necessary in an OS?  Can't too much of a good thing be a good thing?

Personally, I would prefer the performance than the excessive eye candy.  Just run my apps fast and snappy.  Not like all subsequent releases of Windows, which make your computer feel slower than before.  At least with OS X, each OS release _increases_ your computer's performance to a certain degree...


----------



## smithy (Aug 2, 2005)

Haha again the GUI is totally wacked. Have'nt Microsoft learnt their lesson with XP? Personally it just looks like XP with a few changes or just with a visual style in Windows talk. Sure okay OS X looks somewhat like OS X 10.0, but theres a difference in that OS X has been updated far more frequently in the past 5 years of which XP has been the latest MS OS in that same time frame.

The window trasnparency is not really needed but it is pretty cool-ish. Like said before this is only beta-1, there is going to be alot of changes, but from the looks of it at the moment, it isn't anything fancy. I think the minimize/restore window effects are in good taste. However to be picky, in user affordance the window looks to be minimized in a different direction to where the window is on the task bar. However that would look like the jenie effect of which looks like it at the moment in vista.  I think the whole blured motion effects in Vista is well thought of however woudl be hardware intensive. 

Personally sometimes i prefer the Windoes GUI look over mac and vise-versor. I think the task bar is actually really nice, however the quick launch icon area - the icons displayed there in those pics actually blend into the background. But the task bar and windows aren't unified at all. 

Still icons and text look dodgey, in some of those pictures the icons look terrible while resized. And text obviosuly is not completely anti-aliased via the solutions to problems screenshot.

Overall we shouldn't be that picky since it is in early stages. However it is becoming more and more like a mac.


----------



## WinWord10 (Aug 2, 2005)

That looks terrible, and surprisingly unprofessional for Microsoft. It's like XP with an ugly third-party theme, Windows Media-style explorer Windows, and elements from OS X. The whole thing looks half-baked, and Microsoft apparently has no idea of what direction their OS should be headed. Unless they add something phenomenal, or unless I'm missing something, nobody is going to be able to justify switching from XP. I predict that Vista will be a huge flop, especially among business customers.

Yes I realize it's only a beta.


----------



## lilbandit (Aug 2, 2005)

Whatever about the rest of the UI they seem to have stuck with that system tray in the bottom right. This usually turns into half a dozen tiny icons (3rd party and system) flashing, popping up and driving the user mad with messages. The user in the video got two popup messages within ten seconds of use. I also noticed the dreaded "Safely remove hardware," green arrow icon! That always drove me around the bend when using XP!


----------



## btoth (Aug 2, 2005)

Well, at least the shiny black taskbar looks better than the default XP taskbar. 

I did find the annoying notices funny, I hate turning on my PC and having to wait for 10 notices to show... windows update, virus updates, spyware updates, printer updates... etc. It basically looks like XP with a redone interface.  Though, that way it does stay familiar.

One thing I've been interested in with it is the system-wide integration of .NET.  I haven't been keeping up with my windows development, but I did like working with .NET and would like to give Visual Studio '05 a try.


----------



## Convert (Aug 2, 2005)

I think it looks okay. There are some things I really don't like, like the "OK" buttons, they look nasty. And the font still looks really blocky.

I do like it though. Although it seems to have this design in which it looks really good in some places, but REALLY bad in others. And the guy just seemed to want to show off the little effect he had there, like he was saying "Haha mac users!" but in all honesty, it wasn't that amazing. I'm sure he could have shown more interesting things.


----------



## Shookster (Aug 2, 2005)

It's got some good features but really not enough to justify the 4-5 years it's been in development. Mac OS X was released in 2001 like XP and in that time it has improved in stages whereas XP has improved very little. This would require Vista to be a massive jump in order to catch up with Mac OS X, which it doesn't look to be at the moment. Maybe it would be if they hadn't delayed some of the more promising features like WinFS. Interestingly, these features will also be available as upgrades to XP upon release, which makes you wonder whether Vista will really be worth the money.


----------



## ged3000 (Aug 2, 2005)

As was said - there didnt seem to be anything all that different from XP sp2 in those screenshots. I guess there must be something other than just visual/eye chandy changes behind the whole thing? TBH I dunno what Id want it to do extra... Exposé features would be a godsend for windows users, even with the taskbar, to see what windows were open. They had what looks like a spotlight search box - if its as fast as or faster than spotlight, thats a great thing, if not :S ...

Surely, there must be some kind of novel selling point? Longhorn releases a good year or two ago looked very different from that - Id almost be tempted to say that that looked more like a modded XP system than the Longhorn Id come to expect.


----------



## MacFreak (Aug 2, 2005)

Yawning...   Who cares about this Vista. I am happy with MacOS X


----------



## markceltic (Aug 6, 2005)

I sent those links to my bro-in- law(a windows user)to let him know what's on the horizon.Either he's getting paranoid in his advanced years or things are worse than I realized for Windows users. He wouldn't go near them for fear of spyware or some other maliciousness .


----------



## RGrphc2 (Aug 6, 2005)

I think it's funny that Vista is all ready being targeted for virus and it's not even out yet!!!  ::ha:: 

http://news.com.com/First+potential...3-5819428.html?part=rss&tag=5819428&subj=news


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 7, 2005)

The only thing that I thought would really be interesting about Vista was also removed apparently.  Monad, which would have been a command shell similar to what Linux/Unix/Mac OS X have, has been removed from the feature list for Vista.  Leave it to MS to screw up a command shell as well.


----------



## g/re/p (Aug 7, 2005)

Hey, isn't this thread supposed to be 
*Apple* News, Rumors & Discussion??


----------



## Jason (Aug 7, 2005)

FWIW I am using Longhorn Beta 1 on my pc. IMHO (remember I have no probs with Windows unlike most of you ) its not bad at all. There are some cool improvements, there are some bugs, and there are some missing features. It is a beta and I'm sure the final release will be different. The theme has some inconsistencies, but so does OSX with metal, aqua and whatever the new look is called... The transparency effect is actually really neat, like said it blurs whats behind it. And like previously said, they should differentiate between animations for closing and minimizing. And like said, it is like XP, but its adding new features without re-creating the wheel, which is a good idea IMHO. As far as security? I really don't know and don't care, I've never had an issue with either viruses or spyware in my life. But yes, of course, the average user will. The search engine is of the same idea as spotlight but a bit different. Its not bad, but its not great. It's not fully implemented in the Beta 1 build, but it's there. There are some new organizational tools in explorer which are both useful and cumbersome since MS has yet to explain some things to the user (no real help file yet, but thats expected).

Anyways, this Beta is very incomplete, but if they fully complete everything by the time of release it will be a good Windows system. (Note: I said Windows system so that those of you who are alright with Windows will like it, and those of you who aren't will prolly continue to dislike it )... anyways It's always a good thing for OS's to move forward otherwise it would all stagnate, so whether or not your a fan, please realize that new releases keeps inovation going... for all companies.


----------



## HateEternal (Aug 7, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> The only thing that I thought would really be interesting about Vista was also removed apparently.  Monad, which would have been a command shell similar to what Linux/Unix/Mac OS X have, has been removed from the feature list for Vista.  Leave it to MS to screw up a command shell as well.



Are they for sure removing it? I know someone already wrote a virus script in it, so they were thinking of making it an optional add on, but not something that would be a forced install.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 7, 2005)

HateEternal said:
			
		

> Are they for sure removing it? I know someone already wrote a virus script in it, so they were thinking of making it an optional add on, but not something that would be a forced install.



http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/2233207&threshold=-1&tid=109&tid=172&tid=218

http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2005/08/05/408720.aspx

Monad won't be included in the final version of Vista, but will possibly be included in the server versions of Vista.


----------



## Satcomer (Aug 8, 2005)

Oh great a new Microsoft system. My company still runs 2000! XP is considered unsafe in the office where I work. I was given extra duties with supporting the users 2000 boxes along with the Unix boxes. The largest problem by far, causing me to cut off users, is ignorance of users and so called LAN administrators not updating their virus definitions and security updates. 

All of you Windows apologist should stop and smell what you are dishing. The majority of windows users are unaware of their operating system and simple security. This is the very reason why every so often I find an extra helping of spam in my inbox because MOST Windows users likely (even the ones I personally know) have not updated their XP, 2000 box and one or more of them have a spam zombie installed on their machine and I am in their inbox. This is my largest problem with Windows! I don't blame Microsoft, I want to make that clear. I do blame Microsoft users and sellers pushing this operating system that is not for the masses in cheap computers. XP, 2000 can be made safe with extra money and diligence. Most users are ignorant of this or don't care. 

OS X is ready for the masses. Yes, OS X needs the occasional security update for the potential security threat. However, compared to Microsoft system, the OS X security is at least 10 years ahead of XP and most likely Vista. The reason for this is painfully simple, Microsoft is expected to support all those different cheap boxes so every operating system since NT 4.0 can run every program wrote since it's release. This is the reason why XP has 10 to 20 year old code written into it. This is the reason why Microsoft XP+ is inherently security is abysmal.


----------



## fryke (Aug 8, 2005)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Hey, isn't this thread supposed to be
> *Apple* News, Rumors & Discussion??



Yep. Thusly I moved the thread now.  ...


----------



## gerbick (Aug 9, 2005)

I see similarities... but saying that MS ripped them is going quite a bit... well far.  I guess since Windows Vista uses a mouse and has icons, that's a rip too?  

Vista doesn't impress me.  Neither did the earlier Longhorn PDC releases.  All of the interesting technology besides Avalon have disappeared.  And pertaining security... all *nix OS are BIND exploit susceptible.  Tracking cookies still work.  And there are others... just less to worry about than Windows.

Well, not until the Intel x86 switch.  Who knows what's going to happen then... might get popular enough to become a true target.


----------



## powermac (Aug 9, 2005)

Well, just by looking at the video and a few screen shots. I still believe windows to be clumsy. In the video, he had to close down one of those pop up windows from the task bar. And the start-menu, all I ask on that is why? I believe the tide is turning on M$, simply copying Apple is not enough anymore.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Aug 9, 2005)

windows, graphically, has moved one step forward with decent blurring in the UI. we only currently have fade and scale effects fully implemented. i'm not saying they are absent, i'm saying they're not being used, and perhaps they should. i really like the concept of trasparent window borders - far less obtrusive, and puts the focus on the content.

however, i will continue to get people on PC's to get macs. they are a much better system _from the ground up.  _i love stealing someones digital camera and plugging it into my mac.  i love their reaction as they see i don't do anything, but iphoto opens, and the pictures are imported, sorted, organised and completley usable. without drivers, without having to open photoshop, without third-party crap like olympus camera software. it just... works!

itunes (i know windows has this now, but it's nowhere near as fast) - you put a CD in, it looks on the internet, gets the track names and starts importing it. it then organises it perfectly.  it just... works.

windows has a far wider range of peripherals you can use with it.

Mac has a far higher rate of success though.  selected things work on macs. nothing works on windows. not first time, anyway....


----------



## gerbick (Aug 9, 2005)

powermac said:
			
		

> Well, just by looking at the video and a few screen shots. I still believe windows to be clumsy. In the video, he had to close down one of those pop up windows from the task bar. And the start-menu, all I ask on that is why? I believe the tide is turning on M$, simply copying Apple is not enough anymore.


the popup closed via the task bar originated in the task bar... looked like a Security advisory that's part of WinXP SP2 and Win2k3 Server SP1.  Annoyingly closed with one mouse click.

The start menu was like that in WinXP and Win2k3 as well.  Mine is using the classic look... small.


----------



## powermac (Aug 10, 2005)

Everyone has a preference for how they like GUI. M$ has taken its hits for their GUI philosophy and design. This is not a window bash by any means. In general, my experience with any version of windows is the OS gets in the way of the work flow. Sure, those security reminders, and other pop up events are nice. When they become intrusive to my work flow, of course I  get annoyed.
The start-menu, in my view, is clumsy. Sure one can drag icons to the desktop, or task bar on the bottom. Perhaps, like many people, I figured the new version was going to be radically different. Perhaps I got that idea from how much M$ hyped up longhorn, and viewing the beta, it appears some eye-candy features have been added. How to navigate the system and files remains the same. In short, I was looking for M$ to radically change that aspect of Longhorn. Even though I strictly use the Mac only.


----------



## riccbhard (Aug 10, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I am absolutely serious.  Even now with XP (once called Whistler) I can't stand the default Luna themes.  They are too bulky and too ugly.  I always end up back withthe old Classic look.  At least THAT was cleaner!
> 
> Mac OS X has always had a nice clean look, even with the aqua-ish details.  And to be honest, some of the themes that are available to OS X from third parties look even better than the original.  Even the third party themes I've seen for XP are not that great.  They just don't impress me at all, and it's more of the same with Vista's themes so far.



I agree. I'm on a XP machine now. 

I believe Vista (btw what kind of name is that?) is going to slow down the computer even more than XP... and that's saying something. I prefer 2000 over XP anyday, because it is the exact same OS - except it uses the windows classic look and is much faster.

EDIT: Oh and XP programs will run on 2000 too; because 2000 also has transparency and all that other XP stuff.

Ok i'm done now


----------



## Qion (Aug 10, 2005)

riccbhard said:
			
		

> I agree. I'm on a XP machine now.
> 
> I believe Vista (btw what kind of name is that?) is going to slow down the computer even more than XP... and that's saying something. I prefer 2000 over XP anyday, because it is the exact same OS - except it uses the windows classic look and is much faster.
> 
> ...



Yes, I completely agree with you. I also use Windows 2000 over XP.... In fact I can't think of a program that I needed that would run on XP but wouldn't run on 2000. (Ex. iTunes)

Vista will _definitely_ run slower than XP. Have you checked out MS.com for speculated hardware requirments? They act like a Comodore could run it, but really the figures they are showing will eliminate any computer that isn't at least high-mid-range right now. 

_*Scary*_


----------



## riccbhard (Aug 10, 2005)

Qion said:
			
		

> Yes, I completely agree with you. I also use Windows 2000 over XP.... In fact I can't think of a program that I needed that would run on XP but wouldn't run on 2000. (Ex. iTunes)
> 
> Vista will _definitely_ run slower than XP. Have you checked out MS.com for speculated hardware requirments? They act like a Comodore could run it, but really the figures they are showing will eliminate any computer that isn't at least high-mid-range right now.
> 
> _*Scary*_



EDIT: Ahem. Yes I see know; maybe for future times you should use "Example" instead of "Ex." which I usually associate with "Except".


----------



## Perseus (Aug 11, 2005)

> Frankly, I'm not impressed at all with Vista at the moment. So windows fade in and out...big deal. Mac OS X had been doing effects (and better than Vista) for a long time now. Looks as though Microsoft is losing the battle. It gets uglier with every release.



I totally agree.  Wow, so when you clsoe a window it supposed to look cool. Yay! I am jumping for joy.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Aug 12, 2005)

they just keeping up with the times.  if they didn't do that, then they'd still be seen as being 10 years behind, instead of 4.


----------



## Qion (Aug 13, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> they just keeping up with the times.  if they didn't do that, then they'd still be seen as being 10 years behind, instead of 4.



Not to bash, but nice one


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Aug 13, 2005)

well it's true. we act all smug that all our graphical things are so cool. windows does something along the same lines and it's wasted cpu, bloated and timewasting. macfans are so two-faced at times. i personally now feel that the quartz things on my tiger are behind the times now. leopard better have some bloody groundbreaking stuff.


----------



## powermac (Aug 14, 2005)

In our defense, it always appears that M$ is copying what Apple engineers have accomplished. I personally can care less if vista/longhorn does. My reason is the interface is ugly, and visually confusing.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 14, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> well it's true. we act all smug that all our graphical things are so cool. windows does something along the same lines and it's wasted cpu, bloated and timewasting. macfans are so two-faced at times. i personally now feel that the quartz things on my tiger are behind the times now. leopard better have some bloody groundbreaking stuff.




The problem here is that then it's perceived as Microsoft being "innovative" because they are doing this and Apple being the one who copied MS (which has ALWAYS been the case if you ask a WIndows user, even though it's not true).

Look at the X.org team.  They are looking to implement a lot of the same things from both operating systems into X11.  Are they claiming to be the innovators? No!  They give credit where credit is due.  MS just claims to have done it first.

Plus, it has always been common practice for MS to add supercool eyecandy, but not deliver in performance.  All of their releases have made the Windows experience a slower one on machines that have had the prevoius version, meaning you would have to replace your machine or components to have the *operating system* run faster as opposed to your applications, which is where you REALLY want the performance increase.  Apple has made each of their releases run a bit faster on older hardware and much faster on the newer hardware.  That's the way it should be when you upgrade to something newer.  Faster and optimized, not slower and out of date.  All MS is doing by making your OS experience slower through features is promoting the "planned obsolescence" that MS and Windows software/PC hardware manufacturers thrive on and we as consumers and users and up the losers since we have to shell out the cash for something that was considered new only 5 minutes ago before it was obsoleted.

Older Mac users are used to having each release come out with innovative features and performance increases with each subsequent version.  I remember System 7.5.5 being MUCH faster than System 7.5 on my Performa 6220CD.  So to see MS cheat consumers of there speed for "features" in the next release, and then have the balls to say they "innovated" is why MS gets the rag that it does from Mac users.


----------



## fryke (Aug 14, 2005)

On the other hand, Apple brought a LOT of eye-candy when introducing Mac OS X (as in Public Beta and/or 10.0) and did most certainly NOT deliver decent graphics performance. Sure, they've been playing catch-up (to OS 9) ever since, but we can't say it was always MS in the past who brought eye-candy without performance. Simply not true. Also, we simply shouldn't judge Beta 1 of Longhorn too much. They've got all the time in the world (well, until the very end of 2006) to change and fix things. They might even let go of most of these effects or at least let users turn them off completely to get back some performance - something Apple hasn't really done...


----------



## Qion (Aug 14, 2005)

Microsoft has had since October 2001 to start innovating on their new system. To say that we shouldn't "judge" the beta isn't right. It seems like they've had a long enough time to mull things over to get a steady, fast OS.

Of course, the beta is to change and we all know that. As Fryke said, maybe they'll remove some of the eye-candy, change it, or let the user select how much they want to run. If I remember correctly, Aero won't even run on older hardware, so I'm sure that there will be an option to turn it off just like there was in XP. It still seems that Beta 1 has a lot left to be desired, however. 

As for Apple not allowing OSX users to adjust eye-candy, what would be the point? Each version of OSX has gotten a bit faster.... so an option to turn those things off in the new releases when hardware was getting faster as well as the GUI doesn't make much sense. It's a fact that with the OSX Public Release the graphical elements were slower compared to OS9, but I think that the majority of people would be willing to take a small performance hit in order to run a system that looked as good as Cheetah.


----------

