Talk:Windows Aero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.

Contents

[edit] Inconsistency

The Graphic levels section is inconsistent with Windows Vista#Hardware requirements, which states the following five versions, and includes screenshots of them:

  1. Windows Aero
  2. Standard
  3. Basic
  4. Windows Classic

Wulf 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to the similarities of Aqua

The existance of this section is entirely POV. Unless in every article we discuss how A is similar to B and B is similar to C and C is similar to D and so fourth, the inclusion of it is POV. The only way it would be permissible is if it had a notable interaction with the subject. The opinions of web "journalists" (and please, tech journalists are far from the most reliable source) are not facts, not to mention in this case there are factual errors. Paul Cyr 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is not similar functions, but similar appearance. The remarkable thing, according to many reviewers, is the similarity of the appearance of the Vista/Aero interface to Mac OS X/Aqua, right down to the names. Of course, the context is important too: many Mac users (of whom I am not one) and others believe that Microsoft has imitated the Apple interface over the years. In any case, the observation, sourced in independent third parties, is not POV. -- Gnetwerker 05:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about functions vs. appearance. Should we discuss how GM's interiors have a similar apperance to Honda? As I said before, it opens up a big can of worms that has no impact on the subject. The article you quoted even said "The striking similarity to Mac OS X is purely coincidental, we're sure." The opinions of Mac users is not relevent as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinion journal and violates WP:AWW. I suggest you read WP:NOT. Lastly, simply having third parties comment on something does not make it NPOV as those parties must be notable and neutral themselves. The Winsupersite comments are on a personal site and also personal opinion which violates WP:RS, the MacNN article is from a site who's own name shows bias which also violates WP:RS and the PCWorld article was closest to being a reliable source, but even it makes some comment in parenthesis that is off the cuff and could be taken as sarcasm or not depending how you look at it. Paul Cyr 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As per consensus on Talk:Windows Vista#The_so-called_NPOV_statement, I've removed the comments and NPOV tag. If you do want your comments mentioned, I suggest you start an article on the Windows and OS X GUI disputes as the Aero article is not the place. Paul Cyr 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The section is completely NPOV, and your objections to it appear to originate from a desire to make this an entirely uncritical page dedicated to the adulation of Microsoft. The concensus on the Vista page was for that page. This page, dedicated to Aero, should include sources which think it is partly an imitation of Mac OS X, as this is an old and well-worn criticism of Microsoft and Windows. -- Gnetwerker 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.s. -- If you feel this is POV, then edit it to add balancing POV, but if you continue to simply delete it, I will continue to add it. If we need to move straight to mediation, then just say so, and we'll avoid an edit war. -- Gnetwerker 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted your personal opinions on the subject from the article. Don't re-add them. Warrens 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your deletion of a fully-sourced paragraph. Please do not re-delete it. -- Gnetwerker 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Gnetwerker feels so strongly about reverting against consensus, as per WP:DR I am forwarding the dispute to the Arbitration Committee. Please note Gnetwerker that their decision is FINAL and violating their decision will result in an immediate resrtiction on your editing privilages. Paul Cyr 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Tee hee. I am familiar with ArbCom process, no need for a tutorial. Perhaps, however, you should actually read WP:DR, because you have not allowed time for my WP:RFC to garner any input from unbiased outside editors, nor have you requested mediation, both of which are prerequisites to arbitration. In any case, I am confident that you will not like the result of the exposure of your tightly-controlled Microsoft fan pages to independent third-party input. -- Gnetwerker 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And I suggest you read WP:NPA. Accusing me of being a Microsoft zealot is a personal attack. Paul Cyr 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how can this be considered POV? A bunch of reviewers point to the similarity between Aqua and Aero. We state that a bunch of reviewers point to the similarity.

If we were saying "Aero is very similar to Aqua" that would be POV, but that is not what is happening here. AlistairMcMillan 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aero article is not about how some people felt Aero is similar to Aqua and since it does not belong in the article, including it is POV. Although Gnetwerker has found bettter sources, his original sources were two blogs and a news article with an off-the-cuff remark which was hard to determine if it was sarcasm. I would have no objection to an article discussing the controversy, but should we discuss how everything compares to a similar thing in every article? Paul Cyr 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Gnetwerker wrote, "Vista buttons and other interface details have a shiny bulbous look similar to those in Mac OS X," so yes, that is exactly what's happening here. What I find strange about this is that I use both Vista and OS X every single day (heck, I wrote most of this article on my iBook while referencing a Vista machine beside it!), and I really don't see a distinctive similarity between Aqua buttons and Aero buttons. Here's an example of what I mean:
Image:Open open open.PNG
From the left: Windows XP "Luna", Windows Vista "Aero", and OS X 10.4 "Aqua". You'll notice that the left two look quite similar, whereas the right one is clearly different from them both. The way the visuals work is different, too; Windows has an alternate button highlight colour, and OS X default action butons "pulse". So where the heck did this idea of similarity come from? Oh, right, the source for this particular detail is MacNN, one of the largest, unabashedly pro-Mac websites in operation. Making definitive statements like the one Gnetwerker wrote above, based upon what some journalist wrote in an inherently biased publication is unacceptable in encyclopedia-quality prose, and it certainly doesn't pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources muster. Warrens 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I am just passing on what reviewers said. That comment ("bulbous") was from eWeek. Your exercise above is WP:NOR. Personally, I have never seen Vista or Aero, and I don't use a Mac. I am simply reporting what is out there in the press. Furthermore, whether a secondary source is biased or not is beside the point -- you can balance it with your own bias. Are you claiming that MSDN is not "inherently biased" or "one of the largest, unabashedly pro-Microsoft websites in operation"? -- Gnetwerker 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR applies to articles, not talk pages. Paul Cyr 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, an ArbCom ruling in which I was involved makes it clear that it can also apply to Talk pages. Of course, it could be argued that this entire article is WP:NOR, as it results from the editors use of the Vista beta releases and the examination and reporting of such. -- Gnetwerker 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Link? As well WP:NOR says, "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages..." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe official policies overrule arb com rulings. Paul Cyr 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The screenshots (like almost all screenshots of Vista) are from beta releases that Wikipedians are using; I personally use the Vista betas to verify the information I'm writing (it also helps me to understand the concepts involved, which generally results in better prose), but the information here is based on published documentation – you know, a Primary source, which WP:NOR explicitly encourages. What I try to do is skip over all the marketing rah-rah bullshit that companies tend to write into their marketing and documentation, and present just the relevant information. If you look through the cited references in this article, everything written under "User interface" is there. Warrens 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As well, MSDN is MS's developer's resource. Although it may not be 100% free from marketing drivel, it's mostly techincal documents and resources. So yes, it has very little bias. Paul Cyr 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Warrens, is Paul Thurrott's website also "one of the largest, unabashedly pro-Mac websites in operation"? [1] His site is also one of the citations, isn't it? AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I would say it's grey area, technically Winsupersite does not meet WP:RS Paul Cyr 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul Thurrott is somewhat infamous for his editorializing and "getting personal" in his reviews. We don't present his opinions as fact any more than we present MacNN's opinions as fact. I tend to be fairly careful about how I cite information from Thurrott, because while he is a fairly reliable source of information about Windows (owing to the fact that he's been reporting on it for over ten years), he is only a secondary source. Warrens 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not suggesting that we should present his opinion as fact, just that we should present his opinion. Secondly, you suggested [2] that the "idea of similarity" came from MacNN. I'm just pointing out that that is wrong, since I'm pretty sure Thurrott doesn't get his opinions from MacNN. AlistairMcMillan 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the similarity between Windows Vista and OS X isn't significant enough to be mentioned in this article. Most elements are more similar to previous versions of Windows than to Mac OS X. Note that nobody compares Vista to Linux, making most statements biased. If people were to compare windowing systems, they should do it in an unbiased way. I don't think that section belongs in the article at all. — Alex (T|C|E) 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but given that there are credible outside reviewers who believe they see a similarity, the section should stay (though, as I have said elsewhere, I do not think of it as a "Criticism", though there is no concensus on where else it would go). -- Gnetwerker 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to rationalize among credible secondary sources for real or apparent bias. No single editor or group of editors gets to determine whether one set of opinions (e.g. Thurott's) are more or less reliable that another (e.g. Microsoft's). Reliable secondary sources are the heart of Wikipedia. Primary sources, while sometimes acceptable in Wikipedia, are not preferable to secondary sources, the opposite is true. Where multiple secondary sources are available, they are to be preferred over primary sources. Despite the fact that this article's use of Microsoft's websites as primary sources borders on original research, it is acceptable for simple statements about (e.g.) what is or is not currently in the user interface. Statements about what is planned to be released are hardly ever worthy of inclusion ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"), and statements by bona fide independent reviewers, like the ones that keep getting reverted here, should be treated as the most valuable of all. After all, if you want Microsoft's opinion, it's better to go straight to Microsoft to get it than to come here. -- Gnetwerker 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AHEM! People, it's just an article about an operating system. Can everyone please calm down a little bit? Here's what I see as a neutral third party. (a)Gnetworker said that some people have metioned a "striking similarity" between Aero and OS X. (b)Others have responded and stated that they felt that this was not written from NPOV. (c)It has turned into a debate over whether or not Aero is actually similar to OS X Now, the issue that would be a more appropriate debate is whether to mention the critics. I feel that it is appropriate to cite critics' opinions so long as they are widely recognized and prefaced with "some critics have said...". In my opinion, it's the same as if an article about a film mentions what film critics have said about it. So long as it is very clear that fact being presented is "some critics say that Aero is strikingly similar to OS X" and not "Aero is strikingly similar to OS X according to some critics". With the focus on the critics rather than their opinions, this could be NPOV. As soon as the focus is taken off of the critics and onto their opinion, it ceases to be NPOV. Does that make any sense or am I just rambling? -- R'nway [ T C ] 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I suggest you start an article on the Windows and OS X GUI disputes as the Aero article is not the place"

I think this is a good idea. It will avoid all this rubbish on both this page and the main Vista page...Well...it won't. It'll just move it into a page of it's own, but one disputed and edit-warring page is better than two, it will be relevant to the article title and increase the neutrality of the Aero and Vista pages.

What say you? (everyone) Matt Peacock 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A more general article on the criticisms of Windows Vista would be an excellent place for this kind of stuff. We have a similar article for XP (Common criticisms of Windows XP) which can serve as a template for how to move this idea forward. Warrens 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In many cases these are not so much criticisms of Vista/Aero as they are context about possible sources of influence on its design. Nonetheless, it may very well be appropriate at some point in the future to create an article focusing on criticisms (presumably after enough people have experience with it to write an encyclopedic article on the topic). Even in that case, however, it would appropriate as indicated by summary style of to include something similar to what we now have in this article, summarizing the criticisms. For now, the section in this article is the appropriate place for these independent third-party comments. -- Gnetwerker 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it is have a main article about the controversy, and then link to it as a "Main article: Windows and OS X user interface controversy" link in the Aero article. I think the references in the main Vista article should be removed because it is already going to have its own article rooting the Aero article. Paul Cyr 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course any editor can create such an article, but I fail to see the "controversy". There is nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening if Microsoft imitated some successful UI features from the Mac, if indeed they did so. People still put out by "Windows95 = Mac '84" t-shirts and the like would have to be humourless indeed. The only thing that is peculiar (or controversial) is that editors on these pages are so opposed to repeating credible third-party views that this might have happened! -- Gnetwerker 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Another comment for WP:PAIN. And you have yet to show any of your articles except the PCWorld article meet WP:RS. Paul Cyr 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try to focus on debating the content of the pages. That goes for everyone. AlistairMcMillan 02:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you call asking for proper sources? Paul Cyr 02:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You are free to make your case that PC World magazine is not a reliable source. I think most educated persons would conclude that PC World is a reliable source, at least reliable enough to represent the quoted opinion of a columnist. I am afraid that your continued objection is tendentious and pointless. -- Gnetwerker 06:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You did not read what I wrote: "yet to show any of your articles except the PCWorld article meet WP:RS" (emphasis mine). Please read more carefully next time. Paul Cyr 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Common criticisms of Vista seems like a good article title. I say this because Windows Calendar has been noted to be similar to iCal, but that's UI design rather than a UI technology. I notice the common criticisms of WindowsXP isn't linked from the main article? (edit: It's tentative calling it criticisms though, some people would call it observations) Matt Peacock 11:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea of shunting criticism off into another article. That is not presenting the subject in an NPOV manner, that is blatantly trying to avoid anything negative. If someone wanted to mention that Aero had won some design award, would any of you accept it if someone suggested that couldn't be mentioned on the main page and had to be shunted to a special page titled "Acclaim for Windows Aero"? AlistairMcMillan 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Perspective

I have some more general comments about this page:

  1. Other than the User Experience and Wizard guidelines (and of course the hotly-contested "Crit" section), the article lacks sources. This is most evident in the "Requirements" section, which is very precise and definitive (indicating it came from somewhere) but unsourced;
  2. The "Tone" section is too detailed, and has been cribbed fairly directly from the Microsoft document here. A shorter, more concise write-up and a pointer to the MS document is preferable. I would say the same about the Wizards section;
  3. The article seems to say little (directly, at least) beyond the WP:LEADabout the things that third-party reviews have focused on -- the real look-and-feel of the interface, the animations, transparency, etc. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the article, but the lead seems independent of most of the othe content.

I suppose some of this is inevitable if this was pulled out of the Vista article, but it should be addressed nonetheless. -- Gnetwerker 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, have you? MSDN's documentation on Windows Aero absolutely qualifies as a reliable, primary source in a Wikipedia article about Windows Aero. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves if you need to see the official Wikipedia policy which backs this up. To say that this article "lacks sources" is nonsense, and is indicative of your ongoing effort to stir up shit in articles that address topics you have demonstrated a clear prejudice against given your contributions to date, and have admitted a lack of knowledge of. Warrens 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Warrens, please take a deep breath: I am not disputing MSDN's reliability. It is simply that many of the other sections are not sourced at all. There is not a single reference (e.g) for the hardware section. Do you think this is consistent with Wikipedia sourcing guidelines? Also, try to bear in mind that you do not WP:OWN this or any article.-- Gnetwerker 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole article reads like Microsoft marketing warmed over - I would suggest that it is extremely POV and is generally poor. MSDN sounds like a POV source to me. Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves - this sounds self-aggrandising to me. Where is the discussion on why most computers can't run it?

[edit] Copyedits

User:Warrens, no reason to be disingenuous in your edit summaries: there was no text "deleted", but instead a poorly-written section (on "Tone") was copyedited from a bullet-list into a prose paragraph. If there was important information in that section that you think was missing, then edit it back into the section, rather than simply revert. If you actually take the time to read the changes, you will see that there is no content change, just an improvement in the (rather poor) writing. -- Gnetwerker 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC) This whole article reads like Microsoft marketing warmed over - I would suggest that it is extremely POV and is generally poor.

[edit] OpenGL on Vista

I read that there are predicted performance issues with OpenGL in Vista because of the way the Aero Glass interface is designed [3], because Microsoft has opted to layer it over their own Direct3D, but I don't understand the technical details well enough to write about it. I imagine it would go under "Criticism". Can someone who knows about this stuff add a relevant paragraph? Phoenix-forgotten 03:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That issue is mostly resolved now. There's more information at the Comparison of Direct3D and OpenGL article. Warrens 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aero and Aero

Can someone change images to represent the glass effect? It's a bit tragic that you in the text read about transparencies when the user is using Aero Basic. 80% about Aero is all the sleek effects and the transparent glass, that's my opinion. Shandristhe azylean 19:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self Referance

I don't think that Wikipedia should be used as the font sample.

[edit] Transparency

The article states, "some translucency can be achieved in Windows XP with 3rd party programs," then lists a couple of utilities that presumably will allow you to make your windows semitransparent. I just wanted to add that some standalone programs, for an example Myspace IM, allow you to set their transparency level individually, and also to speculate that you might be able to make other programs transparent with registry tweaks. I realize this doesn't pertain to this article neccessarily, but since it's based on a line in this article, and I'm too lazy to go over to the WinXP article right now, here it is. Dansiman 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antialiasing

Isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and though I don't actually have Vista, the images here make it look like Vista has text and window antialiasing.

It seems as though Vista does have antialiasing, at least in Flip3D. The window shadows make it difficult to determine if there is aliasing on non-Flip'd windows. The text antialiasing is simply ClearType or similar. Ahanix1989 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Unless someone - using multiple screenshots - show a major similarity between Vista and OS X in looks AND workflow AND at the same time show that major changes have been made from XP I will scrap the entire Aqua vs Aero Glass part. That "someone" claim that MS have copied Apple have very little weight since that accusation have been around for decades while very few cases of copying can be found IRL. I will unless proven wrong delete the text a week from now, on 2007-01-06. 81.233.73.177 /HSB 12:32, December 29, 2006

Since none seems willing to pick up the sword and pin-point actual similarities between Aero and Aqua I decided to remove that section today, on 2007-01-06. 81.233.73.177/HSB 19:25, January 6, 2007

Thanks but that section is fully sourced. Please read our rules on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. AlistairMcMillan 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym or backronym?

"Its name is an acronym (or backronym) for Authentic, Energetic, Reflective and Open."

Does this mean rumour has it that Microsoft christened it Aero before beginning to decide what Aero stands for, but nobody's sure? Or what? -- Smjg 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWindows_Aero_538a.html"