Talk:Windows Aero

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)

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?

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.

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 [1], 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)

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. Shandris^{the azylean} 19:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that Aero has got nothing to do with transparicy. Those are to seperated things, which is desniged that way so that the user can turn it off to increase peformance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.2.32 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Self Referance

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

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)

Programs like AlphaXP and Visual Task Tips can emulate Aero pretty well, I added it to the article Doshindude 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not to mention, ClearType is available in Windows XP, it's not exclusive to Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonC (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

The "Windows Vista User Experience" image is annoying me, for its placement on the page and quality is awful. To prevent any criticism, I've decided to ask what to do with the image. Delete it, move it, convert it into a wikitable, or re-upload it in SVG or PNG format? — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to older version, the image was vandalized by Fran z — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aero Experience? Or is it just Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/experiences/aero.mspx According to this link, and many other sources, a simple change in font of the change of a pop up message, is NOT any part of the aero experience. It's just a change in Windows Vista. Note the difference between Vista and Aero. Changes such as font and additions to the operating system, have been common since Windows first came out with a sequel operating system. Mentioning things such as the start menu change, the change in font, and just overall anything that was remotely different in comparison to XP and Vista, is completely pointless. Please consider the fact that Windows Vista and the Aero experience, are two completely different things, and such things should be noted under Windows Vista, not Aero.

Farther proof of this, is to extent to the fact that Aero is in fact not included with Windows Vista Home Premium. So consider the fact that if the font changes and popup dialogs are available in Home Premium, that you can rest assured that they are not I part of the "Aero Experience." Thanks, BrandonC —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonC (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken on several counts. This is certainly no slight on you, since the Microsoft web page you link to is rather misleading. For example, it states that "Computers running Windows Vista Home Basic or those without the hardware needed to run Windows Aero will use the basic user interface...". This is incorrect: despite the name, computers running Home Basic will only use the 'Basic' user interface only if, as with the other SKUs, they lack the hardware to run the Desktop Window Manager. If the do have the hardware, they will use the 'Standard' user interface, which does use the DWM, merely with some graphical effects (transparency, Flip3D) unavailable.

But back to the point: I point you to the Aero Aesthetics summary page in the Vista user interface guidelines -- "Aero is the new user experience in Windows Vista" -- and particularly the link at the bottom of that page entitled "Aero aesthetics guidelines", which points to a page with links to guidelines on "Layout, Window, Frames, Fonts, Color, Icons, Graphics, Sound, and Branding". Also note, for example, the Icons page, which talks about "the Aero style of iconography". (I did actually quote that list to you before whilst reinstating the Segoe UI example; after claiming that "it's the same as XP" (it's not; XP used Tahoma and MS Sans Serif), you declared that "You don't mention a simple FONT CHANGE". Nonwithstanding that "Fonts" is quite clearly forth item in the list.).

It is certainly true that, as you say, Vista is not the same as Aero. But it is also true that Aero is not the same as the Aero Glass theme. The latter is important part of Aero, certainly, but Aero encompasses considerably more than that. -- simxp (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for at least coming and actually explaining it rather then trying to belittle me. I still stand by not drastically outright saying "Another part of the aero experience is the new font and popup bubbles." Because to be honest, I still believe that to a casual user, it's very misleading. So rather then doing just that, provide a link stating that the aero experience is more then simply a graphical experience, and let the website speak the long list, since Wikipedia isn't willing to hold the whole list. All I'm saying is, if you're going to announce the aero experience, provide information that's exclusive to aero. If a simple font change and other various things have been a large role in Windows since the very beginning, then it's really not exclusive to aero, it just happens to be considered a part of aero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonC (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is considered a part of Aero, it becomes a part of Aero. While it is true that the same fonts and icon-style can be used without Aero (and vice versa), Aero makes it explicit that these should be used for consistency with the Aero visual style. As such, it does become one of the "identities" of "aero experience". With other infrastructures, where such guideline isn't present, such a look isn't a "signature" style. That is what makes it exclusive to Aero. You are quite right, Wikipedia cannot hold the entire list. But when there is something that will make an Aero-compatible experience identifiable in the first glance, it is important enough to be included here. --soum ^talk 04:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The font isn't entirely identifiable at first glance however. If anything, the start menu as I mentioned before, would be a much more while mention, then just a simple font change. Brandon Cassata (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Brandon is correct here in that much more is being attributed to Aero than should be. Several things mentioned in this wiki page (e.g., Aero snap & Aero shake) have nothing to do with Aero at all, and are simply part of the Win7 OS. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/snap.aspx and http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/shake, and note that Microsoft does not mention Aero at all when describing these OS features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.39.210 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

missing hardware requirements

I understood that the hardware requirements are quite high, but I read this nowhere in the article. Andries (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Requirements were removed a month or so ago on the basis that "this is about Aero, the theme & UI, not about the Desktop Window Manager". They're in the mian article at Windows_Vista#Hardware_requirements -- simxp (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but I reverted 20008-10-28 re-adding requirements by Andries because I considered requirements on-topic and the treatment at Windows_Vista#Hardware_requirements not very clear and insufficient. Andries (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

revert by Paul Cyr

Paul Cyr reverted an edit by 18.???.???.??? without leaving a comment or mention on the talk page. This edit was entirely appropriate. The contents of this edit were to add to the "See Also" section two links, one to Aqua and one to Compiz, added on the basis that they are parallel technologies of note in contemporaneous operating systems. I have re-added them.Ninjagecko (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section, by Wikipedia convention, is not the place to list competing technologies. That's what we use list articles, templates and categories for. In fact, if you look just a bit further down the page, in the "Window management topics" box, you'll see a more complete list of compositing window managers there! 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

W7

In my opinion, someone should replace all the Vista screenshots to the Windows 7 screenshots with Aero, including the new features like Aero Peek, plus the non-visual abilities like Aero Snap and Aero Shake.

Windows Vista screenshots should be used as long as it is the current version of Windows. Screenshots that are there to show new Windows 7 features are an exception, though. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Backronym or Acronym?

The source for the statement that Aero is a backronym describes Aero as an acronym. Based on a quick Google, this seems to be the only Microsoft-related (or otherwise reliable) source to mention anything about the acronym. Is there any evidence that Areo is actually a backronym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for theme reversion?

Can someone dig into detail as to why some legacy applications have incompatible properties? When using an application where the theme reverts back to basic and usually Windows notifies you that the program is incompatible. I haven't been able to find any sources for this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChazZeromus (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows Aero logo

I commented out the image file:Aero.svg. I can't find any place where that logo is used by Microsoft. Also the image seems to be a user made released under GNU GPL so that doesn't add up for a Microsoft Logo --Chris Ssk _talk 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This is written like an advertisement. It should be re-written with a neutral tone and perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinburk (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

About volari GPUs not supporting aero

Silicon Integrated Systems offer a driver for volari Z Series GPUs. SiS download website Available in Windows 7/GPU section. Someone using these GPUs may check if they get aero(then can update the article).Iteeluck (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism / Reaction?

There is no 'criticism' or 'reaction' section. No pro/con information. This seems more like a promo piece pulled from a Microsoft booklet than it does as an encyclopædic article? — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, is there any criticism that you would like to share? What is wrong with Aero? (208.124.80.206 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

Aero is NOT removed in Windows 8

The technologies Aero uses are still present in Windows 8. Furthermore, it can now be software-accelerated, which led to the removal of the whole Classic theme subset, as Classic is no longer required. The "Metrofied" or "Metroized" GUI announced for the Release Preview and final release of Windows 8 seems like a more thoroughly developed Aero Lite variant of Aero than that found in the Developer and Consumer Previews as well as in the older leaked builds. 85.240.141.134 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think it should be noted that Windows 8's resource files still refer to the finalized desktop theme as Aero.IndigoAK200 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows Vista

Why are there no images of Aero in Windows Vista, the operating system which introduced the interface? (MazaG20 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC))

Aero Peek should redirect to Features New To Windows 7

Aero Peek redirects here but there is nothing in the article about it but the article Features New To Windows 7 does have something. I don't have a clue how to change it and someone will probably object anyway.

Jumbles1971 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some information about Windows 7 was deleted from this article awhile back. It didn't make any sense to delete it; someone should go back and restore it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Aero performance

There's no mention of Aero's performance. I have read on various websites over the past few years that having Aero enabled will slow down the computer and programs, especially graphic-intensive programs. The article could do with a "Performance" section. MetalFusion81 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MetalFusion81

For that we need a peer-reviewed secondary source. Cursory claims and investigations are too unreliable for our purpose.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no clear answer on this. Maybe older computers, especially laptops, could perform better with Aero turned off. It is a debatable issue, but no reliable sources yet. MetalFusion81 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Old" is a dangerous word. A Pentium IV computer with a GeForce 8800 Ultra is old; an Intel Core i5 without a graphic card (which relies on Intel HD Graphics unit of CPU) is new. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windows Aero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226055026/http://www.microsoft.com:80/Windows/windows-7/whats-new.aspx? to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/whats-new.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it misleading to say that Windows Aero's legacy is Frutiger Aero?

Sure, it could be augured that it popularized the art style since almost consumer IBM PC compatible uses windows however Frutiger Aero was already popular in the FOSS scene, and it could be augured that the development of Longhorn was Microsoft's "Oh crap! POSIX operating systems are getting extremely competitive on IBM PC compatibles!" moment. Windows Aero was arguably Microsoft's response to Frutiger Aero in the FOSS scene. 172.116.113.102 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Add that the screenshot in the "history" section is of KDE

I could tell that it is a screenshot of KDE Plasma, except it is not mentioned in the caption and I think it should be. Some bored kid at school (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't frutiger aero have its own page?

Sure, the article has a section for the aesthetic, but I think Frutiger Aero is worthy of having a page of its own, considering how it is not limited to Windows at all. 181.229.247.49 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)