What do you think of trasparency in windows?

What do you think of transparency in windows?

 

neat feature...

 

I vote annoying and hard to read.

 

Indifferent. It looks nice and all, but is pretty much non essential feature.

 

It's a pain in my opinion. Makes everything in the transparent section harder to read. Bad move. MacOS looks excellent and that doesn't play around with transparency like Vista does. Microsoft should learn from other leading OS manufacturers.

 

Nice for first couple of days, then ZZZZzzzzZZZzzzz.....zzzz!!!!

 

Yeah I voted for annoying and useless. You do not need transparent windows to have success in using your laptop. Plus it wastes resources. I would have voted for choice one and two, but you know how voting goes. Only one.

 

I just don't see the reason for it. It seems to me it leads to a lot info and screen overload.

 

I think fully transparent is useless, because it is very hard to read. But if it's just the border and it's only slightly transparent, then I think it looks great. The only time I really care about resource usage is at startup. If the computer boots quickly, I'm ok with the load during normal usage. I guess if I game at all I like to have as little running as possible, but I don't game that often. When I start to see slowdowns, then I'll look into resource usage. I imagine Vista will be alright at resource management...especially when dual-core, high memory, high FSB components are included.

 

I voted 1st thing to disable.

I'd rather have a secure and safe OS than a pretty OS.

(And locking down options in the new Office is a real turn off. I'll prolly stay with WinXP and Office 2003 for the foreseeable future. If I really want transparency and a safe environment, I'll take the time and energy to switch to Mac anway.)

 

Useless, annoying, and I don't even like the way it looks.
I would vote the first 2 options.

 

I quite like the look of it. Makes a joy to use a laptop...

 

You know I tried it out recently, and although it looks nice and all, I think it's pretty useless. Overall, I didn't get as comfortable with Vista as I had hoped, I guess because RC1 didn't have compatibility sorted out yet. Nero won't install and there's a full list of other programs that have yet to support the new OS.

Sure, it'll all come, but for now, I'm happy with XP.

 

“Vista Aero” is just the last craziness which is mostly a result of good marketing, nothing more...

I really can not understand why so many people are so obsessed with this "transparency" and probably "Can I run Vista Aero on my GPU?" is the most asked question this year..

I would say that just a new skin is not so essential part of an operation system and also this graphics intensive interface means that it is power/heat/memory/eyes intensive too, otherwise it's cool and I like it but I don't think that I will survive with this transparency more then 5 minutes.

And so guys, just a fancy skin is not worth so much attention…

 

I'm surprised at how little it annoyed me in Vista. It didnt actually make things harder to read imo.

That said, it's not something I particularly want or need.

 

A lot better than luna, but still reaaaally far behind.
I don't know who microsoft his hiring to design these, but they're doing a pretty crappy job.
Classic is just classic. I can't really comment on it. With the right color scheme, I may even prefer it over the luna.
Luna(the silver one espacially) was just... "eww"
Media center theme was a little bit better, but I really don't like using it.
Aero- It's not "bad" per say, but I still prefer 1/5th of the ms styles on deviantart/wincustomize/etc... over aero. And considering these are suppose be done by professionals, funded by one of the richest companies in the world, I'm incredibly disappointed.

When I switch to vista, I'm hoping I can still use my brushed OSX theme on it(or find a updated version for vista's improved interface).