Windows Aero interface performance and menu latency vs. XP

We were having a discussion about Aero's menu latency / interface performance. For example whether the viual affects make things slower. As the discussion in the other topic was off topic, it can continue here.

Many people are not really bothered by it. I am. This article describes menu latency pretty well:

"Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu," said Pfeiffer. "In Windows, it's not immediate. That's not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice." "Vista running Aero was 14% slower than XP."
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011819

It still has it, it's just the way the Aero interface works.

"Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu," said Pfeiffer. "In Windows, it's not immediate. That's not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice." "In Vista, a folder fades in, as if it appears out of nothing. It looks great, but after 10 times you realize you're losing time waiting for that."

I understand not everyone is bothered by it though. And I think it's easy to overcome by disabling Aero and setting all visual effect to maximum performance.

 

I just tried menus and sub menus in vista and xp using windows explorer, internet explorer, ms outlook, and firefox. The menus work exactly the same, at the same speed. It's quite possible that what ever the researchers observed with the menus is no longer the case.

I also performed the desktop operation tests. I didn't observe any design decision or fading that made folder creation, file deletion, etc. slower in vista than in xp.

I didn't do the mouse precision test.

The research compared two mature operating systems to a brand new one. The research referenced an old version of vista, not the current version of vista or windows 7. Even if we except their findings, we have to except it as being old. We cant even say their tests were valid because they didnt provide full system specs.

If someone currently running vista sp1 or win7 rc can point out any menu latency, please do so.

 

Try maximizing a window from the taskbar or opening My Computer from the start menu. To me it's very clear what they are talking about. I have Windows 7 and XP connected to the same 24" screen.

Edit: But let's try to keep this thread on topic from now on. This thread is for Asus 1005HA. For discussion about XP vs. Vista vs. Win 7 please use the Windows forum.

 

When I do the my computer test, vista immediately fades in while xp takes a second, then displays. I cant say that "fade and display" is faster or slower than "show nothing until it's ready to display". I guess well see what happens once ppl provide feedback when they install win7 on the netbooks...

 

The research is talking about a 14% difference. If you want to establish whether the research is correct you'll need some benchmark software.

 

I thought u said we should move this discussion?

The research was conducted on a previous version of the operating system on unspecified hardware. To me, it doesn't matter what they found. It's less about disputing their results and more about accepting that their results are no longer relevant.

I'm sure some of the ppl reading this are using the current version of vista. If they are experiencing the menu latency you mentioned, I hope they will chime in. I don't see menu latency. The fact that My Computer "immediately fades in" with vista and "delayed displays" on xp doesn't tell me that one is faster than the other. The difference at best is only fractions of a second. I honestly dont see why ppl should be deterred from installing win7 on their netbook because of any of this.

 

Their results are fully relevant to me. But if the menu latency doesn't bother you, good for you And like I've said a couple of times, it's only a few simple tweaks to make Windows 7's interface as fast as XP.

I did but you keep going on about it

 

If it's still relevant, please kindly point out where you are currently observing menu latency.

 

I already did, read back if you want to know.

Thread moved.

 

I read this thread and your post 3 times. I read the article once and wrote it off simply because it was written in 2007. The researchers either must update it or reviewed the findings.

I am sitting here with Vista and XP on the dining table performing your "testing" steps " Try maximizing a window from the taskbar or opening My Computer from the start menu."

If the lag is about 14% then either I am using too fast and too powerful of the 2 systems here that I can neither "see" nor "feel" it.

cheers ...

 

In early 2007, when that article was written, it was common knowledge that video drivers for Vista were still shaky, and performance was not where it could be. They ironed that all out ages ago.

I will say one set of personalization tweaks, which even more astute users seem to miss, are found by right-clicking Computer, going to Properties, Advanced System Settings, then Performance. I *always* disable "Animate windows when minimizing and maximizing", and all the "fade" stuff. Four checkboxes, and it makes Vista "pop" menus and stuff at XP speed.

I also disable the stupid "Start Navigation" sound, since not only is it a sound I do not personally like, but it has to load that sound every time it is needed.

 

Ok, if you want I can try to show you.

When you press Start and then My computer, do you notice a fade in effect before the window is actually there?

If so, does that effect take (a little) time?

No it's got nothing to do with how powerful a system is. I can overclock the system in my sig to 3.5GHz and it will still be there. It's just one of the characteristics of Aero that it uses visual effects, which take a little time.

No it's not about that. I can see the exact same thing with Win 7 64 bit RC.

You're right. It's got everything to do with that.

By disabling those effects Vista and Win 7 get the same interface speed as XP without visual effects.

 

Nope, it is simply just "on". Tried it on 2 Sony (Vista 32bits), Gateway (Vista 64 bits). And actually these 3 comps open up faster than the MSI and the Sager - both on XP SP3.

And the only tweak that I did on the Vista comps was to disable the fade-out effect.

cheers ...

 

Ah you disabled the effects. Well then you're not going to experience any of the delays.

 

Ok. I reset it back to Vista folder view standard. Restarted the comps. And NO, I just could not see the lag you mentioned. And it is still opening faster than my XP comps.

cheers ...

 

Thing is... Aero is GPU-accelerated and when it's off (or when using XP) windows and menus are composed by the CPU. If you keep your CPU in it's lowest performance state when on battery like me, you'll want to bash your fist on the keyboard when not using Aero... a X4500MHD is enough to run it very smoothly on battery (provided transparency is off... though that is to save battery).

I despise using XP because of the CPU-accelerated composition, actually.

 

Make any differences if you "see" through the built-in LCD?

cheers ...

 

You can't see the fade in effect? That is really surprising to me. i see it on every computer if it's enabled.

Maybe you are not running Aero?

Not really, the visual in effects happen anyway. On a large screen they may be more apparent though.

 

Maybe I did not see the "fade" the way you do.

For me from the click until the windows is up and ready to go is what I measure how the desktop renders and presents the working elements.

And in this case, on my comps, Vista is performing faster than XP, meaning better performance in interface.

cheers ...

 

I prefer the fade, as it gives visual clue of something new. non-fading show/hide is terrible irritating, as you don't notice "where" something goes, or comes from.

the "delay" because of that fade is not a delay, but just the fadein/fadeout time. a delay would mean i click, and then have to wait till the fadein/fadeout starts, or without fading, the menu/window pops up/goes away.

all of the fadings of vista are faster than i am with the mouse, and the fading allows me to actually focus on where the window/menu will be while i move the mouse, allowing me to faster targeting the destination-button/menuentry/whateverthing i want to click next.

ergo, the fading actually enhances the experience, and makes me use my system faster.


i do not have any delays per se, all is instant, fades happen right after clicking something. but i'm on ssd's only, so this may be a reason that it reduces for example a delay between clicking "Computer" and explorer actually starting up, creating a window, and then fading in.

 

You either see it or you don't. I don't see any other way around it.

And the discussion is not really about XP vs. Windows 7, it's about the visual effects. And they do have an impact, although very small.

Some people are even helped by it

 

Impact as in degradation of performance? - then no, it is not to me.

cheers ...

 

Well that would be the next question, does the 0.1 second animation impact user performance.

I don't know that and I think it will be very hard to measure.

Personally I like my menus and windows to appear instantly. But I understand if other people don't.

 

The windows appear instantly to me just fine.

As mentioned, from the time I click on anything to the time I start accessing items within the windows or take control of the apps, I don't see the minus 14% (0.1 sec?) impact that is being discussing.

cheers ...

 

Well how much time do you reckon the fade in/out effect is showing?

My guess was 0.1 second. It could be 0.2 I don't know.

 

I would not know and would not pay attention to the time, since this fade-in/fade-out effect does not impact my system's performance. It is irrelevant for me.

It is nice to read the number though.

cheers ...

 

Go to the advanced properties >Performance settings > Uncheck "animate windows when minimizing & maximizing". This will open all windows instantly even with aero enabled in Win 7 & Vista.

 

That's exactly what I do. Aero is great and the fade-in/fade-out feature is cool, but ultimately it does take some time to do the animation, and I don't like it that much. I'd rather have my windows open instantly than fade-in.

 

Same. It's not really a laggy Aero interface, it's just that the animation is a bit slower than in XP.

Although, I wish there was a way to keep the application-launch fade-in effect, as it looks nice and doesn't really impact usage (since the application is just starting up anyway) and disable the minimize-maximize animation.

 

If you've read my post, then you might get the idea that it does actually impact the user performance positively normally. we're not used to instant stuff, not reacting fast on it. for animated stuff, we're trained, and can very fast then focus and retarget.

so an animated window will allow us to quickly target it with the mouse during the whole animation-phase, while a non-animated window wouldn't. it would be there faster (but not much), but not as noticeable for our brain, and thus not that easy to target with the mouse.

at least i know in my case it's that way.



and your perception of "uh it's slow as it's animated" is very wrong. it's fast, at the start of the animation the system is ready. i don't know how you feel it as slow. slow is, if the system doesn't react. xp doesn't react quite often. vista always reacts instantly with an animation. => it's faster.

and it's always faster than i am with the mouse for using it. i need "animations" myself to reach a button (i have to move my hand), that takes some time.

 

I did read your post I just don't believe it applies to me that way.

As I said I have a natural preference for everything happening instantly.

PS. Couldn't you tell I read your post by the remark "Some people are even helped by it"?

 

I have definitely noticed the loading difference, even when XP is run on an older machine. Annoying thing there is little justification for it. The part I hate the most is the load time for control panel.

 

Nope I couldn't. Dunno..


But btw, is there some delay between clicking and the start of the fade-in/popup? or not? because there isn't on my systems, but I do have ssds.

 

Not that I can notice. It's probably 0.012 sec, the acces time of a WD64000AAKS.

 

I guess we can all chip in some hardware configuration when posting/validating the observation if the "lag" either is present and/or is impacting the performance (in this case, the presentation of the working windows).

Something in the line of
. OS version,
. hard drive model and configuration,
. gpu and gpu driver version,
. notebook model
. ...

With all such inputs, maybe we can really come up with a consensus (somehow).

cheers ...

 

there is no consensus. the only "problem" is, he calls the fadein animation "lag". it isn't lag. it's an animation, an animation takes time (and can be deactivated).

the lag would be the moment of click till the moment of the start of the animation. on a good system, there is no visible lag between the two. my lag is around 80ns, the intel ssd latency


the animation is optional, but i don't think it's too long to be hindering in any form the users workflow of clicking, retargeting, clicking the next thing. en contraire, it should help (and was the reason why it got invented at the start.. because it helps the general user to understand what happens, thus having more control)

 

I can see your observation and reasoning (and agree), but the thread title and many of its posts so far imply that this "lag" impact system (aka interface) performance overall that I have yet experienced on my comps.

cheers ...

 

I actually love vista because I have no such system-related often random lags that xp had. sometimes xp was instant, sometimes not at all, and it was not controllable at all.

on vista, even on a 4200rpm 100gb 1.8" disk with 35ms latency (jup), i had no random lags. all sort of apps and clicks and such where very slow at starting/reacting, but i never had gui lag itself. now on the intel ssd with 80ns (0.08ms), no slow starting/reacting anymore as well

 

Just my two cents' worth, but I've got _Vista running with defaults, and haven't noticed any sort of system lag due to the Aero stuff or the animation; and any one-off lags I've noticed (e.g., caused by polling for network drives that aren't there at the moment) have been much less pronounced than they were in XP (although that might also be accounted for by the much, much newer hardware, too ).

 

It's a matter of definition. The animations take a little time. Some people classify this as latency or lag, some don't.

The research referred to in the startpost does.

And it has nothing to do with system specifications, because even on the fastest systems the animation takes a little time.

 

That's another point I would certainly agree with.

 

Jup but the animation is not lag per se. One can call it that, as it takes time. but lag is normally the moment where it looks like the system is doing nothing => before an animation. and there is actually the point, where vista wins over xp.

and, animations can be disabled at will (but i would never disable aero, as this enhances the snappiness and correctness of what you see very much).

the speed of the animations can't be changed afaik. that would "fix the issue" completely

 

Well yeah it depends on how you define lag. People (like me) that see the animations as lag are probably the ones that disable it first.

 

jup. but you shouldn't see it as lag anyways, but as animation. cause that's what it is. the animations don't make your computer look like it's slow. they just make it look different, more fluid. that may make it look less snappy, to you, but not less performing.

but happily we can configure it as needed and the thread shows how

 

Well the animations not only make it look slower, they make it slower. Even if it's only 0.1 second. That's slower.

Now whether it will acually impact the user's working speed is another question and that's open to debate. I think it does, while you think it actually makes you work faster.

 

but they don't make it look slower, the system. a non-responding system does make it look slower.

yes, the animation means there's a delay between no window, and the full visible window. but during the time, the system looks like it's responding and active => it looks like you have a fast, good performing system.

lags are the things that are annoying as they make you feel " is my system doing? is it dead? is it waiting for something? ??". lag sucks. i hate lag.

animations don't suck, and i always prefer them over system lag (non-animated idle time where you don't know what's the reason).

and on vista with an ssd, i have 0 lag. 0. except something weird happens (my external soundcard currently creates lags in the system, and more problems. stupid driver).


i don't think it makes me work faster, i've actually estimated this over years. back in win98 days i disabled rollout effect in menues as i thought "they make my system slower, and me, too". nowadays, i prefer animated guis that guide me to where something new appears, as i've encountered after years of learning gui development, how that helps the generic brain to focus on the new stuff and quickly retarget it.

if something pops up immediate without animation, it can take up to 3 seconds to actually actively focus on it and be able to then move the mouse accurately to click something (which takes time, again).

if something is animated in, we react normally much faster, and can during the movement target with the mouse very accurately.

reason for this is simple: real life never has immediate things, so if we can't see something coming from somewhere, we have no animal-trigger in the brain that says "something's coming, check it out if it's an enemy or something to eat or mate"

animations are cool (yep, i notice the "i wanna mate my vista" jokes that could pop up ).


but obviously, it's different per person, and only a general thing. scrolling has similar issues.

 

I think the problem is not so much the effects, it's that turning them off is not intuitive. Who's going to know to look under "right-click Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance"? Many people simply don't *know* the option exists, so they get this slow desktop and just blame Vista by default.

 

jup, then again, where was the option in xp (which has everything animated by default, too)?. i think it's at the same place. somewhere else, too?


edit: what i want to say is, yes, it's a bad place, but at least the same place. people who didn't like animations on xp and knew how to disable them can do so on vista, too.

 

Its just the animation. If you don't like it. take it off.

Otherwise, we could say OSX is the slowest OS out there because of all the animations that take place with minimizing/maximizing/loading programs, etc.

It's supposed to add to the experience. If you want multi tasking speed. Just Alt Tab.

 

So what you're saying is that in your case, the actual animation, or the time in which the animation takes place, is a negative thing?

In my case, I really like the smoothness Vista has over XP. I grew so tired of the jerky window draws on XP.