I'm going to trust you read the report and ask you a question. [I may RTFA later, dunno.]

If there is no impact between using or not using Aero, why is it disabled if your PC is not powerful enough to run it? (If i understand correctly that it IS disabled)

Because the reason it doesn't impact performance is due to it using the video card itself to do the rendering, rather than GDI through the processor. If your PC doesn't have a powerful enough video card to handle the rendering process, it will disable so as not to impact performance by having it render through the processor.

It's a matter of using the hardware in the system more efficiently, and letting the video card do what it does best, rather than have the rest of the subsystem take care of the rather menial task of rendering the surface.

The reason the study doesn't show an impact is because the people who made the test apparently don't understand what they're testing for.

What does the UI (whether it be Aero or XP) have to do with how long it takes to open up a web page or open up Adobe Photoshop?

What's next? A study that shows Aero doesn't affect the time it takes to insert a DVD into the computer?

Not a single test goes over the kinds of things that people in customization are familiar with -- speed of moving a window. Speed of resizing a window. Speed of switching between window A and window B.

I have no idea whether Aero is faster or slower than XP in those areas, but the fact they didn't test them makes the "study" worthless.

 

 

I think we need to ask Alex about this!

I read this before and thought I saw that the study was commisioned (and paid for??) by Microsoft? Can't find the source now though (more fool me!).

In related news SQL Server 05 shows no appreciable decrease in the acceleration of my 2003 Tiburon GT. Though it does seem to make getting from 5th to 6th gear a bit more difficult.

In related news SQL Server 05 shows no appreciable decrease in the acceleration of my 2003 Tiburon GT. Though it does seem to make getting from 5th to 6th gear a bit more difficult.

Best comment I've read tonight! Thanks for the chuckle!
R

I've read an article (a few in fact) about how the Aero gui makes your system run alot hotter than normal, and if you are a Vista capable laptop user running the aero gui will tax your laptop battery life considerably. I remember another article by Paul Thurrott or Michael Otey that stated that their laptops ran considerably hotter (from 50+ C in Vista standard gui mode, to over 80+ C while aero gui was running). Vista desktop pc's won't be bothered by the battery life issue but I'm sure they're going to go through similar heat issues.

Excessive heat over a considerable amount of time is going to have an effect on the longevity of your pc's various hardware components and will ultimately degrade system performance after a while.
Plus working on a super hot laptop just isn't my cup of tea and the fans inside my desktop pc's are loud enough as is.

I would agree with Frogboy's comments that the study didn't cover all of the required bases.
An independant study (not backed my Microsoft dollars) which is more encompassing that this study would yeild more credible results for the public.

Until the time comes when I'm required to run vista, I'll continue running winxp & windowblinds as is which offers me all of my gui requirements with little if any of the performance & battery life concerns currently offered by vista.

The study seems to be more geared towards responsiveness of the programs running on the two operating systems than attempting to compare the drawing of the shells vs. performance.

It would seem that a change occurs when the PC warms up.

I have been running the RC2 5744 for a while now, and there may be some heat increase in the system, but I suspect this is due to a combination of the greater video adapter use when running 'Aero' and the increase in process count which requires more work by the CPU.

My observation has been that the Aero shell is drawn differently (or at least appears with a fade in/fade out behaviour) than the 'Basic' shell (which seems very similar to the way XP draws the shell).

I would say that the smartest thing to do if one wants to run Vista is to make sure the PC has a minimum of 256 MB memory on the adapter, and that the PC has a dual core processor. Anything less may prove to be a disappointing experience in using the machine on a daily basis.

I'll wait until such time that I can afford a proper machine. By then the kinks should be out!

I just recently installed PCLinuxOS as my second system. WinXP is my last Microsoft OS (I started out in 1994 with Windows 3.11) I am weaning from Billy & Company. Vista? I had the opportunity to tell a microsoft rep just what I thought of their new clunker. I honestly don't care how pretty the front end looks. Vista does not make sense ($$$) for any business.

I agree with comments number...1,3,6,8,10 and 11. I just bought a new tablet laptop jan 3 I got it) so that I would not have to get the windows vista platform which is gonna be the norm on all of the new computers coming out in the middle to the end of this year. My system is very nice with the new duo stuff n all. I think vista will be ready in another 5 or 10 years.....by then my desktop will need replaced.

I agree with comments number...1,3,6,8,10 and 11. I just bought a new tablet laptop jan 3 so that I would not have to get the windows vista platform which is gonna be the norm on all of the new computers coming out in the middle to the end of this year. My system is very nice with the new duo stuff n all. I think vista will be ready in another 5 or 10 years.....by then my desktop will need replaced.