krick, on Mar 22 2005, 03:20 AM, said:
superscotty19, on Mar 17 2005, 12:57 AM, said:
It simply boils down to aesthetics - "XP is prettier" is the common thread.
*steps up on soapbox*
Personally, I think the XP UI looks like a f**king clown car. Who thought that purple, orange, blue, red, and green was a good color scheme? Hell, while they were at it, they should have thrown in some fuschia. It sure couldn't make it uglier. And what's up with the ridiculously large window close, minimize, and maximize controls?
I routinely turn off all of the LUNA-cy when using XP, so it looks more sane, meaning identical to 95/98.
MS themselves admits that the little crap in LUNA is the results of "set for best APPEARANCE" while what is wanted is "set for best PERFORMANCE". Both are available, but the lunacy "serving suggestion" turns on all of the slow-down overhead. Thus, even if you have a fast machine, XP crawls along identically to what it does on a "slow" machine [well, slow for XP standards!].
Apparently, things work sort-of like this:
When the start menu goes to another level, schedule a sleep task and the task to get ready the stuff to paint the screen with. When either is done, wait for the other. When both are complete, THEN paint the screen with the results. So, if your machine takes 3 seconds to number-crunch the next menu-level update, then you are just about done when the sleep task is already done, and then you paint the screen after the delay. If you have a **** fast machine, you might calculate the screen update in less than 1/4 sec, but you then wait for 2.75 more seconds for the sleep task to finish. Either machine appears equally crawlly, etc.
But if you set the max PERFORMANCE settings, the slow machine appears fidgety, unlike in 98SE, since the overhead shows how overloaded the slower machine can be. On the fast machine, it can resemble the zippy performance we are used to in 98SE, etc.
BTW, XP SP2 has added another category of cosmetic silliness to luna, to slow things down even more. When you click on an .exe file, execution, BY DEFAULT, is delayed as the selected icon fades out. Thus, the further disparity between "maximum appearance" and "maximum performance".
Remember, LUNA makes it real easy for those who have more fingers on their hands than items they access on their computers. To run the REAL program menu you have to goto "all programs" and wait three more seconds to get into the actual programs start menu. [But you can make any number of desktop icons to match whatever you run often, so why need LUNA at all? Isn't in your face better than having to call up any form of sub-menu? Besides, the desktop itself could have folders on it with sub-menus inside, ad nauseum, etc.]
Another user has perhaps a better description of LUNA, it's the TELETUBBIES version of Windows. [Bob version 2?]