Why Windows beta's style is better than release style?

[Y@riK]

All agree with me.
Windows 2000 Beta 2 (or 3) boot logo is better than Windows 2000 final release.
Windows Longhorn/Vista 5112 have very beautiful style. It was changed in final release.
Windows Whistler has more theme/GUI functions. In XP it removed. Example: Red borders in inactive windows.
Finally: Windows 8 beta has very beautiful "Aero" style. It was removed in final release.

[JimOlive]

IDK why betas look better, but I do know that this topic is pointless.

[Archenemy]

I like Windows 8 beta Aero style better than the final version. The final version should have been made for only tablets and phones.

[yourepicfailure]

Ever hear the theory MS wants the most ugly and boring UI for their system?
I can't remember where I read that on this forum, but I remember it was on a longhorn topic.

[Archenemy]

Ever hear the theory MS wants the most ugly and boring UI for their system?
I can't remember where I read that on this forum, but I remember it was on a longhorn topic.

I never heard that theory before, and I think whoever posted that topic or post on this forum is trolling.

[classiconthebox]

Whistler and NT5 had the best.


Indeed, Windows 2000 Beta 3's logo looks better than the final, the final is just bland and boring.

Whistler had Watercolor, which is the best theme ever.


Also the Beta 2 Luna is also cool, it's much better than the final Luna.


And yes, the Windows 8 Developer Preview/Consumer Preview Aero theme was even better than the Windows 7 Aero. No wonder I skinned my Windows 7 to look like that.

[wasabilee]

Vista B1 had nicest Skin ever

[Samuka]

And we can talk about performance...Vista beta 1 is very fast than Vista Final

[jimmsta]

Marketing. That's the only real reason for the boring UI that Microsoft seems to choose for their RTM products. They actually do some product marketing research, and find that business-types look for a professional-looking user interface. Windows XP's final UI broke the mold in this department, but perhaps due to said marketing research. Home users typically get drawn to bright colors, while business-sector users tend to want no distractions, so that actual work can be performed at... work.

Vista & 7 kept up with this trend. All in all, 8 was really an expensive marketing research project, to see if business professionals would be interested in a touch-only ui. Obviously, this did not happen, and that's where we are now with 10 and the return of the previous generation's UI (Albeit more flashy than 7, even on the Enterprise SKU).

The server SKU's have kept up with the bland UI, to save on resources, and keep flashiness at a minimum. When the OS is in development, developers and designers are allowed free reign over how the OS looks, especially before it goes into user UX testing. Once that phase begins, the final OS theme becomes more apparent. Typically, that phase would have occurred during Beta, and into the final RC's. Escrow RC/RTM builds tend to have the final UX design in place, thanks to marketing - preview builds such as these are typically released to people that write books on how to use the new OS, and will typically use screenshots from these builds since they are as close to the final OS as they can get.

[wasabilee]

even if mrpijey will bash me now or even ban me
but...
if MS is really paying someone for doing any research on UI and skinning, they should
re-think and fire those guys

business or home, makes no difference, going from more beautiful to total ugly is ... illogical
also nothing is stopping MS (as always) to make MORE skins, instead forcing the ugly ones

[Courage]

Because it's a matter of opinion. I for one, think that Vista's RTM Aero edges out Vista B1 Aero by a small margin, while I consider Watercolor to be the best of the themes developed for Whistler/XP. (Don't fix what is not broken, MS!) In fact, if they had maintained it with slight tweaks to fix the new logo, I wouldn't have any reason to jump ship from that theme at all.

[Maza]

It's largely a subjective thing. I don't think any beta styles are better than what is available, perhaps with the exception of Watercolor in Whistler when compared with Luna in Windows XP.

[mrpijey]

Just as Maza said and many others said in the past, it's a subjective thing. Personally I prefer a cleaner and "boring" design than all the fancy junk that we get. All the junk only distracts you from the important stuff displayed at the screen which is why a more clean and strict UI is better. XP was absolutely horrible, Vista and Windows 7 was better but still pretty bad with all the transparency and stuff. MS may have gotten more "boring" with Win8 and Win10, but personally I am more interested in how good the OS is rather than how it looks. If I want to look differently I can just install a skinning tool (such as WindowBlinds etc) and change the UI.

As for the beta styles? Who cares really, it's how it works when it's final that matters. Everything else is just experimental...

And wasabilee, you must have a pretty bad opinion of me if you think I will warn or ban you for expressing an opinion... I will warn and ban you if you break any rules, so as long as you don't do that I have no issues with your opinions whatsoever, even if they aren't the same as my own.

[wasabilee]

but see thats the point
why did they make, especially with win "7"
what do they call em now... themes ?

each theme completely changes:
1. skin
2. icons
3. bit irrelevant - sounds & wallpaper

yes they chose lazy way, use Glass and change its color
but principle stays, so if you are annoyed by some clutter
is it so hard for them to make 3 or 4 different themes (mainly skins)
and maybe 2 sets of different icon styles...

this way you can CHOSE !

[mrpijey]

Windows has had themes since Windows 95... so it's nothing new with Windows 7...

And why should Microsoft waste time making a few skins when people can make them themselves and according to their taste? Or install one of the many theme tools available? Even if MS included 100 themes there would always be people making their own, so why bother resources on it? MS can make the basic themes for Windows and leave the rest to the community that cares.

And you just prove Maza's point too about subjectivity, you think sounds and wallpapers are irrelevant, at the same time others may think it may be more important than the skinning itself. Personally I think it's more important to have good wallpaper support rather than the ability to change the mouse pointer to a drumming monkey or the taskbar to a sausage... (yes I've seen these horrible themes, and you all must remember the horrible ones that came with Plus! pack back in the Windows 95 days.... hurr). Change wallpaper is the first thing I ever do after a clean install, but I leave it at that. I disable all sounds, minimalize every UI element (lowering font rendering size, scaling down everything) and leave as much space on the screen as I can for the applications.

[xflies]

I also have similar arguments in another points. There were many cool, advanced, promising and useful features or utilities in beta version, but most of them will be removed in the released version. For example, "Dr. Watson 32" is a feature of Memphis, but it is removed in the released Windows 98.

[wasabilee]

hmm I remember that thing choking my system in "SE"

And why should Microsoft waste time making a few skins when people can make them themselves and according to their taste?

ugh, then you can argue why should they do anything at all ...
why provide update file manager UI when other people can make file manager replacements
why provide support for anything when alternatives exist...

well here's easy answer: if you want to attract people then serve them something on the table
its not like poor guys have lack of people there, or time or resources

[mrpijey]

That's different, a file manager is a critical system function. The ability to change mouse pointers and change UI gradients is not. Also, the file manager in Windows is junk as well and there are many far better replacements out there. Microsoft provides basic functionality and let others enhance or replace it at will. Same with the themes, they provide a basic theme which is default in Windows, the rest is done by others. What you are proposing is that MS should put extensive resources into developing a whole bunch of themes just for the fun of it (which will still be criticized by the community for being ugly etc), which is a waste of time in my opinion. Better they focus on the important stuff and leave the rest to the community.

If you want to attract people then make a good operating system that is cheap, low on system requirements, stable, feature rich and one that follows established standards, and the rest tend to sort itself out by the community in terms of personal design preferences.

[oasiz]

I am just glad that they don't ship too many themes out of the box, I like being able to use other people's systems without getting lost.
Just using stock 9x themes with those awful color / font combinations is enough to make it hard enough to debug someone's system

I guess for the very same reason you won't see that many changes with osx, you can instantly jump on to any random system and find your way around. Other polar opposite is linux on desktop. Probably some of this is that the UI can't simply change too much from the previous either as users still need to find their way around. Having red borders on inactive windows would certainly throw me off for weeks.

Sure the watercolor looked quite nice, but it would have still looked more like "artistic win 2000". They probably wanted to show off that windows could do osx Aqua-like interfaces as well, "next gen -away from 95 look" was a big thing. Did I like Luna? No, always thought that it looked like a teletubby theme that belonged in to some internet kiosk machine, but it served it's purpose of giving a radical departure from the dated 90s look.

[wasabilee]

well mrpijey I don't agree that making 3 DIFFERENT skins is doing extensive "resources"
at most its 3 weeks of work for 3 people...
in fact its a joke...

[mrpijey]

And who says they have to make just three skins? Why not 10? or just 2? Even if they make three there will always be people complaining about them. Why don't YOU make the skin you like? Since you will most likely do that if you find these three skins MS makes boring or ugly.. Microsoft doesn't know what you and all other million of millions of users like in terms of skins, so they don't attempt to do any.

Btw, do you own your own Windows license or do you use one of those "fixed" ones off the net that usually comes with extras?

[wasabilee]

see you missed the point
you constantly talk about what annoys you as ... whatever bland skin you want
hence the small number should be...
why not have 1 fancy glossy, 1 like basic crappy is, 1 metro ugly
that way they cover most of segments if one can call it that

also good luck telling people to just make skin... with what ?
there are no free editors and you also have to do illegal crap by patching uxtheme
which no business company will do

[Archenemy]

also good luck telling people to just make skin... with what ?
there are no free editors and you also have to do illegal crap by patching uxtheme
which no business company will do

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=make+3rd+party+windows+themes
I clearly doubt that uxtheme.dll is illegal.

[mrpijey]

see you missed the point
you constantly talk about what annoys you as ... whatever bland skin you want
hence the small number should be...
why not have 1 fancy glossy, 1 like basic crappy is, 1 metro ugly
that way they cover most of segments if one can call it that

also good luck telling people to just make skin... with what ?
there are no free editors and you also have to do illegal crap by patching uxtheme
which no business company will do

Again, your opinion . Which is my point, since Microsoft can't cater to everyones needs so they stick with the basics. Glossy is ugly, all are crappy and metro is clean and easy. See? So who should MS cater to, your needs or mine? But as I said, make a call to MS and ask them to make something you like. I bet they will listen... .

[Maza]

Now see, I personally don't think that Microsoft would be able to top the visual quality that was presented with this operating system, but I know that others may think it looks bad, ugly, etc.