3 ms·

The classic theme doesn't use DWM sadly (at least it didn't in Windows 7, I assume it still true in 10). So it doesn't just change appearance but also how it pe

The classic theme doesn't use DWM sadly (at least it didn't in Windows 7, I assume it still true in 10). So it doesn't just change appearance but also how it performs: DWM offloads compositing from the CPU to the GPU.

userbinator 6y ago
The classic theme is simple enough that it doesn't need GPU assistance (besides the usual 2D acceleration); and you get a noticeable decrease in latency from it: http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/dwm_latency.html http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/dwm_latency.html
- vel0city 6y ago
  Gotta love when you cite a source which starts off with: > Note: These results are totally wrong.
inetknght 6y ago
> DWM offloads compositing from the CPU to the GPU. That was actually a feature. I wanted to use my GPU for other things like gaming and rendering things I actually wanted to be pretty. The OS interface doesn't need to be pretty. It needs to be usable. The pretty and usable are usually conflicting goals.
- nonbirithm 6y ago
  The issue is, at least when I tried it in Windows 7, without DWM you don't get Vsync. That means any video or game you play will have horrible screen tearing. I used to have a script to switch to Aero temporarily when I got fed up with it enough.
- folkrav 6y ago
  > The pretty and usable are usually conflicting goals. That's a pretty bold statement.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > That's a pretty bold statement. I use computers for 10-20 hours each day. I've come up with some pretty bold opinions based on actually wanting to improve efficiency of using computers. Someone else's ideas of aesthetics almost always conflicts with efficiently using the computer.
    - folkrav 6y ago
      You presented it as a fact, not an opinion, thus my original answer. FWIW, as a general rule, I disagree: say you get to use two pieces of software with the same functionality, shortcuts et. al. for similar amounts of time, the first having 0 regard towards UI/UX, and the second having spent some time thinking about how it presents information and overall legibility. I'd be more than extremely surprised if most users couldn't possibly end up being more efficient using the second. However, sure, making things pretty for the sake of it tends to impede on usability.
      - chungy 6y ago
        > FWIW, as a general rule, I disagree: say you get to use two pieces of software with the same functionality, shortcuts et. al. for similar amounts of time, the first having 0 regard towards UI/UX, and the second having spent some time thinking about how it presents information and overall legibility. I'd be more than extremely surprised if most users couldn't possibly end up being more efficient using the second. The Windows 95 through 2000 UI, I think, expresses the second idea perfectly. Rather than being clunky like older versions, they had thought put into how the layout and presentation looked. Granted, some of its qualities stemmed from needing to be renderable on a 386 in reasonable time, it still achieved something both visually appealing and productive. In contrast, whatever fad comes around to make buttons look like Play-Doh or glass or flat elements with no distinguishing features... they take away from it quite a lot.

userbinator 6y ago

The classic theme is simple enough that it doesn't need GPU assistance (besides the usual 2D acceleration); and you get a noticeable decrease in latency from it: http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/dwm_latency.html http://www.lofibucket.com/articles/dwm_latency.html

vel0city 6y ago
Gotta love when you cite a source which starts off with: > Note: These results are totally wrong.

inetknght 6y ago

> DWM offloads compositing from the CPU to the GPU. That was actually a feature. I wanted to use my GPU for other things like gaming and rendering things I actually wanted to be pretty. The OS interface doesn't need to be pretty. It needs to be usable. The pretty and usable are usually conflicting goals.

nonbirithm 6y ago
The issue is, at least when I tried it in Windows 7, without DWM you don't get Vsync. That means any video or game you play will have horrible screen tearing. I used to have a script to switch to Aero temporarily when I got fed up with it enough.
folkrav 6y ago
> The pretty and usable are usually conflicting goals. That's a pretty bold statement.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > That's a pretty bold statement. I use computers for 10-20 hours each day. I've come up with some pretty bold opinions based on actually wanting to improve efficiency of using computers. Someone else's ideas of aesthetics almost always conflicts with efficiently using the computer.
  - folkrav 6y ago
    You presented it as a fact, not an opinion, thus my original answer. FWIW, as a general rule, I disagree: say you get to use two pieces of software with the same functionality, shortcuts et. al. for similar amounts of time, the first having 0 regard towards UI/UX, and the second having spent some time thinking about how it presents information and overall legibility. I'd be more than extremely surprised if most users couldn't possibly end up being more efficient using the second. However, sure, making things pretty for the sake of it tends to impede on usability.
    - chungy 6y ago
      > FWIW, as a general rule, I disagree: say you get to use two pieces of software with the same functionality, shortcuts et. al. for similar amounts of time, the first having 0 regard towards UI/UX, and the second having spent some time thinking about how it presents information and overall legibility. I'd be more than extremely surprised if most users couldn't possibly end up being more efficient using the second. The Windows 95 through 2000 UI, I think, expresses the second idea perfectly. Rather than being clunky like older versions, they had thought put into how the layout and presentation looked. Granted, some of its qualities stemmed from needing to be renderable on a 386 in reasonable time, it still achieved something both visually appealing and productive. In contrast, whatever fad comes around to make buttons look like Play-Doh or glass or flat elements with no distinguishing features... they take away from it quite a lot.