Well, my opinion is, they are nice but rarely useful. I am talking of desktop effects in the sense of 'Compiz' and 'Beryl'. Right now i disabled all mine but a few (Wobbly windows, Stretch). Personally, I don't think that these are actually worth using the CPU power for. I mean, every time i close a window, I don't need it to explode . Your opinions?

I totally agree with you. They are interesting and can be flashy, but i don't use them at all. Not just because of CPU usage, but also because they can be annoying.

I have a few enabled: wobbly windows, effects for minimizing/maximizing, and some window switching options. I mostly have them enabled because people try to say how great Vista/7 are because they're so "pretty". They don't realize how intensive these effects are. On linux, however, I have better effects and it requires much less resources. Sitting in a restaurant flipping between programs and seeing the guy next to me drool, wishing he had linux, just makes it all worth it.

(05-06-2010 01:04 AM)ajcis55 Wrote:  I have a few enabled: wobbly windows, effects for minimizing/maximizing, and some window switching options. I mostly have them enabled because people try to say how great Vista/7 are because they're so "pretty". They don't realize how intensive these effects are. On linux, however, I have better effects and it requires much less resources. Sitting in a restaurant flipping between programs and seeing the guy next to me drool, wishing he had linux, just makes it all worth it.

Ha ha ha, that is good point. But i think that function of program is what matter, i really don't care for visual part !

I have all effects turned on all the time now on Seven. But while I had XP I had all effects turned off.

Xp had effects?!

I am not using it, exactly cos of CPU usage!

(06-22-2010 08:23 AM)Back_track Wrote:  Xp had effects?!

i meant the effects like Slide down opening of right click menu and things like that. i kept all those things turned off on xp.