Active Window: Vista vs. Leopard

Both Windows Vista and OS X Leopard (and almost any operating system) will differentiate between an active and an inactive task using different user interface elements. Here I compare both window styles and determine which interface performs best.

When Apple CEO Steve Jobs previewed OS X Leopard in 2007, he made sure to point out its “prominent active window,” notably a reaction to the updated interface of Windows Vista. However, do his words hold up? Let’s find out.

The first obvious difference between Leopard and Vista is that one uses transparency while the other does not. This itself presents our first problem for Vista. Because the window is transparent and there is no defined color, the interface must rely on whatever object is behind to help paint the window. This creates a lack of control for the window styles. In addition, the use of white highlights to decorate the window will become unreliable with a light or white colored background. Leopard does not have this problem because the interface is solid and 100% reliant upon itself. You could argue that I am completely ignoring the coloring effects of the desktop window manager (DWM.exe) which create the default blue hue on active windows. However, much of the time that color is washed out by its background and certainly does not compare with the solid colors used in Leopard.

The second thing one notices when comparing Vista and Leopard is the use of depth. It is universally recognized that the further a color is from the eye, the darker and more muddy said color becomes. In Windows Vista, the active window uses colored glass coupled with opaque diagonal effects; in Leopard the active window is a deep gray gradient.

Therefore, keeping what we know about depth and distance in mind, Leopard’s interface is counter intuitive. To have a dark window represent active windows and a light window represent inactive windows is peculiar. Nevertheless, Leopard’s use of color and shading on active windows is much more apparent than the more flat inactive state, allowing active windows to appear more dynamic. Thus active windows pop off the screen more and inactive windows seemingly blend together. This effect is enhanced with the addition of coloring on the minimize, maximize, and close buttons, and a large drop shadow on the active window.

Windows Vista’s use of depth is limited. Because of the transparency, the window style cannot be as adaptive. The difference between the active and inactive states is merely a change in the amount of opaque effects within the glass. Nevertheless, the large minimize, maximize, and close buttons help the user differentiate between inactive and active windows with color clues. While Leopards window style is gray, Vista has the advantage of using color. When in an active window the red close button is more apparent than the smaller, circular buttons in Leopard. Additionally, Vista uses subtle coloring effects around the bottom and right side of window borders as well as within the glass to bring prominence to the active window. Nevertheless, the differences between the active and inactive windows are not as pronounced as Leopard because the transparency cannot blend less or more than it already does, which makes it more difficult for the perceived depth of the windows to change enough to create a clear distinction.

One last difference to mention between Vista and Leopard is that while one features a full border, Leopard does not have left and right window edges. While this works in Leopard’s favor to focus priority on content, the change to the borders in Vista between the active and inactive states helps round out the transparency effect and keep a consistent look. It also keeps window contents from blending in with surrounding items and other windows.

So who’s the winner? The active window in OS X Leopard is more effective and differentiated from the inactive window than Windows Vista. Despite the counter-intuitive usage of light and dark gray in Leopard, Vista’s glass effect does not allow enough distinction between inactive and active windows. While the subtle differences between the window styles in each operating system work well, the overall effect is accomplished better by Leopard, but there is certainly room for improvment.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.