Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vista Worse For User Efficiency Than XP

Posted by kdawson on from the two-steps-back dept.

erikvlie writes "Pfeiffer Consulting released a report on User Interface Friction, comparing Windows Vista/Aero with Windows XP and Mac OS X. The report concludes that Vista/Aero is worse in terms of desktop operations, menu latency, and mouse precision than XP — which was and still is said to be a lot worse on those measures than Mac OS X. The report was independently financed. The IT-Enquirer editor has read the report and summarized the most important findings."

31 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. Just in from bash.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i asked Vista to delete 36 000 files from a directory, and i ve already waited for 15 minutes and nothing resultes...
      it is preparing 36 000 "are you sure?" windows

    1. Re:Just in from bash.org by newt0311 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      now if only CMD was as good as bash and you could use it exclusively (like me). Somebody needs to do a comparison of efficiency when using a GUI (any GUI) and the terminal and see how that pans out.

    2. Re:Just in from bash.org by Spikeles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok, here's something. I have a music directory. Filled with.. well.. Music!.. I wanted to search for a file i KNEW was in there. So i typed it in the Vista search ( with indexing ) and it gave me a bunch of files.. None of which i was looking for. So i turned off indexing and tried again. Better results but still not what i was looking for. Started up cmd.exe, chdir to the music directory, and used "dir /s/a *mymfile*". It found exactly what i was looking for. It's stuff like that which put me off the search function in Vista.

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
  2. Aero != productivity by TinBromide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Aero was an overhaul of the interface designed to sell copies due to the "wow" factor. I don't think that pretty widgets were meant to be a productivity booster, and any article that says that you can be productive on a mac for more than the generic things and like 2-3 specialized apps has a built in bias.

    I'm still of the opinion that vista is a productivity booster only for the RIAA/MPAA and microsoft's stock.

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    1. Re:Aero != productivity by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally I like the slower response - it makes me feel like a fast typist when I can beat the computer.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Aero != productivity by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think what to include or not include in a study like this is the key. Apparently it's focused on mouse accuracy and menu clicking latency. If I had my druthers on how to improve my chosen OS (Linux), it would be nothing like that. Rather, it would focus on the number of minutes or hours (not milliseconds) required to perform tasks that still fill me with dread, such as network printing, or power management, or burning a video file to a DVD that a standalone player can read. Granted it's much harder to make meaningful measurements of such things, but I still think they're more important that mousing.

    3. Re:Aero != productivity by jimstapleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That, and also, what kind of options did they have turned on?

      I turned of menu fade in any system I'm on, be it Windows XP, BSD -w- KDE, whatever.

      All of them display menus virtually instantly like that. Depending on which (KDE, Gnome, Windows), you start to notice slowdowns at various cuttoffs, KDE and Windows tend to slow down faster with decreased memory than CPU, Gnome with decreased CPU more than memory.

      That being said, if Windows has a menu fading effect turned on and OS X does not, then there is a lot of bias right there. Also, if XP's fade is set to a shorter time, that's bias too.

      Also, there's system information:
      Did they compare systems with identical or close to identical hardware?
      Did they compare systems with identical costs?
      Ex:
        Both systems had e6600 Core 2 Duo CPUs with 2GB of DDR2 800 and a 200GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0GB/s drive,
      or
        Both systems were $1800 from the leading manufacturer (say Apple and Dell for OS X and Vista/XP respectively)

      I guess what I'm getting at is I'd really rather see the methods of the experiment rather than just the conclusions. It's not that I find it all that hard to believe (well, the mouse precision seems a little odd, I've never had an issue with the mouse selecting any pixel except that which I told it to click, even on precision stuff where actual pixel mattered - I can believe the menu performance potentially).

      I didn't see an actual link to the report in the article, is it pay to read, or did I just miss it?

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    4. Re:Aero != productivity by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that pretty widgets were meant to be a productivity booster,and any article that says that you can be productive on a mac for more than the generic things and like 2-3 specialized apps has a built in bias.

      No offense, but I see a lot more built-in bias in automatically discounting any article that says you can be productive on a Mac.

      Anybody worth their salt will agree that the pretty widgets, animations, etc. on OS X are nothing but eye candy. But there are plenty of solid arguments for why OS X's interface still does a better job of facilitating productivity. Here are a few that come to mind. (Note that all of these points are orthogonal to cosmetic issues such as the particular bitmap that is used to draw a button.)

      The standard Mac OS widgets offer a wider range of functionality than most equivalent Windows widgets. I find that I'm much more likely to feel the need to develop custom interface elements on Windows in order to get the behavior I need for exactly this reason. This leads to less consistency among applications, since different people tend to come up with different solutions to the same problem. Cocoa has done a much better job of cutting this off at the pass. A strong example is tables and tree views on Mac OS versus Windows.

      OS X's interface doesn't condescend to the user as much or demand as much attention. There's also a much stronger culture of consistency for dialog messages. When using Windows, I spend a lot more time dismissing unnecessary dialogs and trying to figure out whether to click "yes" or "no" on a confusingly-worded confirmation dialog. (Like I said, this is largely cultural, but I put a lot of blame on Microsoft for this since they set an exceedingly bad example in their own OS - it's not uncommon for me to have to read a warning from the OS itself two or three times to figure out exactly what Windows is trying to say.)

      OS X's interface is much more stable. For example, the sidebar in the Finder is static. The sidebar in the Explorer is constantly rearranging itself, adding and deleting items, etc. based on what folder or whatever-the-hell it is (control panel, network places) I'm looking at. It even changes when I select items. This leads to a lot of time spent scratching one's head trying to figure out, say, where the "Create New Folder" sidebar item went, or wondering why the Desktop link went away.

    5. Re:Aero != productivity by dberstein · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a developer, a web developer. Within my daily tasks besides coding is ssh'ing to several machines, do some cvs|svn dancing, etc.

      I've switched to Mac almost a month ago. I would never, ever, return to Windows. I don't care about the UI (though it's elegant and efficient). The selling point to me is having a nice bash prompt right in front of me, and having good hardware support (I don't care it's "closed" hardware).

      I turn on my Macbook and voila! Skype is ready for me. I can video chat with my collegues while at the same enjoying the bsd heritage.

      To me Mac OS X is like Windows XP with cygwin tighly integrated minus DLL hell, registry hell and all that crap.

      Intel Macs are the best thing ever invented!

    6. Re:Aero != productivity by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently it's focused on mouse accuracy and menu clicking latency.

      Sorry, no.
      br> Mechanical aspects are just that - strictly mechanical. An 800dpi mouse with a crummy interface is better than a 300dpi mouse and a good interface and has nothing to do with strict user ability. This testing wasn't about ease of targeting based on mouse mechanics - it was about humans and how they make decisions. What is meant is how long you hunt around with the mouse trying to determine the next event that will serve your interests as defined by the current state of the OS, assuming the OS has accurately understood and reacted to you.

      As you work with a new OS, you begin to establish a defined set of basic expectations. These are simultaneously calibrated against how reliable they appear to be to you, the wet ware. At some point, you have been trained by the system enough to move from experimentation and doubt as to what will or won't happen next, to Pavlovian reactions which are subsequently modified only as needed.
      The original Mac OS was determined, by the US Govt., to take an average of 17 hours of initial use by an operator before they could be labeled trained and basically productive. In contrast, the Windows OS of that time required no less than 7 days before a hapless user was considered an asset.

      Want to test yourself and your present OS? Close your eyes, or change the menus to another language and see if you can still hit the right button with the mouse as you operate the system, opening and saving files, etc. Nothing about shear mechanical accuracy or latency involved. It is just you and how well you know and trust the OS, reflecting how well the system was able to train you back when the two of you first met.

  3. On What Hardware? by Petersko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The report concludes that Vista/Aero is worse in terms of desktop operations, menu latency, and mouse precision than XP -- which was and still is said to be a lot worse on those measures than Mac OS X."

    All of the OSX machines I have access to seem more sluggish and less responsive than my 3 year old PC running XP.

    Without more details, this "it-enquirer" is no better than the print Enquirer in the checkout line.

    1. Re:On What Hardware? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me just jump in here. I'm using OSX 10.3 so it's not the most recent release, but I'm also running it on a Dual G5 2.0GHz with 2 GB RAM, which is a pretty fast machine by any standard. OSX is an absolute dog compared to XP on a Core Duo 2.16GHz with 2 GB RAM. Granted, that is a slightly faster machine for most operations, but they are definitely in the same ballpark.

      In addition, the XP system (which I am using to write this comment) is way loaded up with crap. I have about 12 icons in my little system tray, for example. The OSX machine is running, well, OSX. I don't have any additional cheese running to keep it going. But then, I don't use it as my desktop system. It is on my desk solely as a graphic arts workstation. I would have THAT software on the PC as well, except the former graphic artist was Mac-only (too afraid of technology to learn Windows) so I have the mac.

      The Macintosh has provided me with little but frustration. The system locks up due to application errors more than XP does. I'm running mostly Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. Photoshop has been pretty reliable, but the other two applications both manage to lock the machine up to the point where a cold boot is necessary on a semi-regular basis based on how much I am using the system.

      Besides the lack of stability, there are also issues with inconsistency. I won't belabor this too much because I've gone over it frequently in the past, but there are no less than three visual styles used (Mail, iTunes, and everything else) and even menus are inconsistent. In some cases if you click a submenu in a context menu, it opens the submenu. In some cases you must hover to open it, because clicking will actually close the menu. What gives?

      If you truly believe that OSX will make you more productive, then you are simply a fool, with one exception; if you want to use Apple's bundled applications. Unfortunately they are unintuitive as all hell. Apple is the only company that makes it harder to burn a DVD that just jumps in and plays than to make a DVD with animated menus. But if they do what you want, and you take the time to learn their many idiosyncrasies, it is definitely the cheapest way to get a production studio in a box.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:On What Hardware? by dal20402 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you truly believe that OSX will make you more productive, then you are simply a fool

      Fool here.

      First of all, if Illustrator and InDesign are taking down your whole system, something is wrong with your configuration, your OS installation, or your hardware (RAM?). Illustrator is not the most stable app (although it's not that stable on Windows either) and I expect it to crash regularly, and once in a while InDesign freaks out, but I don't think either one has ever taken down my whole OS. One place to start: if you have the misfortune of having Adobe Version Cue installed, delete everything associated with it.

      While PowerPC OS X is somewhat laggier than Intel OS X (which compares favorably to XP on similar hardware), I don't find the difference dramatic, and I don't see any usability problem on my PowerPC system. It's a 1.8GHz dual G5 (3GB RAM), so my experience should be nearly identical to yours, although Tiger is more responsive than Panther in most situations.

      With that out of the way, I'll tell you exactly why OS X makes me more productive (and why this summer I'll pay through the nose for a Mac Pro, whose 4 cores and ECC RAM I really don't need, rather than buying a cheaper Conroe-based commodity tower). This is personal to me. YMMV. But judge for yourself whether I'm really a "fool."

      1. Terminal. OS X is the only OS that can run Adobe CS, Microsoft Office, and a full bash implementation natively and side-by-side. This is a godsend for those of us who really need to straddle both the business-computing and UNIX worlds.

      2. Integrated color management. The OS's color management, while not perfect, is good enough to ensure relatively close color matching between different systems and between screen and print output, no matter what app I'm using. XP and all Linux distros I've used are a disaster in this regard. I don't know yet about WCM (the system in Vista).

      3. Expose. I'm a very visual user and text-based taskbar buttons don't communicate the nature of open windows to me nearly as well as graphical previews.

      4. Mail. I've never gotten along with with Outlook or any of its numerous commercial and OSS copycats because, dammit, I really want to have all messages in my 4 IMAP inboxes displayed in the same list. Mail is the *only* mail client I've ever used that will do this. (And, no, I don't want to forward all the messages to one inbox. There's a reason I have 4 of them.)

      5. Logic Pro. This won't apply to you if you're not a musician. But if you are, it's a fearsomely kick-ass mega-tool (sequencer + synthesizer + lots more) and only available for OS X.

      6. OS X software development culture. OSS users are always amazed that they have to pay for so many Mac apps. But the shareware culture promotes developer accountability. Independent OS X software, by and large, is an order of magnitude more professional and useful than such software on either Windows or Linux. OS X's unique development frameworks also help with this by allowing developers to concentrate on usability and features rather than basic nuts and bolts.

      7. Easily comprehensible directory structure. A non-n00b Windows or Linux user could start playing with the Finder and locate *anything* important to operation of the graphical side of an OS X system within a few minutes. This makes troubleshooting a simpler and faster process, especially when compared to Windows, where neither file nor folder names are remotely comprehensible.

      8. Security (yes, this is a productivity booster). No UAC; the machine rarely asks for admin rights, and when it does, you need to give a password. No time fighting malware of any sort. No instability or slowdowns from malware.

      9. OS X text rendering. Compared with other OS's, it's magic. Preserves both character shapes and legibility without any visible compromise. Not only does the increased legibility improve productivity, but it also is a big part of the reason people find OS X systems so visually striking.

      If I thought about it longer I could probably figure out a few more -- but I've got work to do... productively.

  4. It may also have something to do with..... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....clicking Cancel or Allow so freaking often.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  5. Original report unavailable by eviloverlordx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least at the time I visited the Pfeiffer site. While I'm not inclined to deny their results, it would be nice to have a little more in-depth knowledge of their methods.

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  6. Huh? by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Guess what? Despite Microsoft's efforts to provide for a more fluid and agreeable interface with Vista's Aero, Pfeiffer Consulting found Vista to be even worse than Windows XP (SP2) --and of course Mac OS X. Their conclusion is backed with cold, hard research.

    Where? I don't see the in the article. All I see is that Windows Vista (which I won't ever be using unless they make me at work) sucks compared to XP SP2 and OS X. I don't see why or how they came to those conclusions.

  7. Speaking as a certified Apple fanboy... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (...bought my first Mac in February, 1984... with a teller's check... for $3000... and no way to print anythingbecause the ImageWriter because no cable was yet available...) ...the article sure reads like a Slashvertisement for "Pfeiffer's full report."

    And, speaking as someone who personally perceives and is annoyed by logy, sticky, frictionlike behavior in Windows' UI... how the heck can you take an article seriously when it claims minuscule differences ("Windows XP scored 0.40 and Vista/Aero 0.52") in undefined metrics that are undoubtedly influenced by the hardware configuration?

    Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vista on a PC with 1 Gig of RAM and an ordinary video card has higher "friction" than Mac OS X... isn't it possible that it would outperform a Mac if you gave it the spiffiest video card and 4 gig? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vista "needs" more powerful hardware and that in a year or so, a cheap PC with Vista will have it and perform with less friction than a comparably cheap Mac? If this were true, one could justifiably criticize Microsoft for high cost of ownership, software bloat, and selling wine before its time... but it would only be a rather qualified knock on Vista.

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  8. Vista-bashing is reaching ridiculous levels by rbonine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this expert consulting firm is really recommending that users avoid Vista because of menu latency and mouse imprecision? Is this serious or some kind of joke?

    I realize Slashdot will leave no stone unturned when it comes to slagging Windows, but isn't this getting just a bit carried away? There are plenty of things to criticize about Vista - substantial things - if one is so inclined. Look at the totally brain-dead backup and defrag utilities, for example; both are a major step back from their equivalents in XP. But if you really think it's a horrible OS for the reasons cited in this article, you're venturing into Ted Kaczynski-like levels of MS hatred.

  9. Well, like the song goes.... by StressGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    36,000 files on the disk...36,000 files!

    Deleting this file, Cancel or Allow?

    35,999 files on the disk

    35,999 files on the disk....35,999 files!

    Delete this file, Cancel or Allow?

    35,998 files on the disk

    etc.....

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:Well, like the song goes.... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      .....
      Delete this file, Cancel or Allow?

      Cannot delete file 'File 47'
      It is being used by another person or program. Close any programs that might be using the file and try again.

      Undoing modifications, 35952 files restored.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  10. This is quite measurable. by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take, for example, the way menus appear. This affects a lot more than just the OS, since many apps use the same interface widgets. If a menu takes 1/10th of a second to appear, then you could be wasting hours of time over the course of a week or month sitting there waiting for a window to load. Having them appear almost instantly would save that time.

    The same goes for positioning the menu bars for an application at the top of the window rather than the top of the screen. On the Mac, the menu bar is essentially infinite in size. You don't have to worry about overshooting it vertically. On Windows, the menu bar is only about 50 pixels high, meaning that every time you overshoot it, it's another 1/10th of a second in lost productivity.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  11. I'll tell you one way its worse by bogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been teaching people for 5 years to use XP's "File and Folder Tasks" pane in Explorer. It was a very easy way to show people how to Copy, Move, or Email files and folders. It works great why change it? Apparently Microsoft now thinks everyone is a home user who wants nothing more than to assign star ratings to their picture and mp3 files. Thanks for removing the UP button too, you've made my life all the more easier. I keep harping on this but I swear to God the mantra during Vista's redesign had to have been "change for the sake of change!". I really don't know how else to explain some of the boneheaded changes they have made. And they wonder why sales are off.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  12. Re:I keep my XP UI looking like Win2K by EnderGT · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Your post is a bit offtopic, but it leads to an interesting point. FYI, I also set my XP interface to Classic Windows.

    I recently downloaded Media Player 11, which shows off a bit of the Vista/Aero interface. Specifically, the minimize/maximize/close buttons in the upper left corner are done Vista-style. What I've noticed through use is that even though these buttons are physically bigger, they very frequently don't recognize my clicks, requiring me to go back and click it again, sometimes 3 or more times. Also, when I hit Alt, F, X (the sequence to exit using the menus in Media Player 10) about 4 times out of 5 the menu refuses to respond to my keystrokes, requiring me to stop, find the mouse, and click the appropriate action.

    Obviously, because this is running on XP, I can't make claims as to the overall usability of Vista. However, if my experience is any indication of the way Vista behaves, I'm not suprised that such an article has been written, and I'd expect many more complaints as time goes on.

  13. Exposé vs Flip 3D by smenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't speak about the entire UI, but there has been one big disappointment in my limited experience with Vista.

    Ever since Apple added Exposé to OS X, I've been dependent on it. It's amazing how useful it is and how much I rely on it every time I use a computer.

    Every time I have to use an XP machine, I find myself trying to go to the corner to show all windows for an application, or for all applications, or to show the desktop.

    For that reason, I was very excited when I first heard about Flip 3D - and I thought the 3D effect was a cool addition to already impressive feature.

    Unfortunately, Flip 3D almost completely missed the point.

    With Exposé, you can see every non-hidden open window at once. Even though they may be thumbnail sized, I can go through more than a hundred windows at a time at a glance. If I need more detail, I can just look at all of the windows for a specific application.

    It's not perfect. There are a few small things I'd like to see fixed about it (like clustering related windows together and doing a better job at keeping a given window in the same region in the Exposé view). Still, it almost completely eliminates the need for multiple desktops and vastly improves my ability to find a specific window.

    Flip 3D looks cool. It shrinks all the windows to a reasonable size and layers them in a stack. Unfortunately, layering them in a stack means that you can't see everything in a given window at a glance without bring the focus to it. As far as I know, you also can't look at all of the windows for a given application, rather than all of the windows.

    It's just sad.

    Somehow, Microsoft managed to copy and improve upon the least useful bits of Exposé while losing almost everything that actually makes Exposé useful.

    Given that one gaffe, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same philosophy permeates Aero through and through.

  14. Re:Well by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    An OS should be first and foremost both secure and fast. It should have a very small footprint and...
    [...]
    It should but does one modern OS have this?

    OpenBSD

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  15. You know what else has a "wow" factor? by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Having your foot pulverized by an asteroid. Finding a baby mouse in a bottle of beer. Having a circus midget shits on your lawn.

    Microsoft should really try for the good wow, not the bad wow.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  16. Vista *is* slow! by diesel66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I started typing this sentence 3 hours ago.

    Now I've missed my chance at first post.

    --



    eleven plus two / twelve plus one
  17. WinVista is like MacOS on un-steroids by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two years behind, uses way more memory to get the same job done but with not quite as good results, and if you actually like to be like my son on his Mac Mini - playing games while playing music and having chat and keeping open all your schoolwork as well ... then you will need 4 GB of RAM to stop it from swapping.

    At twice the price.

    Look, I've owned every Microsoft OS since DOS (think it was 1.x, it was back when I used CP/M and dBase in the Army), but my WinXP laptop is the last "upgrade" I'm ever getting from them. It's either Linux/BSD or MacOS after this, most likely a nice Ubuntu Linux burn from the UW servers and I'll run Open Office (which is what I have on my WinXP laptop).

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  18. Re:I agree by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 4, Funny

    You are realising Apple's seemingly successful strategy. Cancel or Allow?

  19. I bet Vista IF would be like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You are in a maze of twisty little message boxes, all alike.
    [ Cancel ] or [ Allow ]

  20. Wow, this is news.... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    A very subjective review with no hard facts about Vista... And featured on SlashDot, how could this be?

    #1) What drivers were used? The optimized ones from NVidia or ATI? Vista has a new Video subsystem with a new driver model, and NVidia and ATI have had to write their drivers from scratch, something that maturity of the XP and other OS drivers just don't have.

    #2) Was Aero left on to get the speed improvements? Turning off Aero reduces Vista video performance to XP levels, and turns off many of the accelerated features.

    #3) Usability is addressed, but based on what grounds? MS spends millions on usability testing, are we all to be so stupid to conclude that their research in this area is not somewhat valid? Are they taking new users, old file manager type users, Mac users, or what? Facts please.

    #4) File copy performance? Again based on what circumstances? Our internal tests show Vista can shove mass amounts of files in many settings several times faster than XP, also without exhausting the system RAM or cache as XP and prior NT bases would. I would like to see how these numbers were obtained.

    #5) Menu lag? Again, was Aero turned off, how could they be showing numbers that are in direct contrast to our testing? If Aero is enabled, the UI is not only more responsive, but things like Menus and Windows opening are significantly faster than XP and especially OSX.

    #6) Mouse precision? This has to be a joke right? The Windows Input model allows for extremely high resolution devices, and is SOLELY based on the input device used. If you pick up a high resolution mouse that obtains 10x the precision that a low end mouse provides in Vista it is very measurable and based upon the device. If you select another input device like a Wacom Tablet, your input resolution can be adjusted based on the device to scale in factors to several 1000 times the variances they use as examples in the article.

    This can easily be demonstrated by a simple example, Ink Input in Vista is extremely high resolution, and captures at an extremely high rate.

    Are they using a generic mouse and just hooking it up to the systems to get these numbers?

    The mouse precision is the biggest joke of the article...