Is Eye Candy Really Necessary?

I remember that when Windows Vista was about to be launched, many users could barely wait to see the "pretty" visual effects it would come with.

Those effects have a name: Aero. Aero, short for "Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open," is the graphical user interface that replaced old Luna (aka. Windows XP theme). Aero is the responsible of all the eye candy Windows Vista and Seven boast of.

However, many who bought Windows Vista Home Basic were disappointed: Aero was not part of that Windows edition!

By then, Linux distros had made their move: First Beryl, then Compiz and after that came Compiz Fusion



Then, Vista's twin, Seven, promised more eye candy to Windows users...and also disappointed them more, for Windows 7 Starter did not bring Aero either and Windows Seven Home Basic was accompanied by a crippled Aero!

In contrast, KDE 4 brought more eye candy to Linux with Kwin...



Right now, many Windows users, after watching the visual effects Linux is capable of, seem to disdain the idea of dazzling their eyes with screen magic.

I even hear some Windows users (sore losers?) say "Who wants eye candy anyway? A computer is not a toy...it's for work! Visual effects get boring after a while!"

Is that the effect of the "less is more" mantra that is at the same time one of The Seven Reasons to reject Linux and go back to Windows?

Let me ask...if eye candy is so unnecessary, why are Windows users looking for small utilities like "Aero Enabler" (this is really small...just 157 Kb!) to unlock Aero on their crippled Windows Vista and Seven Home Basic systems?

And why are Windows users downloading small utilities to let them use features that their systems DO HAVE, but are DISABLED BY MICROSOFT?

Maybe Eye Candy is indeed a bit necessary after all...

(The images on this post show visual effects on Mepis Linux, which by the way, is not one of the most visually dazzling Linux distros.)