When Apple took the wraps off macOS 26’s “Liquid Glass” interface at the WWDC 2025 keynote, it felt like déjà vu for anyone who remembers Microsoft’s Windows Vista and its Aero Glass design from nearly two decades ago. Apple’s marketing spin emphasized a “new era” of interface materials—translucent, shimmering containers for toolbars, sidebars, the Dock, and Control Center—using phrases like “crafted with Liquid Glass, a translucent new material that reflects and refracts its surroundings.” Yet for many in the Windows community, this sounded suspiciously familiar.
While Apple’s innovation machine has consistently redefined what’s next in hardware and software, the aesthetic heart of “Liquid Glass” seems firmly rooted in the playbook Microsoft wrote in 2006. Aero Glass was then touted as a revolution: windows you could see through, animated transitions, subtle shadows, and gradients that felt futuristic. Today, as screenshots of macOS 26 spread online, the similarities are impossible to ignore—even as Apple’s polish and underlying technologies unquestionably raise the bar for execution.
Let’s break down the core elements of Apple’s new visual language. Liquid Glass permeates macOS 26, introducing blurred translucency to toolbars, menus, the Dock, and Control Center. Apple says it “reflects and refracts its surroundings,” hinting at a UX that subtly adapts to user content and wallpaper, using environmental tinting and layered depth to bring focus and context.
But the most striking thing is how familiar it all looks to Windows users—especially those who endured the optimism of Vista’s launch. Back then, Microsoft described Aero Glass as providing “spectacular visual effects such as glass-like interface elements that you can see through.” A glance at contemporary screenshots highlights the overlap: window backgrounds blur content beneath, control surfaces take on soft gradients, and elements like the Dock bear an uncanny resemblance to Vista’s taskbar and Start menu, both rendered in semi-transparent “glass.”
Apple’s approach incorporates more advanced rendering technologies, and early developer builds suggest richer animation and color dynamics. Still, at its essence, Liquid Glass delivers the “glassy” dream Microsoft pitched to the world in 2006—updated with Apple’s eye for minimalism and smooth, high-DPI execution.
Liquid Glass, by contrast, is engineered for modern systems with powerful Apple silicon, unified graphics pipelines, and highly optimized rendering stacks. Where Aero Glass often felt resource-hungry, Liquid Glass promises smoothness even on entry-level Macs, leveraging neural engines for real-time blur and context-aware color. This difference in technological maturity can’t be overstated.
Yet conceptually, Apple’s marketing language for Liquid Glass feels almost borrowed. Phrases like “translucent new material that reflects and refracts its surroundings” could be lifted straight from a 2006 Microsoft blog. Indeed, a trip through the Wayback Machine reveals Microsoft championing Aero as “[providing] spectacular visual effects such as glass-like interface elements that you can see through” and employing “soft tints and depth layers” to evoke dimensionality.
The cycle of inspiration in tech design is nothing new—Apple famously borrowed, refined, and pushed graphical user interface concepts, from Xerox PARC in the 1980s to skeuomorphism and then flat design in the 21st century. The return to “glass” is as much about zeitgeist as innovation.
The challenge lies in execution. For Windows Vista, the allure of Aero was twofold: a showcase of hardware acceleration and a break from the utilitarian flatness of Windows XP. But it came with steep system requirements. GPU drivers were maturing, and many PCs struggled to deliver a smooth, glassy experience. On less capable hardware, Aero was often disabled by default, robbing users of Vista’s signature experience. This disconnect between promise and reality exacted a price—Vista’s overall user satisfaction slumped, and “Aero off” became shorthand for disappointment.
Apple, for its part, is rolling out Liquid Glass in an era when even smartphones handle real-time blurring with ease. Every Mac that’s eligible for macOS 26 ships with unified memory and robust graphics acceleration, making the visual polish as much a baseline as a luxury. But this technological feasibility also raises the stakes: Apple must avoid overdoing it, ensuring that the blur and shimmer serve legibility and usability rather than pure eye candy.
Transparency effects, if not carefully balanced, can also pose accessibility challenges. High contrast modes and vision deficiencies require careful calibration—not all users appreciate or can comfortably use translucent UIs. Microsoft learned this the hard way, introducing “Aero Basic” and accessibility settings to curb the effect. So far, Apple has announced that macOS 26 will offer granular controls to adjust or disable Liquid Glass elements outright—a positive sign that lessons from Vista’s troubled debut aren’t lost on Cupertino.
Of course, it’s fair to point out that nearly every visual paradigm in computing has roots in previous systems. Apple’s “widgets” in macOS 26, for example, echo not just phone home screens but Vista’s much-maligned desktop gadgets. And, Apple’s own history is littered with examples of ideas iterated and improved: the dock (NEXTSTEP), Center Stage (FaceTime), Notification Center (iOS/Android). Genuine innovation often means taking the best ideas of the past and refining them.
Still, the narrative of “Liquid Glass as novelty” rings hollow if you’ve lived through the Aero years. The language, the demo scenes, even Apple’s own press materials, at times read like an artifact of Microsoft’s Vista launch cycle. For diehards, it’s less about plagiarism than about honesty—acknowledging that today’s “next big thing” often stands on the shoulders of innovations first attempted elsewhere.
Apple’s own journey traces similar lines—from the heavy textures of OS X’s early years, through the extreme minimalism of Yosemite and Big Sur, to the current mix of glassy and flat elements. The “Liquid Glass” of macOS 26 fits squarely into this oscillation. In practical terms, it signals a willingness by Apple to lean into nostalgic flourishes, as long as they’re paired with technical polish and modern accessibility.
It’s worth noting that, even before Aero Glass, both macOS and Windows borrowed from experimental desktop environments. Early KDE for Linux (with its “kwin” effects), Compiz’s wobbly windows, and even certain visual styles in BeOS explored translucency and glass long before it was mainstream. As such, “Liquid Glass” is as much a culmination as a reboot.
Apple, meanwhile, will relish the positive first impressions and the chance to attract users with a “wow” moment. The company’s ability to set visual trends means we’ll likely see a wave of Liquid Glass-inspired third-party macOS and iOS apps soon enough—not to mention, perhaps, a resurgence of the style throughout the wider tech design world.
Both ecosystems ultimately benefit from this cross-pollination. Windows users can rightly feel a sense of pride that their platform was once the trailblazer. Mac fans will get to enjoy a mature, refined version of the glass dream—unencumbered this time by hardware limitations or legacy baggage.
Still, it pays to remember the lessons of the past. A design language is only as good as its context, its usability, and its accessibility. Liquid Glass, like Aero before it, can delight—but it can also distract, or frustrate, if not balanced carefully.
So, is Liquid Glass truly “innovative”? That depends on your definition. Technically refined—certainly. Beautiful—unquestionably. But at heart, it owes as much to Microsoft’s bold, ill-fated bet in 2006 as it does to Apple’s own history of design leadership. For every Windows user who felt a pang of recognition at the WWDC unveiling, the message is unmistakable: every trend returns, and sometimes, yesterday’s failures are just tomorrow’s glossy success stories in waiting.
Source: Windows Latest Apple "innovates" Windows Vista Aero Glass with macOS 26 Liquid Glass. Oh well.
While Apple’s innovation machine has consistently redefined what’s next in hardware and software, the aesthetic heart of “Liquid Glass” seems firmly rooted in the playbook Microsoft wrote in 2006. Aero Glass was then touted as a revolution: windows you could see through, animated transitions, subtle shadows, and gradients that felt futuristic. Today, as screenshots of macOS 26 spread online, the similarities are impossible to ignore—even as Apple’s polish and underlying technologies unquestionably raise the bar for execution.
“Liquid Glass” and the Resurgence of Glassy UIs
Let’s break down the core elements of Apple’s new visual language. Liquid Glass permeates macOS 26, introducing blurred translucency to toolbars, menus, the Dock, and Control Center. Apple says it “reflects and refracts its surroundings,” hinting at a UX that subtly adapts to user content and wallpaper, using environmental tinting and layered depth to bring focus and context.But the most striking thing is how familiar it all looks to Windows users—especially those who endured the optimism of Vista’s launch. Back then, Microsoft described Aero Glass as providing “spectacular visual effects such as glass-like interface elements that you can see through.” A glance at contemporary screenshots highlights the overlap: window backgrounds blur content beneath, control surfaces take on soft gradients, and elements like the Dock bear an uncanny resemblance to Vista’s taskbar and Start menu, both rendered in semi-transparent “glass.”
Apple’s approach incorporates more advanced rendering technologies, and early developer builds suggest richer animation and color dynamics. Still, at its essence, Liquid Glass delivers the “glassy” dream Microsoft pitched to the world in 2006—updated with Apple’s eye for minimalism and smooth, high-DPI execution.
A Tale of Two Glasses: Aero vs. Liquid
It’s tempting to dismiss Apple’s work as a mere rehash, but the evolution in implementation is clear. Aero Glass, while visually stunning for its time, leaned heavily on the GPU—a hardware luxury not every Windows PC of 2006 could afford. Its demands led to performance headaches and, combined with other Vista missteps (like draconian UAC prompts and legacy driver issues), ultimately dented the OS’s reputation.Liquid Glass, by contrast, is engineered for modern systems with powerful Apple silicon, unified graphics pipelines, and highly optimized rendering stacks. Where Aero Glass often felt resource-hungry, Liquid Glass promises smoothness even on entry-level Macs, leveraging neural engines for real-time blur and context-aware color. This difference in technological maturity can’t be overstated.
Yet conceptually, Apple’s marketing language for Liquid Glass feels almost borrowed. Phrases like “translucent new material that reflects and refracts its surroundings” could be lifted straight from a 2006 Microsoft blog. Indeed, a trip through the Wayback Machine reveals Microsoft championing Aero as “[providing] spectacular visual effects such as glass-like interface elements that you can see through” and employing “soft tints and depth layers” to evoke dimensionality.
The cycle of inspiration in tech design is nothing new—Apple famously borrowed, refined, and pushed graphical user interface concepts, from Xerox PARC in the 1980s to skeuomorphism and then flat design in the 21st century. The return to “glass” is as much about zeitgeist as innovation.
The Allure (and Potential Pitfalls) of Visual Translucency
Why does this kind of UI come back into fashion? There’s something undeniably attractive about translucency in graphical interfaces. It offers a sense of modernity, depth, and connection to the content beneath. Done well, it makes an OS feel alive and responsive to a user’s context, rather than rigid or compartmentalized. Both Aero Glass and Liquid Glass strive to blur the line (literally and figuratively) between app and background, surface and content.The challenge lies in execution. For Windows Vista, the allure of Aero was twofold: a showcase of hardware acceleration and a break from the utilitarian flatness of Windows XP. But it came with steep system requirements. GPU drivers were maturing, and many PCs struggled to deliver a smooth, glassy experience. On less capable hardware, Aero was often disabled by default, robbing users of Vista’s signature experience. This disconnect between promise and reality exacted a price—Vista’s overall user satisfaction slumped, and “Aero off” became shorthand for disappointment.
Apple, for its part, is rolling out Liquid Glass in an era when even smartphones handle real-time blurring with ease. Every Mac that’s eligible for macOS 26 ships with unified memory and robust graphics acceleration, making the visual polish as much a baseline as a luxury. But this technological feasibility also raises the stakes: Apple must avoid overdoing it, ensuring that the blur and shimmer serve legibility and usability rather than pure eye candy.
Transparency effects, if not carefully balanced, can also pose accessibility challenges. High contrast modes and vision deficiencies require careful calibration—not all users appreciate or can comfortably use translucent UIs. Microsoft learned this the hard way, introducing “Aero Basic” and accessibility settings to curb the effect. So far, Apple has announced that macOS 26 will offer granular controls to adjust or disable Liquid Glass elements outright—a positive sign that lessons from Vista’s troubled debut aren’t lost on Cupertino.
Marketing “Innovation” Versus Genuine Novelty
The response among long-time Windows users has ranged from amusement to mild exasperation. For many, Apple’s positioning of Liquid Glass as a frontier in “innovative design” seems to conveniently ignore the foundations laid by Microsoft. Side-by-side screenshots of Vista and macOS 26 are spreading online—showcasing the similarities, inviting direct visual comparison, and fueling passionate comments sections.Of course, it’s fair to point out that nearly every visual paradigm in computing has roots in previous systems. Apple’s “widgets” in macOS 26, for example, echo not just phone home screens but Vista’s much-maligned desktop gadgets. And, Apple’s own history is littered with examples of ideas iterated and improved: the dock (NEXTSTEP), Center Stage (FaceTime), Notification Center (iOS/Android). Genuine innovation often means taking the best ideas of the past and refining them.
Still, the narrative of “Liquid Glass as novelty” rings hollow if you’ve lived through the Aero years. The language, the demo scenes, even Apple’s own press materials, at times read like an artifact of Microsoft’s Vista launch cycle. For diehards, it’s less about plagiarism than about honesty—acknowledging that today’s “next big thing” often stands on the shoulders of innovations first attempted elsewhere.
Revisiting Aero Glass: Lessons from Vista’s Future-Forward Flaws
Looking back at Windows Vista, it’s striking how far ahead of its time Aero Glass really was. The vision was clear: a beautiful, hardware-accelerated interface bringing a sense of vitality and depth to the Windows desktop. But it was held back by factors that didn’t have much to do with pure design:- Performance Overheads: Aero Glass pushed GPUs, which in 2006 were neither ubiquitous nor consistently supported with robust drivers. The system requirements for 'full glass' often exceeded the average PC’s specs, leaving many users unable to enjoy the effect.
- Compatibility Headaches: Driver issues, software breakage, and a shift to a new graphics architecture led to endless complaints from upgraders and users with custom hardware.
- Resource Sensitivity: Aero Glass was famously switched off when resources ran low, either due to lack of GPU capability or under battery-saving settings, reducing the OS’s visual signature when it was needed most.
Design Cycles and Industry Dynamics
The story of Liquid Glass is not unique—it’s just the latest turn of the “everything new is old again” wheel. Design in technology is cyclical. Minimalism follows maximalism, transparency follows flatness. Aero Glass gave way to Microsoft’s “Metro” and flat design in Windows 8, which in turn made room for the partial return of subtle shadows and materials in Windows 10 and 11.Apple’s own journey traces similar lines—from the heavy textures of OS X’s early years, through the extreme minimalism of Yosemite and Big Sur, to the current mix of glassy and flat elements. The “Liquid Glass” of macOS 26 fits squarely into this oscillation. In practical terms, it signals a willingness by Apple to lean into nostalgic flourishes, as long as they’re paired with technical polish and modern accessibility.
It’s worth noting that, even before Aero Glass, both macOS and Windows borrowed from experimental desktop environments. Early KDE for Linux (with its “kwin” effects), Compiz’s wobbly windows, and even certain visual styles in BeOS explored translucency and glass long before it was mainstream. As such, “Liquid Glass” is as much a culmination as a reboot.
Comparative Table: Aero Glass and Liquid Glass
| Feature/Attribute | Windows Vista Aero Glass (2006) | macOS 26 Liquid Glass (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Release | November 2006 | June 2025 |
| Primary Hardware Needs | GPU with DirectX 9 support | Apple Silicon GPU/Neural Engine |
| Transparency/Glass Effect | Blur, color tint, soft gradients | Blur, color tint, depth layers |
| Areas of UI Affected | Taskbar, Start menu, window frames | Dock, toolbar, sidebars, Control Ctr |
| Performance Overhead | High (frequently disables itself) | Minimal on modern hardware |
| Accessibility Settings | “Aero Basic” mode, toggles | Customization/disabling options |
| Marketing Language | “Glass-like,” see-through, vivid | “Translucent,” reflects/refracts |
| Widget Support | Desktop Gadgets | Interactive widgets |
| Major Drawbacks | Performance/compatibility complaints | TBD; accessibility, overdesign risk |
Critical Perspective: Strengths and Risks
Where does this leave the average user—or for that matter, the Windows enthusiast? The return of “glass” as a major OS motif is both a tribute and a challenge.Notable Strengths
- Polish & Performance: Thanks to Apple’s unified hardware stack, Liquid Glass is almost certain to avoid the performance shortfalls that sunk Aero Glass for a generation.
- Visual Delight: There’s no denying the emotional impact of translucency, depth, and motion—fans of beautiful UIs will find much to like.
- Contextual Awareness: Apple’s implementation employs machine learning to subtly tweak coloration and transparency based on onscreen content, which promises a more adaptive experience than Vista could ever deliver.
- User Controls: Early developer builds point to accessibility toggles, including full “reduce transparency” modes, allowing users to dial effect levels to personal preference or need.
Potential Risks
- Design Fatigue: The pendulum swing of UI design means “glass” could wear thin quickly if overused, especially if third-party apps adopt it without restraint.
- Practicality vs. Aesthetics: If transparency interferes with readability or focus, it could undermine usability—particularly in high-focus professional workflows.
- Accessibility Gaps: Even with new controls, some visually impaired users may struggle with layered transparency, requiring careful integration of fallback styles.
- Innovation Perception: The tech-literate community may be quick to call out “reinvented wheels,” dulling the effect of Apple’s marketing push.
The Broader Outlook: Windows and macOS Move Forward
For Microsoft, there’s some sense of vindication in seeing concepts championed by Vista finally polished for the mainstream. It’s evidence that even flawed experiments become seeds for tomorrow’s standards. The company itself, having moved on from Aero, now embraces hybrid design in Windows 11—flattened materials augmented by subtle transparency and acrylic blur, but seldom as visually dominant as Vista once was.Apple, meanwhile, will relish the positive first impressions and the chance to attract users with a “wow” moment. The company’s ability to set visual trends means we’ll likely see a wave of Liquid Glass-inspired third-party macOS and iOS apps soon enough—not to mention, perhaps, a resurgence of the style throughout the wider tech design world.
Both ecosystems ultimately benefit from this cross-pollination. Windows users can rightly feel a sense of pride that their platform was once the trailblazer. Mac fans will get to enjoy a mature, refined version of the glass dream—unencumbered this time by hardware limitations or legacy baggage.
Conclusion: More Glass, Same Story
The unveiling of macOS 26 Liquid Glass is less about radical innovation and more about design’s circular journey. Apple, by reviving and perfecting what Microsoft attempted years before, reminds us that “new” so often means “better implemented.” The real winner is the user, who benefits from the industry’s willingness to revisit old ideas with fresh vigor.Still, it pays to remember the lessons of the past. A design language is only as good as its context, its usability, and its accessibility. Liquid Glass, like Aero before it, can delight—but it can also distract, or frustrate, if not balanced carefully.
So, is Liquid Glass truly “innovative”? That depends on your definition. Technically refined—certainly. Beautiful—unquestionably. But at heart, it owes as much to Microsoft’s bold, ill-fated bet in 2006 as it does to Apple’s own history of design leadership. For every Windows user who felt a pang of recognition at the WWDC unveiling, the message is unmistakable: every trend returns, and sometimes, yesterday’s failures are just tomorrow’s glossy success stories in waiting.
Source: Windows Latest Apple "innovates" Windows Vista Aero Glass with macOS 26 Liquid Glass. Oh well.
