Slashdot Mirror
Whistler vs. KDE/Gnome
Goatbert writes "I just posted a comparison of Windows Whistler to KDE, Gnome and Mandrake Update on NewsForge. It tries to compare Whistler's User Interface/Update feature to KDE and Gnome."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Bah. The only useful items in the review are the screenshots. The verbage around them is author's bad attempt at guessing how "novice users" think.
The conclusion does not follow out of any facts whatsoever, and seems to have been added as an afterthought. The last paragraph is a collection of cliches, and the fact that it says "windows is ok" does not make it more "grown up"!
The author's idea was good. But he needs to get a couple of *real* novice users in front of his computer, observe each of them for a while, and *then* tell us what they think!
A follow-up article with this information, confirming or denying his original opinion, would be a good idea.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Okay, this has been one of my pet peeves for a while now. Mainly, I hate start menus. This isn't specific to the "Windows" start button, it extends to the Gnome foot, the big ugly K and the Apple menu. The problem lies within the reliance on mouse positioning to keep the menu open. On desktop machines this isn't such a problem, you can generaly keep pretty good control over your mouse, provided you don't sneeze or are not attacked by a vagrant feline. But then there's laptops. It's a pain in the arse to keep the cursor on a start menu when you're using a touch pad. Maybe I just have fat fingers, but it's just no fun. A better solution is a more CDE like interface ala XFce. Click the menu, it's open, click the item in the menu and the menu closes, your selection executes. In between the first and the second click you could traverse your mouse cursor around the screen twice and do the lambada for all XFce cares.
So, will "Whistler's mother" be the default wallpaper?
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I use Windows on one box, Linux on another, a hacked together variant of Minix on a third. For graphics design I have an apple cube. I use each of them, and like all of them equally, with the exception of the Minix one, which sucks, because nobody makes software for it. The problem that I see here is that people do not truely understand the nature of each windowing system.
:), most likely a windowing system which you understand very well. If it's windows 98, you probably understand the control panel and the system.ini files. If you're using 2000/NT4, you probably understand the CLI, and how to modify the config files. If you're using KDE or GNOME, you probably understand the command prompt and the configuration manager. If you're using Enlightenment, you like having lots of xterms :). However, the problem is not that you don't religiously know the benefits of your own windowing system, but that you haven't used other windowing systems long enough to understand their benefits.
You are reading this from your own windowing system, (unless you use lynx, and then you are very cool
Example: If you use Linux at home, and go to work on Win2k boxen, you won't learn all of the good things abou Win2k, because you will always be comparing it to Linux. Your instincts hold you back from fully using it, because you are sure that it can't do anything better, or different, than Linux, and that if it does, it does the thing worse.
The problem is you. Spend some time learning Windows, or MacOS, or BeOS, or GNOME, or KDE, or Enlightenment. The real power of all of them only becomes apparent when you approach them with an open mind, looking for how you can best use them. For example, I have written a switcher program for my Windows box to switch between LiteStep and the MS Windows gui/shell. LiteStep allows me to customize Windows nearly as much as the Linux equivalents do, and Windows provides me with a larger market of software and drivers. Don't complain when you can embrace and extend.
Yeah! How are we supposed to stay motivated without any propoganda about how much better the quality is of the software we as a community can produce, as opposed to the most powerful software company in the entire universe???
... all the intellectually challenged slashdotters.
...
I want to read that Microsoft is stupid. Can't you all just take that into account the next time you try to review something objectively?
btw; I do not speak for myself, but on behalf of my boss, my cat, my girlfriend and off course
On a more serious note: I am truely fighting myself not to bonk my head on the doorpost every time my flatmates tell me how much better Windows(recent/future version) is because it has fading everthings
i love linux as much as the rest of you, but gnome and kde both annoy the hell out of me with their not-so-uniform window sizes, windows where the text/buttons doesn't quite fit, etc, etc...for those of us who are running it at 800x600, it really looks shitty
The Windows (as in, Win32) customization scene has been around for a long time.
There are many programs out there that allow you to change their interface, sometimes only in how they look (WinAmp), but other times in how they act (K-Jofol).
Within the past few years, there have been a number of "shells" that have come out that allow you to ditch explorer (the start menu / taskbar / desktop combination) and use your own interface, like an X-Windows window manager.
Microsoft is trying to have the best of both worlds - a standardized user interface, with the ability to change it all. Personally, I don't think it's gonna work very well, but that may be just because I used to be on the Litestep development team.
Obligatory links:
Skinz.org
DeskMod
Litestep.net
desktopian.org
And those link to many more...
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
I can even tell you exactly where they got it- read "Tog On Interface". Microsoft has! Bruce Tognazzini was developing this technique _decades_ ago, just the way you describe it...
It's nice that Microsoft care so much about using Apple usability testing. You'd think it would help them more than it seems to.
Woo-hoo! Let's translate this final verdict into clearspeak. "MS Win-duh is nice because they've spent megabucks on UI design, while Gnome/KDE are nice although they didn't. And they should all steal even more from MacOS."
I hate to say it, but this article belongs to the from-the-bulls-ass department. The reviewer has no clue about user interfaces, and no background in CS whatsoever. Can we please get an ignorance filter for Slashdot?
To clarify this before people start to flame me: user interfaces need to be logical. This is a danged FACT! People can learn to use anything, as long as it's systematic. The Linux/Unix core is systematic. Gnome/KDE is not. Windows is a mess, but it's the monopoly so who cares. MacOS is logical, but it's disregarded as a toy. This reviewer doesn't even know what the word "logical" means!
The reviewer should read some of the stuff from Bruce Tognazzini.
--Bud
It just goes to show you that no matter how much experience you have, you simply can't predict or estimate usability. You need usability labs. Eazel has set the stage in free software for this, and I think you'll see companies like HelixCode and RedHat follow suite.
Jason.
it's my understanding that eazel's nautilus will have previews of a number of file types.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Man ! That article was so politically correct I can't believe it...
;)
Whatever happened to the good critical slaughtering of products the author doesn't like ?
Sheesh...
This "comparison" is a joke. The reviewer, clearly an experienced linux user, tries to guess what might be confusing to newer users. A true _usability_ comparison would focus on how easy a person can _use_ the interface. He completely skips over the atrocious design of the control-center, where a configuration box can disappear but not be saved. He doesn't talk at all about real-world use, like "it took the average user three seconds longer to find program X with GNOME than with KDE." How does Whistler's navigation of menu levels compare to GNOME or KDE? Are either of them as slick as the original Mac? Do whistler taskbar items respond to screen-edge clicks yet? How easy is it to do X Y Z with each file manager? It's a superficial "first-impression" piece, not a usability comparison.
Sung to the tune of (What a) Wonderful world:
(What a) Microsoft World
------------------------
Don't know much about my CPU,
Don't know what a DIMM's supposed to do,
Don't know what a hard disk is for,
Don't know how to overclock my core;
But I do know that Microsoft rules,
'cuz that's what they taught us all in school,
Oh, What a Microsoft world it must be.
Don't know why my screen is always blue,
Don't know what these damn exceptions do,
Don't know why my modem runs so slow,
What it's sending out I just don't know;
But I do know what the salesman said,
Once I save enough to finally upgrade,
What a wonderful world it will be.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Microsoft is one of the first (if not THE first) to do serious usability laboratory testing for microcomputer software. This is separate from unit testing, regression testing, stress testing and focus testing.
The labs are set up much as focus group rooms, or if you haven't seen those, tv cops' interrogation chambers. A simple but attractive office or homey room with a computer and a few knick-nacks, overseen by a VERY wired booth and a large one-way mirror wall.
The user is someone off the street, heavily pre-interviewed to fit various target demographics of experience or workstyles.
The instructions handed may go all the way from an unopened box in the chair (install and explore this), to a preconfigured setup and a few written instructions as if from a boss.
The people in the control booth record everything said by the user, and done with the computer. The controller can converse with the user through an intercom, and even move the mouse pointer or type remotely, but generally lets the user drive the show.
The user is asked to think out loud as much as possible, to say their goals as they conceive of them, and to say their reactions to what they see. "Okay, I didn't mean to do that. I think Undo would be here, and, yep, okay, undone. Oh, but that erased this other thing too, which I wasn't expecting."
Now, bring this to Open Source or Free Software. The lab doesn't need to be so fancy, but the REAL needs of REAL users must be REALLY observed and dissected and made into REAL usability gains.
If usability angst testimonies are filtered between the neophyte to the guru, how can the guru comprehend what the neophyte needs? Guesswork makes for crap software.
Conversely, in 1990 or so, Microsoft's LAN Manager group dismissed the feedback from Microsoft's own employees, as "not the typical user." A shame, because at the time, there were very few 30,000+ node LANs in the world. They could have clearly benefitted from the feedback of such users.
[
... and I'm not just talking about the mail program, either.
What the author previewing is a development version of whistler -- one that will be available to everyone in 2001 or later. In contrast, the versions of GNOME and KDE he's using are most likely the current, stable ones (1.2 and whatever the KDE stable is (2.0?) ). So currently, Whistler is ahead in the few points the reviewer touches on.
However:
By 2001, Nautilus will be out and have the preview feature the reviewer wanted, plus many others.
By 2001, HelixCode's Red Carpet will provide even easier updates than the current packagers.
By 2001, GNOME and KDE both will have radically improved interfaces.
I don't remember any other specific complaints the reviewer had, but this is clear: With whistler, we'll see that one interface in 2001 and then no improvements until the next version -- maybe '03 or '04. OTOH, GNOME and KDE both are progressing at a rapid rate. What they already have in devel will surely be out way before whistler, and the improvements will be a steady trickle of bugfixes and enhancements, instead of seasonal service packs and enhancements only every two years. So while Whistler may be ahead for now in what was reviewed, but this will be radically different by the time whistler is actually released.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Gnome and KDE, on the other hand, have managed to put together very useable interfaces without millions of dollars behind them. All three interfaces need work to become as user friendly as possible, and all three can learn from each other.
Can we buy a clue here? For all the sniping people do on how "unoriginal" MS/Windows is, as near as I can tell the entire KDE and Gnome approach is to just copy MS. So of course they don't have to spend money to get the same results.
"All three" aren't learning from each other -- both are learning from Windows. There's only one UI that has any real R&D and UI testing dollars behind it, and it dowesn't have a footprint or K as an icon.
When Win95 came out, all people did was complain about how stupid the start button is, now we read comparisons that say "well, KDE and Gnome both have start buttons, so they're just as good as Windows, I don't know where MS is wasting all that money."
So we can bitch and moan about how imperfect and stupid MS interfaces are, but quite frankly there are only two companies that can claim any moral high ground for actually advancing the UI outside of ripping off MS: Apple and Palm. They are the only companies I see actually doing NEW things as opposed to "me-too"...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
There is no clear winner or loser. Each interface has it's [sic] advantages and disadvantages.
This surprised me, though I've never been disappointed by Jeff Field before. Newsforge is still, as its mission states, a forum for "open-source news" -- just look at the banner atop the front page, where "GNU/Linux" is prominently displayed where "Linux" would suffice for most. For such a site to publish an article that doesn't universally deride Microsoft or celebrate OSS offerings is a pleasant change from the earlier years.
It looks like linux-centric media are finally growing up. I'm glad, because it would be a shame for the movement's mouthpieces to stumble just when the movement itself is gaining such momentum.
-- Anne Marie
I believe the ideal is a combination of command line and GUI. Some things are a lot quicker to achieve graphically, other quites awkward or impossible, but very easily done on a command line. Two examples:
1. Opening a document. If you're in the proper directory in Windows Explorer, you see the document icon right there, in front of you. Just double-click on it, and it opens. You don't have to know which application opens it, what the exact name of that app is, etc. On a command line, even after a DIR or LS, you still have to type the name of the viewer app (and potentially its full path) as well as the name of the document, even though it's RIGHT THERE, in front of you, you want to point to it and grab it. While some die-hard CLS users would argue that the command line approach is easier anyway, many people wouldn't concur.
2. Selecting a bunch of files. Here the GUI can get quite awkward or useless. If the selection criterion is simple enough, it might be workable: select all files starting with project1*, for example. Sort by name, select the relevant files. But if the selection pattern is more complex, that might not work. You really have the urge to type something like SELECT *YAHOO* in the address bar, that would be so much easier.
> It is much harder to remember where something is than remember the name.
A lot of people would disagree with this statement, myself included. I can remember how to get to someone's house, but I rarely remember the street name. Many people think think very graphically, in terms of objects and actions. I often forget the syntax difference between regedit and regedt32, or regsvr32 or other such abominations (which abound especially in unix). It's a blessing to have the command history in the RUN command under the Start menu. On Linux after a few months of disuse, I have to run back to the manual for a lot of commands, even though I know exactly what I'm trying to achieve.
You guys may say I don't pay attention to details, but I can't see a difference between this so called "new" Whistler and the current Windows 98 interface.
:)
Sure, icons and bars all over got whiter and everything appears flatter, but overall we're talking about exactly the same thing.
Talking usability-wise, I can't see any advantage in comparison to Windows 98, and quite frankly, I don't expect to see any. I think Windows is decent as it is and couldn't think of a way to execute things faster and better without a CLI. (please respect my views here
Am I the only one that thinks the clean Window Maker interface can't be beaten? Most argue about "the average user" finding it more complicated, but come on!, the average user gets dumber each day. Let's consider for a change that Whistler isn't really something new (at all) and that maybe it's very good already.
As for KDE/Gnome [I've got to comment on them, otherwise this would risk being offtopic], they're far from being Whistler. Linux's power doesn't come from nowhere and to channel such versatility is a very hard task. Anyway, I'm not sure I even want them to be like Whistler.
Flavio
Or a Start Menu. Boggles my mind. Window's UI is hardly useable for daily work. Nasty fonts, horrible prints, inconsistent dialogs and menus, not to mention installation and maintainance of the system.
Being a person who owns multiple computers (at home) and has several OS's (see below) I would put GUI's from best to worst in the following order (sorry if i leave your Your Favorite OS[TM]).
1. Mac OS 9
2. MacOS X PB
3. BeOS (I'm quite impressed with Be, but it looses points for difficulty of setting up OpenGL on "supported" video cards and for shipping with a Web Browser that isn't at least as standards compliant at Nescape 4.x)
Large Gap in useability
4. Windows ME/2000 (same basic UI)
5. KDE/Gnome (these loose points for the following 1. Setup 2. Lack of applications standards [choosing what is right for you is Okay, but after the choice is made, file mapping on import and export should be automatically, autolaunching on web clicks should choose your fav app to handle the service etc] 3. horribly slow file managers 4. their respective "control panels" tool and 5. you still MUST use the command line at least once to setup the default install or ot lauch a useful service) I have used Mandrake 7.x, RedHat 6.x and 7.0 (kept mandrake 7.1)
Burn Hollywood Burn
Who gets final say though, on a proposed UI change in Windows.
The highly paid UI people, geeks down in the code mines? Or the much more highly paid marketing guys, whose livelyhood depends on their ability to schmooze and talk people into things, and who like glitzy gadgets regardless of functionality, and who play golf with/go on corporate retreats with/swap wives with the head honchos, executive staff, board members of Microsoft.
Windows has NEVER struck me as a piece of software whose feature-set was driven by engineers. You can hire the smartest people on the planet, but if your corporate decisions are not made by those people, it will not be reflected in your product. On the other hand, if you turn your product over to the engineers, geeks will think its cool, but the product is almost guaranteed to not succeed in the marketplace.
Case in point:
The Talking Paperclip (TM).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, I installed Red Hat 7.0 this weekend (after a year hiatus from Linux) and, I hate to say this but, I missed Windows! Perhaps I am just used to navigating Windows but I feel that some important gaps are left in the Linux "Desktop Experience:"
My NIC wasn't working. In Windows I'd go to the "System Properties," find a yellow question mark, and work on the driver. Under Linux I was lost. But I'm pretty sure I still have to work with vague 'mod' tools and configuration files. Same for the mouse. I can't remember the commands when I only need them once a year. This is nerve-wracking; and a great example of the importance of GUIs (recognition not recall).
Under Windows I get to start with a clean system and add tools I want. The start menu is relatively empty and ready for my bidding. Under Red Hat (and SUSE) I'm deluged with half-finished CD writers, and configuration tools. The start menu is filled with crap I've never heard of. Help, glub, glub.
In Windows, I go to a site like tucows or softseek, look at screenshots of little helper applications and install them separately. Again, Red Hat and SUSE filled my system with half-finished toys. Want KDE? Fine, use gnorpm and dig through weird menus of choices and find all sorts of little pesky individual packages. (In the end, I STILL can't load the KDE window manager.)
In Windows, I click on "Windows Update..." and get system patches for bugs, security holes, etc. I'm not aware of a simple method under Red Hat.
In short, a "Desktop Experience" to me means I don't read man pages and tinker with config files, then rc.d. I've read about all that, and tinkered with it. I'm glad it works. But I DON'T want to revel in it! While Unix systems get their power from scripting and small tools, the "Desktop Experience" is a different beast! I'm all for the Unix tools and use them religiously, but that's a different issue. (Linux the OS still works great!)
And yet, apparently if you sit down in front of a Mac you can learn the UI faster than on a Windoze box.. but some would say that you never really learn the Windows interface because it is different for every application and changes with every release.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It seems with every version of windows things are getting "easier" abd the user is, by default, taken away from the complexities of file systems and hardware.
In the days of windows 95 and 98 this was great, a large majority of people had never used a computer before, and liked the idea of a start menu.
Today there arent many people arround that cant load up Word from the start menu. Will these people, the non slashdot reading majority of computer users, enjoy these "enhancements"? Most people I know have 6 or 7 icons on their desktops for there often run programs and games, and the rest languishes in the start menu. They are pefectly able to get them though. They can right click on C: in My coputer and if theres lots of purple then thats good - they have lots of space (or is it blue for free space - I forget)
The people that have never used a PC before are unlikely to find this any easier, as when they ask their next door neighbour, who has gotten used to windows 95/98, they will get a confusing reply.
With linux heading to the main stream geek OS, and WW: PE, heading even more for the newbie, many semi-savvy users will be looking for a comfortable middle, which will probaly mean spending a few hundered bucks on the next version up from PE, or sticking with 98/ME.
They wont be able to stay with ME for long though as new technologies will require upgrades, in the same way >2GB drives needed 95osr2.
What will happen then, is complete speculation. If Microsoft continue to dumb down their $80 version of windows, I can see a growing market in replacement shells for windows.
How long before the "intellegent" menus, as in winME, cant be turned off? Will the traditional start menu be going the way of program manager?
Once people get used to an idea its very hard to take them off it.
I'm really happy for Microsoft's really PRETTY interface, but what about an interface that lets you work more efficiently?
I want to see MORE data on the screen, not LESS... With the "new" start menu, not only do I have to click an extra time to get to anything, it also covers up 1/4 of the screen! The "explorer" now has nice big bars with spaces between them seperating your drives... Can't I see more than 8 drives on the screen at once? Or is that too confusing?
Anyways, thay's my $0.02 worth...
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.