Slashdot Mirror
XPde: Cloning the XP Interface
An anonymous reader writes "Over at XPde.com, a clone of the Windows XP interface is progressing. They aim to copy the XP interface down to every last detail- with exceptions for text that specifically mentions Windows XP or Microsoft. Their project seems to be coming along well, and assuming they meet their goal, nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP. Here is the screenshots page." Depends what you like, I suppose ;)
I'll be honest I love Windows XP. I use it at work, I use it at home...I consider it a great operating system. But I'll admit that I also have zero concern for the other little "features" that some would call spywear that Microsoft has added to XP. I just don't care about those things, I have nothing to hide from microsoft, the government or anyone.
I know nothing about Linux. The idea of an XP interface that would help me get to know it at first sounds appealing. But the more I think about it. I don't want an XP clone that works different. The point of Linux for me would be to learn something new, not use something else I'm used too. I think they should remain different from one another. Linux should revel in it's distinction, not attempt to clone XP.
Linux needs to set itself apart from windows, copying ms's interface detail by detail is not only a waste of effort but harmful to the larger open-source effort. Worse yet, the windows interface is horrible, so of all the interface's to copy exactly, why choose one of the worst out there?I want a great interface when I'm using my computer, not the same old interface that frustrated me enough to get me to install linux in the first place.
We need innovation, not duplication.
~metal_llama out.
---
move every sig!
Then why should they bother looking?
You should be worried, maybe oneday 'they' will decide that something you are doing is wrong.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
An OS is supposed to be like whatever you want it to be like. There is no established standard of what it should be.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Honestly, I think some people in the Linux community are just too obssessed with Microsoft to produce anything useful. They say Microsoft sucks but then they waste their time copying it. Why would someone want to "migrate" to something that looks the same and can't run most software? It makes no sense.
"Hey great! It looks just like Windows XP and won't run half of my software! I can't wait to 'migrate'!"
Please! For the last six years neither Microsoft nor Apple have come up with anything really new. This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows. This is like AMD and Intel in the 386 era. It's almost as good and a lot cheaper!... Well, as long as you're just following the leader, you'll never put any real pressure on them.
RMN
~~~
That's an interesting point.
Maybe they don't care because, in a way, it sort of helps Microsoft maintain it's desktop market. People can buy computers more cheaply now than ever before, and if they buy a Lindows machine (or have something like this put on an already installed system), then the Linux community is (to stretch things just a bit) training people to do things the Windows Way(tm) for free.
It's a wierd sort of PR for Microsoft. The linux community continues to try and bring people over, but they only way they seem to know how to do that is by emulating Microsoft interfaces. This effectively puts Microsoft in the 'Innovator' category and labels the Linux community as the 'Try and keep up' crowd. Obviously, this doesn't help anyone but Microsoft; and it leaves a large amount of people saying to themselves 'Well, this LOOKS like Windows- but I can't run my favorite software. So why bother.'
To them, since it looks like Windows, it IS windows. This means that if something doesn't work as expected or as soon as they find out that they can't run their newest [insert software here], then Linux is crap because it doesn't just 'work' like Windows does.
To them, their box is a broken Windows machine. They don't care why it doesn't work- they just know that since it looks like Windows, it should run like Windows. This kills the reputation of Linux among average users and boosts the perception of Microsoft as makers of quality software.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
What matters is whether applications are logically designed, easy to understand, and kept simple. Windows XP is not the system to emulate: its user interface is way too messy and too complex, it has too many unnecessary and confusing options, and its interaction is illogical.
While it is far from perfect, the Macintosh OS X desktop is a better model to copy. Apple has done a much better job streamlining system configuration and built-in applications. But, again, it's the logic behind the UI, not the graphical elements themselves that need to be copied. In fact, some misfeatures of the OS X UI that are present for backwards compatibility with previous versions of Mac OS should probably not be copied.
Well, I think you're half-right. Yes, Microsoft doesn't consider their interface important enough for them to sue people who rip it off. That doesn't mean they "have their priorities straight" -- that just means that they don't consider interface design a priority. Which is one reason why their interfaces suck, and Linux developers are doing exactly the wrong thing in attempting to imitate them.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Linux interface developers are going to rip anyone off, it should be Apple. Not in the areas of colors and fonts, because a) although I like Aqua overall, it's a little cartoonish for my taste, and b) that's just begging for a look-and-feel lawsuit. Instead, they should be looking at the underlying reasons Mac interfaces (Classic and OS X) work so well. OS X / Aqua proves that it's possible to have a Unix desktop that Just Works. KDE and GNOME are both considerably better than they used to be, but they're Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.
This doesn't just apply to window managers, BTW. I'm really deeply annoyed that just about all the open-source productivity software I've seen tries its damndest to look like Microsoft Office stuff -- all the word processors want to look like Word, all the spreadsheets want to look like Excel, etc. People, there are much better interfaces for this kind of software out there.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
First off, the guy's page says he's doing this to learn and for fun. Good for him.
However, I'm a little afraid that somebody might latch onto this idea and say, "Gee, we should use this to help people migrate to Linux from Microsoft!" That would be a terrible idea.
It would be a terrible idea because it would give new users a false sense of familiarity. When somebody sits down at a new program or OS, they notice immediately that it's different, and they start learning. The contrast between old and new creates a kind of mental traction, something for the brain to hold on to: "Okay, in Windows I did this and then this, but this is Linux so I have to do that and that instead."
In a situation of false familiarity, though, everything is a little slippery. Because everything looks like something the user is already familiar with, the user naturally expects everything to work like the thing it resembles. When it doesn't, frustration sets in. "Okay, now I want to do this. Hey, it didn't work. But that's how I do it in Windows, and this is just like Windows. Why didn't it work? This is broken!"
Some folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the windows have the same chrome on them and the desktop has the same background and the fonts resemble each other, then the system will be easy to learn. In fact, just the opposite is true. The more you make X look like Y, the harder it will be for users who know Y to learn X.
I write in my journal
HOWEVER, don't begrudge those of us who do use the power of UNIX operating systems.
Oh please! Come off it dude. No one has EVER said "Oh man, dang those Unix gurus! They've got all the knowledge and it's just not fair! We need to dumb down the UI for every one to level the playing field so those braniacs are just as ill equiped as we are - because we are too lazy to learn the shell."
But quite the opposite can be read in each and EVERY slashdot post regarding interfaces. Where *many* (granted, not all) of these so called Unix gurus go off on a high horse about how the world would be a better place if everyone learned the command line.
I know the command line quite well but I don't think my mom or grandma should be required to learn it so they can see a picture of my dog that I sent them via e-mail. Nor do I want to learn how to rebuild my car engine so I can drive my car down the road.
It is often worse for an interface to look the same and act different than it is for the interface to look different *and* act different.
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
I think you are missing the point. The benefit of having interfaces that mimic XP is that, if you want people to move over, give them a path with less resistance. This is SO true in business as well. If a Linux rollout means re-training already less than adept users in a new environment, then wether or not that interface is "better" or not is moot because these users are used to a different interface, right or wrong, for better or for worse, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Oh and btw, I f'ing hate Aqua, not just it's color schemes, but everything, EVERYTHING about it.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Just because it looks like XP doesn't mean it runs the same programs as XP. This has no connection whatsoever to Lindows.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
People have been ripping off the Windows (all versions) interface since day one. It shows just what Microsoft deems important.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a precedent here, if anyone in this thread is old enough to remember when Apple sued Microsoft for the exact same thing...and lost. Granted that the two interfaces at the time looked nothing like each other, but they behaved similarly. In the world of themed window managers, "look" can be mirrored quite easily, and "feel" is something that, as far as I know, has already been tested as being able to be copied.
moto411.com
If the guys want to build a XP interface for teir linux systems then by all means have at it. Most of you idiots don't even write code and have no place to be crying about it anyhow. If the itch exists then by all means scratch it. Open Source programmers do what we want so just get over it.
Got Code?
Why is it I hear so much about Microsoft's UI "sucking" here on Slashdot, yet few others seem to hold a similar view?
Microsoft interface design surely is considered a priority in the company. Otherwise, they probably would have stuck with the horrible Windows 3.1 style GUI, instead of doing the total revamp they did for Windows '95 and beyond.
Just because MS isn't actively suing everyone who imitates their interface doesn't mean they don't consider their interface valuable or important. They simply know they're the de-facto standard everyone else is trying to copy - so they're satisfied.
Apple, on the other hand, is a company with much more to lose. Don't forget, they're in the computer hardware business, as well as software. Their interface design is a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to moving product. (EG. If you can run a good OSX clone on regular PC hardware, why buy the Mac hardware? Their UI is "leverage" to drive Apple Mac system sales.)
Now, before people get their panties in a bunch over my statements, let me clarify. I do *not* think Microsoft is the "holy grail" of interface design. I certainly agree that Excel isn't the ultimate best design for a spreadsheet, for example. On the flip-side, though, it's really not half-bad. Millions of people are very productive with the product every day - and it looks and works well enough that open-source developers often attempt to emulate it.
For all of Microsoft's failures and flaws, I really see the look and feel of their UI as being one of the lesser issues (if an issue at all). Even in an MS vs. Apple comparison, don't forget - MS was doing background full-screen wallpaper long before Apple. They had superior file management (no 3rd. party tools needed to get a tree-structure display of your drive contents). They had multitasking working much better than Apple too. (Could you even format a floppy in the background on MacOS until version 8 or so?) Even Microsoft's "shortcuts" in Windows seem more functional than Apple's "aliases" were. (Even through MacOS 9.x, I don't believe you could make an alias point to anything on a networked drive. It only allowed an alias to a file on a physical, local device.)