Is Windows Ready For Joe Longneck?

Carewolf writes "Is Windows ready for the desktop? We have heard it year after year, that now is the time for Windows on the desktop. But is it really time? Richard K. Yamauchi at OSNews don't think so and has writen a piece that list a number of issues that needs to be solved before Windows is really ready for the masses and "Joe Longkneck"."

Comments

Mac

[phorm]

I'm not a MacHead... nor do I even own a Mac (though on occasion I've worked on some)... however, I don't even see how it can claimed that XP has the best colour scheme. Every time I see OS-X I start drooling and wish that I could afford a Mac to play with...

Re:Mac

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm not a MacHead... nor do I even own a Mac (though on occasion I've worked on some)... however, I don't even see how it can claimed that XP has the best colour scheme. Every time I see OS-X I start drooling and wish that I could afford a Mac to play with...

Come get it! Cheap Karma! Just say you want a mac!

Well, seriously you know this is satire right? It's making a point through humour. Yeah, the titlebars and start bar in the default XP theme are pretty garish, that's the point. On the other hand, I quite like the widget theme, pretty laid back in comparison.

Anyway, personally I think once you get over the big titlebars Windows XP is better than MacOS in terms of themes, the MacOS gui is cool for the first week, then the novelty wears off and it just gets distracting. In particular the stripes that invade it everywhere are just visual noise and ended up irritating me, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to turn it off, or make it a gradient or something.

Some stuff is just confusing too. Look at this for instance. Look at the bottom, I guess that thing at the bottom left is a progress indicator? It doesn't stand out terribly well, nor is it obvious what it does. On the left hand list view there is what seems to be an empty scrollbar, but it could be anything for all I know. It's just a seemingly pointless gradient.

The main problem with XP of course is that not all the apps use the new theming APIs, meaning you end up with a mix of cruddy old icons and grey UIs. Anyway, you know why Windows and GTK traditionally use shades of grey and brown? It's easier on the eyes.

In fact, if you remember back in the days when the web was a shiny new toy, by default web pages were grey. Modern day browsers use white as the default, but in the beginning it was a similar shade of grey to the one Windows used, because it makes reading for extended periods easier. For the same reason, the old green on black terminals weren't so great.

So, the Mac colour scheme is good for marketing purposes, but I don't really see how it could be objectively classed as "better", it certainly is less usable than the old MacOS 9 style ui. But I guess they had to give it some distinguishing feature.

Re:Mac

[thatguywhoiam]

Hey, I'll bite. I whine about interface colours all day.

Anyway, personally I think once you get over the big titlebars Windows XP is better than MacOS in terms of themes, the MacOS gui is cool for the first week, then the novelty wears off and it just gets distracting. In particular the stripes that invade it everywhere are just visual noise and ended up irritating me, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to turn it off, or make it a gradient or something.

The 'big titlebars' thing is a myth. Somehow, the larger antialiased system font used in Aqua (Lucida Grande 12pt) makes people think the window bars are bigger, but not so. Booting classic real quick will show you that they're the same size.

I have to admit, I laughed at the comment about the stripes... especially ending it with 'option to make it a gradient or something.'

Gradients... are the bane of graphic designers. Gradients suck. They have their place, and that place is a small, subtle effect, or a contrast-y thin effect. Like the blue-orange gradient that pulses when XP starts up. Very specifically not like the task bar and sliders in Windows. XP goes completely nuts with this gradient effect which adds to its gaudy appearance. Another example: the rollover state of taskbar buttons actually inverts the gradient, so it goes from 'puffy' to 'concave'. Flexing, like so much cheap-ass plastic. You may laugh, but things like that make a big difference in perception. Sorta like cheap plastic knobs on the dashboard of a low-end car.

The stripes in Aqua do have a purpose; they denote negative space. I've found that this is very useful for 'clicking off' an item to remove focus. Or, say, in OmniWeb - I can see how big a graphic with a white background really is, as the 'negative' striped space is different from the default white BG of most browsers.

Some stuff is just confusing too. Look at this for instance [ranchero.com]. Look at the bottom, I guess that thing at the bottom left is a progress indicator? It doesn't stand out terribly well, nor is it obvious what it does. On the left hand list view there is what seems to be an empty scrollbar, but it could be anything for all I know. It's just a seemingly pointless gradient.

There are much more horrible Aqua basterdizations to point to, but this one is not as bad as you might think. The thing in the bottom-left is a progress bar. It doesn't stand out because there is no progress going on in the screenshot. Aqua progress bars either pulse or animate when active; they are clear when inactive. Believe me, you'd notice it. The bar on the right side of the left pane is an empty scrollbar; this is done so your text is not popping 12-pixel gaps when appearing/disappearing while resizing. It keeps the text more readable.

The main problem with XP of course is that not all the apps use the new theming APIs, meaning you end up with a mix of cruddy old icons and grey UIs. Anyway, you know why Windows and GTK traditionally use shades of grey and brown? It's easier on the eyes.

I'd say the main problem with XP is the hackneyed half-MDI interface they cling to, but that's just me. Windows used gray because MS had no interest in making the UI look like anything else for a long time (basically until OS X shipped). It's not inherently easier on the eyes... in fact a lack of contrast can have the opposite effect. The default grey of webpages gone by had more to do with a lack of background tag than any 'web usability' effort.

Personally speaking, the problem with XP is the huge chunks of UI that get 'blown through' each other all the time. I hated that on Mac OS Classic, and I still hate it in Windows. Makes your computer seem sloooow. At least Aqua never ever does that, what with the double-buffered display and everything.

So, the Mac colour scheme is good for marketing purposes, but I don't really see how it could be objectively classed as "better", it certainly is less usable than the old MacOS 9 style ui. But I guess they had to give it some distinguishing feature.

I diagree. The Aqua interface is good for marketing, and dragging the computer-using public kicking and screaming into a bold new world where we can count on antialiased text and an uncluttered GUI standard. It also looks fantastic on LCD screens.

Re:Mac

[thatguywhoiam]

I'm pretty sure I did a comparison when I first got access to XP and found they were bigger. You can change the size of the titlebar to something smaller however. I might be wrong, I've seen some pretty wierd optical illusions already today.

Ooops, sorry, my bad. I thought you meant the Aqua titlebars were bigger than Classic's.

Ok ok! That was just an example. I meant, you can't change it to anything else. Anyway, I know some people who really like gradient based themes. I don't so much, prefer the flat look personally, but whatever floats your boat yes?

Yes... and no. I'm a big anti-theme guy actually, just on principle; I saw the horror that Kaleidoscope wreaked on too many Mac labs. Choice is good, obviously. By the way, you can theme OS X, using Duality or a similar app, and there are plenty (!) of non-striped themes available. (All the widgets are just stored as individual PDFs.)

No, they are there for branding basically. In any UI it should be pretty obvious what will be interactive and what won't be.

Okay, you're right, its a brand thing as well. I have found them useful anyways.

I don't really understand... the empty scrollbar was on a list view, the items didn't stretch all the way across, so it wouldn't be popping in and out.

Exactly. Rather than have the scrollers appear and disappear when resizing, they have opted to keep a 'filler' bar there so it looks less jerky. I'm undecided on whether or not it's better myself, as you're right, people don't read generally when resizing. But that's why its there.

No, too much contrast on screen is harsh on the eyes. Yes, too little can be bad as well (though for some people high/low contrast can make a big difference), but there was indeed a reason grey was chosen as the background colour, and it's because the early days of the web were dominated by technical articles, and grey was known to be less harsh on the eyes for extended periods.

Quick: tell me if you're browsing Slashdot with anything other than RGB 0,0,0 for text and 255,255,255 for white. :)

Blown through? Do you mean when you can see the UI repainting when the system is under load? I don't really know what you are talking about here...

Maybe I'm on crack, or my computer is.. but on my XP system, every time I launch a new browser window, or save an attachment, the UI blows through whatever's under it for a good 2 seconds... and this on an Athlon 1.8Ghz with a decent video card, lots of RAM, etc. So you tell me.

You are right of course about OS X's speed disadvantage in this area, but it's safe to say they are now where other OS display technologies are going.

Anyways, this has already gotten long. Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting, I just enjoy the discussion. Cheers.

Comic Relief

[shiflett]

Despite all of the negative comments, I thought this bit of satire was refreshing.

I only wish the article went into a bit more detail about all of the challenges Windows faces on the desktop. In order to be funny, some things were exaggerated too much at the risk of discrediting valid points.

After reading the same types of articles with Linux as the subject matter, I am tired of seeing them all have the slanted perspective of, "Is Linux ready for Windows users?"

Point 10 reminded me of a Gateway advertisement I saw recently for a computer that comes with the Internet:

10. Freedom. You can use the inter net with Windows XP. It's built in.

Very true

[phorm]

As users get more and more attached to windows, this actual becomes more and more true. Linux may now or in the future be ready for the desktop user, but even if linux were to look 95% like windows (see Lindows, Lycoris), will the average Joe user be ready to switch?
Even if it's somebody who's not used windows, or at least not often, will Joe User overcome the stigma that "Linux" is for geeks? And if it's a longtime windows user, will Joe U be mentally ready and willing to switch, especially when all his friends are using windows. People are notoriously resistant to change, even good change.
If 'nix crawls into the office desktop market, it stands a better chance of getting into the home desktop market. And the #1 reason it would get onto office desktops is of course: cost and licensing. Perhaps after we get 1 or 2 large companise sucessfully using a 'nix desktop, people will become more aware of linux as something other than a geek tool.

Re:Very true

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Please be so kind as to take your stale FUD elsewhere."

FUD? This is last week's experience. Changing video modes is a bitch.

If that's not the average experience, that's fine. If people are having my experience, then that's another story.

As for what I actually said in my comment, it was not as much a gripe about a problem I had last week, but more of a reflection of some of the problems that plague Linux. It's really meant to be used with the CLI. Simple as that. You can ignore my complaint (how typical) or you can address it. You chose to accuse me of spreading fud. If that's the type of bs newbs like me are going to have to deal with, then the parent poster is right, you can forget about Linux ever making it mainstream.

Re:Very true

[drpatt]

... will Joe User overcome the stigma that "Linux" is for geeks?

That depends on the geeks who perpetuate this stigma by telling Joe that he can't handle Linux because he is just a dumb Windoze luser.

Re:Very true

[kien]

... will Joe User overcome the stigma that "Linux" is for geeks?

That depends on the geeks who perpetuate this stigma by telling Joe that he can't handle Linux because he is just a dumb Windoze luser.

I wish I had mod points. That was insightful. I've found that people are much more willing to try GNU/Linux when I encourage them to ask questions and experiment. It also helps if you're willing to help people solve their Windows problems...your opinion means more after a few Windows driver updates so they're much more open to the idea of trying something different if you recommend it.

I also never recommend that a lifelong Windows user switch "cold-turkey". I help them set up a dual-boot system so that they can always fall back to what they know if they need to or if (and I know it's heresy to mention it but...) something just works better in Windows currently. It takes a lot of patience to teach people how to solve problems (in GNU/Linux or in Windows) but it pays off in the long run. You know, that whole "teach a man to fish" analogy and all.

Educating people is what we need to be doing...not convincing them. Teach them how to be geeks themselves and then let them make their own informed decision about what they like best. Seems to work most of the time; people are very interested in saving money and, once they're aware of the options and over the learning curve of a new environment, I've found that most of them prefer GNU/Linux. (And all the games included in the distros helps them win over their families.)

--K.

Re:Very true

[Archie Steel]

Changing resolutions dynamically is possible by doing Ctrl-Alt-plus or Ctrl-Alt-minus, though that will not change the actual desktop size, which is less than ideal. However, the new RandR extension in XFree86 permits the dynamic resize, mode change, refresh change and even orientation change of the desktop on-the-fly. Expect it to be usable in control panel form as early as KDE 3.2 (due some time in the spring, I guess).

Right now, however, you can change the screen resolution for the next time you restart X without actually editing XF86Config-4, using the appropriate GUI app that comes with your distro (Mandrake Control Center for Mandrake, etc.). So, in a way, you are right in the sense that you need to restart X to truly change modes (and total desktop area) - however you are mistaken on all other accounts. I will agree with you that most other posters failed miserably in giving you this simple piece of information...c'mon guys, don't be so emotional!

In any case, this is really not a big issue, as most people don't resize their desktop once they've set it up to their liking...but now, with the RandR X extension, they'll be able to do it in real time. (Note: you can try it if you have the latest version of X, I think, by using the command "xrandr", but I believe the Desktop and Window managers are not yet aware of it, so it will probably cause some General Weirdness...type "man xrandr" to see how to use it.)

Have a nice day...

Re:Very true

[IamTheRealMike]

Secondly, MS provides you with a UI to install, configure, and troubleshoot video card problems. If KDE or Gnome has something like that, I've yet to find it. Strike 2 against Linux.

Every distro I've tried has such a GUI. KDE and GNOME themselves don't provide it, the distro plugs it in, so if you didn't see one then either you were using a distro meant for users who don't mind text files, or you didn't look hard enough. Only, to fix a problem like that, you better know your way around shell.

Do you have any idea at all how difficult it is to use the registry? Even advanced users get it wrong. How many times in PC magazines have you seen the answer to a question start with "Well, first back up your registry, editing the registry is dangerous...."

I know I have loads of times.

The registry is an utterly huge mess of undocumented magic keys whos meaning may or may not be obvious from the name or location. It's organized in a way that must have made sense to those guys at Redmond, there are lots of inter-folder linkages done manually, and it takes forever to search .

Users find registry editing, which is all too often necessary, hard. But people edit text files all the time. Sure, so if you use kate instead of kword there's no bold button, big deal. It's still a lot easier than the closest equivalent on Windows.

I'm a Systems Analyst. My job is to make my company's products usable. If that's not credibiilty enough to let you know when something's broken from the user-end point of view, then you are ready to be promoted to Mindless Linux Zealot.

What kind of an attitude is that? I'm a Systems Analyst, so if you don't agree with me you're a mindless zealot?

That's a bloody arrogant attitude. Let me tell you this, I have done my time on tech support which most definately involves more dealing with frustrated and unhappy end users, and out of restoring Windows to a working state when things go wrong and restoring Linux, Linux wins every single time. Problems inflict all operating systems, to pretend that if something doesn't work in Windows it's an isolated case that isn't Microsofts fault is ridiculous.

What some people don't realize

[matt_fk]

Windows revolutionized the Desktop for the masses.. the funny part about this article is.. it's still not ready for us!

Re:What some people don't realize

[Tony]

Windows revolutionized the Desktop for the masses..

This is a common misconception. MS-Windows revolutionized the desktop in the same way that Budweiser revolutionized beer: cheap and easily-accessible, but not necessarily good or original.

So much came before MS-Windows that was better-executed (unlike MS-Windows, which is better off executed), such as Altos, AmigaOS, MacOS, Lisa, etc. Since then, Microsoft has not improved much on the interface, concentrating instead on making it prettier. Their few attempts at innovation (such as MS Bob) failed dramatically, and usually quite publicly.

The desktop revolution occurred in spite of MS-Windows, not because of it. The revolution was going to happen, with or without MS-Windows; Microsoft just happened to be in the right place at the right time to force the industry to move their way.

As interfaces such as NextSTEP have shown, the desktop should be a lot better than it is currently. But, Microsoft cannot afford to do anything radical with their desktop; they must move slowly and incrementally, or chance losing their customer base. That is why, though XP was touted as being a "revolutionary" interface, it is really hardly different from MS-Windows 2000.

Clever hackers would take advantage of this interface inertia. Instead of duplicating MS-Windows, we should spend a good part of our effort changing the way people think about information. I don't have all the answers, but I can say that the stupid MS-Windows interface should not be a design template for our own desktops. If we do, we are merely consigning ourselves to a life of constant catch-up to an inferior operating system and an inferior desktop.

At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

The Norms

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Perhaps you were just pointing out that this is a rather ridculous and amusing truism but, in the case that you weren't, I'd like to interject. To the average non-techie, the colors of the software play any important role. For Windows, the default color scheme has to be a good one because when people pick up the box on store shelves or see it on a display computer, about the only way they can evaluate it is by determining whether they think it's appealing to the eye or not. They don't know any important questions to ask about an OS - to them multi-threading involves sewing a hole quickly and benchmarking is some type of flaw or defect in a seating-device. In software, I'd guess that 80% (a figure I pulled entirely from thin air, so don't ask for a source, I'm just guessing) of the market will be convinced and swayed by fun bells and whistles and not usuability or performance.

Re:The Norms

[Apreche]

Well I was in CompUSA the other day and I heard a normal guy talking to one of the salesfolk. I myself was inspecting Viewsonic's tablet pcs and wireless monitors (oooh, ahhh). This guy was obviously not a techie. He also wasn't an idiot either, as many techies assume all non techies to be. He was asking the sales guy about one of HPs new machines. The questions he asked were pretty simple. Can this machine make CDs? Can I take video from my camera and edit it on here? Can I edit music on here? He didn't care if the machine was fast or slow, or what resolutiont he monitor ran at. He just wanted to know the capabilities of the machine.

When normal people buy computers they don't think of it the same way we do. They think of it just like buying a DVD player. It's a machine that is going to do a few things. The one I get has to be able to do the things I want. They don't care what OS, how fast, or anything. Because you can't care about what you don't know about. This guy wanted a machine that could help him do multimedia work. Sounded like amateur film making or home movies or something. And that particular machine did the job for him at the right price. That's why he left the store with it. He probably could have gotten a faster machine for less money, but what he got was adequate.

The reason people go to Windows so often is because some of the things they want their machine to do, can't be done with linux. The high quality polished interfaces and software just aren't there. Does linux have stuff as nice as After Effects and Premiere? No. So if someone wants to do video linux is already out of the picture. Does it have AutoCAD? no, so architects aren't goign to use it. Games? no.

Windows is and has been ready for the desktop for a long long time. It does EVERYTHING. It may not do it well, and it may crash sometimes, and linux may be more powerful, faster, more stable, or better, at certaint things. But if there is somethign you want your computer to do. And computers are capable of doing it. Then a computer with Windows is capable of doing it. That can't be said for any other operating system. When someone else is selling a machine that does everything, you need to sell a machine that does more than everything to even stand a chance.

Re:The Norms

[axxackall]

Run my X11 software?

You know that most of end-users do not have any of your X11 software?

The fact is that Windows is sometimes the right tool for the job...

The problem of both Linux and Macosx is that Windows is the right tool for the job for 99% of end-user tasks.

Apple understands it and attempts to fix it as hard as possible. If Linux developers won't understand and fix it than there is no chance for Linux on desktops of end-users. Actually I am negatively surprized how big software player keep feeding their direct mono-competitor.

Hello, IBM! We heard a lot of your Linux support. How about Lotus for Linux? Don't you want to "help" to your "friend" Microsoft to loose more users?

Hello, Sun! You can do better with Star/Open Office in terms of usability, stability and compatibility!

Hello, HP! Can you repeat again why my HP scanner is not recognized by xSANE?

Hello, Adobe! You're so naive tha you really hope that Apple will sell more Macs in future with your software. Don't you have any hope for Photoshop/Illustrator/Premier on Linux?

I understand that opensource developers don't understand end-users. But I don't understand software giants.

mostly satire but point #9 is valid ...

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

I know the author of the article says he's sorta writing a satire of another article (yes, some of us do read the article) --- but one point he makes I think strikes home at some potential problems downline for Microsoft when he writes

9. Dev tools. Student versions of VB start at like $100. Try developing something on VMS without spending $60,000, and then try to make application without taking a class or reading book. VB has a WIZARD to create an app. And, if you want the enterprise level, you'll never have to spend more that $1000 for you PC to get all the dev tools.

The problem is that the development tools have indeed become too expensive. Long gone are the days where one could buy a simple 'Turbo' this or 'Visual' that compiler for $99.95. And along with that, goes much of the supportive development by independent programmers and small companies.

Similarly, have you seen what it takes in the way of system resources to write a simple COM component perhaps a XML-based web service on .NET Arguably, it is the inexpensive compiler that encouraged us to suffer through MS-DOS and early versions of Windows over other operating systems because you could at least roll something on your own. I don't see that happening with the new breed .NET.

Sure, J2EE is a behemoth as well, but at least you're not going to get licensed out the wazoo and knickle-n-dimed to death when you write your 150 lines to say "Hello World!"

Need proof? Turbo Pascal -- it changed the way we looked at the PC.

Re:mostly satire but point #9 is valid ...

[Schnapple]

You seem to have two quibbles:

1. Development has become too expensive, and
2. Development has become too difficult

The first point has been addressed (most usefull skills like J2EE and .NET are in fact essentially free to learn).

Although I hate to see small companies and independent developers hit, I don't agree with the idea that computer programming should be easier or less difficult. This is programming, not assembling furniture. It's now to the point where even the "hold-your-hand" RAD tools are cutting off the non-serious users (VB6 was the bane of bad programming, but VB.NET forces its users to code better, and VB6 "coders" aren't happy about it).

It's exponentially more difficult to be a programmer today than it was, say, twenty years ago and so what I see a lot of (and I'm not saying this is you) is people who got in on the low end (i.e., COBOL thirty years ago) and somewhere between Object Oriented and Polymorphism, fell off the curve. I work at a University that's moving (at some point) from a COBOL-based mainframe to a "web-based" system (whatever that means - PeopleSoft, .NET, something) and the majority of the people who work with me (most of which are at least thirty years older than me) just want to put it off until after they retire.

Once you get ensconced in "difficult" programming, you will either understand why it is how it is and why it is so difficult (i.e., it won't be so difficult anymore) or you'll get so flustered with it that you'll find another profession or hobby. And as programming gets more and more difficult, there will be less and less people to do it, and as a result these people will be worth more since their rarity is increasing.

Or maybe that's just what I want.

Are people ready for computers?

[MrLint]

The real question is are the rest of the mouthbreathers really to be using computers? The answer is no.

Firstly there is no wayo to make them totally idiot proof. Nature keeps evolving better idiots. There is a certain level of 'je ne sais quoi' necessary to run technology. You have to have some basic understanding of what youare doing and what the metaphors mean. to this day there are ppl in companies that use computers who can't make the logical connection between a document in the filing cabinet and a document on a computer disk. No amount of 'fixing' an OS can alleviate that. You cant fix a situation hat when ppl get a message onthe screen instead of readin it they clickthe cancel button and pretend it didnt happen. There has to be some thought going on in their head.

Let me give you guys an anecdote, i was workingon a womans computer who was using lotus notes everyday for more than 2 years. In case you dont know LN has a *very* distinctive login window. Anyway so I had to reinstall notes and i had to aveher login. She didn know which password to use, after about 5 different ones she got it. So i logged her ot of notes for the settings to take effect and i neded to have her login *30 seconds later* and she had forgotten which password to use.

This is the kind of situation you would have to design computers around, those who cannot retain information. The only hope for us support people and for those kind ofusers is tohave voice regonition and then you define broad terms to describe things like "I want to see my email" or "where is that damned sales report"

I have a nice dent im my wall if you wanna start pounding your head there now:)

Re:Are people ready for computers?

[CharlieO]

But was it not OS designers that brought us the concept of a login and password?

Do we 'login' to our office building? No we use some form of key, be that a tumbler lock or a swipe card.

Perhaps if we used a physical means of ID it would be easier for most people to use, USB dongle maybe.

I know there are problems about login for remote system, and I know that some people use pin codes to get in doors.

But I think my point is that so far most computer interfaces have been built by computer engineers that have a certain way of looking at the world.

MacOS was a bit different because a lot of its users were more the creative type, and I'd argue that the Mac interface is more 'transparent' to most people, which is why a large number of people who just want to get the job done like Macs.

Why do we enforce the filesystem concept - aren't we smart enough yet to have data stored on disk indexed so that fuzzy queries like "where is the sales report" can work - Google can do it for the web, why can't we do it for the file system?

The best example I have seen is a local school here in the UK. They were thinking of buying an interactive whiteboard system and invited me along as a tame techie to make sure they wearn't scammed. They also know I'm actually a trained teacher too so could 'translate' what the salesman was saying.

In the end I didn't need to translate - its so wonderfully simple a 5 year old could do it. I saw a roomful of computer phobic adults and teachers grasp the concept in 5 minutes. If you ever used an interactive whiteboard you'll know what I mean, if you haven't its difficlut to describe. They now have three and the 5-10 year olds in the school use them every day with no training.

But thats my point - we still think of the machine as a computer, the rest of the world just thinks of it as a tool. Now if we are as smart as we claim we can make that tool work for other people.

this question has already been answered

[JamesCronus]

for 'joe public' windows IS the desktop. its not a desktop without windows in some form or another. of course its ready, for the average person windows invented the desktop (yeah i knows its not actually the case but try telling your mother that)

Not even MST3Kable

[Forgotten]

An interesting thing I've noticed about Windows is that it isn't even satirisable. This piece isn't a great example because it's frankly baffling (it starts out as a weak attempt at humour, then seems to lose its way in genuine criticism). Linux satire is funny because some parts of Linux are still genuinely atrocious; focusing on those parts is like reviewing a so-bad-it's-funny B-movie, and the overall excellence of the underlying OS provides for ironic contrast. Mac satire is funny because the Mac really is slick, but also dogmatic and takes itself a wee bit too seriously sometimes (or its users do) - amusing yourself at the Mac OS's expense is like making a Matrix parody. In both cases, people really do like the OS, and they're thus able to laugh at them in good humour.

Windows is just so mediocre and generally almost-good-enough that reading a satire isn't ever really funny; it reminds you of the low-level frustration you deal with (or used to) on a daily basis. It's like a movie that's not worth watching because it's good, but also not worth watching because it's so bad. Possibly this is why this weird satire attempt so lost its way on the second page. You can try to have fun at Windows expense, but then you realise you're not. Having fun that is.

Anyone have any links to a really funny Windows lambasting? I'd enjoy being proven wrong.

Please be the one to surprise me...

[Entropy248]

I'm waiting for the OS that hides every technical detail from the user. I don't want to have to explain to my mom that you install software on C:, because C: is the hard drive. I'm waiting for the day that I can buy a piece of software, put the CD in the drive, and have it automagicly install and work on my computer without any interaction at all. I don't ever want to have to say C:\, because it sounds too much like watching a bad bowel movement.
I'm waiting for the OS that doesn't make me have to ever look for My Files after I save them on My Computer because they are My Documents and My Computer should know where they are. And, while I'm at it, I shouldn't have to tell the computer where to save my files, it should just know based on the type of file it is.
I don't ever want any technical knowledge just to type a fscking report on 18th century painters; the class is hard enough without the additional burden. I still don't like the typing out bit anyway; why hasn't voice recognition gotten really good yet?
Why do we put wallpaper on our desktop? Why do I have a Start button, a Quick Launch bar, and a system tray on my desktop? Why can I see the time, but not the date or the day of the week in the system tray?
Uhhh...Whine whine whine... Bitch bitch bitch... I'm done ranting now, you can move on. Nothing more to see here.

No proof reading?

[Christopher Bibbs]

The quality of the grammar was part of the intended humor. If you were going to spoof a Slashdot post, would you spell and punctuate correctly or would you "misspell"?

Not to be rude, but you're coming across as the kind of person who turns his nose up at crass humor, but loves Shakespeare (as if that isn't full of crass humor).

Re:buwhahahah

[Elendil]

REAL mice also have WHEEL.

This is irrelevant, since REAL keyboards have a PgDn key...

Re:Well, maybe yes, maybe no, but WTF?

[misterhaan]

Or what if XP dies. Then I have no Win98. I'd like to see an upgrade feature that let's me keep my existing Win98 installation as WELL as upgrade Windows 98 to XP at the same time.

not that anybody on slashdot actually wants to have windows 98 and xp on one computer at the same, but maybe people are asking you how to do it so they can use whatever software they bought 10 years ago that doesn't work on xp. if so, you can install 98 and xp and force them to play nice together . . . here's how

This is dumb...

[PincheGab]

How can we be duscussing if Windows is ready for the desktop if it is already deployed in (over?) 90% of the desktops out there? Whatever the answer to the question, what does it matter?

only Windows can do everything?

[rogueroo]

That can't be said for any other operating system.

This is exactly why Apple is going to such great lengths with its "Switcher" ads and its courting of alpha-geeks . . . to dispel this kind of myopia. As far as consumer-oriented operating environments go, of course Microsoft Windows is the predominant brand. But Apple Mac OS X can do everything too [for certain smaller values of everything :)] The only thing that I've found can't be done in Apple Mac OS X that can in Microsoft Windows is that Apple Mac OS X can't be Microsoft Windows. But that's why we have Virtual PC!

Here's a hint for the Unix crew

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you continue to refer to average computer users as "idiots", they will not embrace your technology.

Just my Thoughts....

[miketang16]

When I first glanced at this headline, I thought it was just another duplicate of "Is Linux Ready For the Desktop?". Then, upon seeing it was Windows, I thought, wow... that's a pretty odd article, considering Windows is already on 95% of desktops. Personally, I use Windows XP, dual-booted with Linux. There is one thing that keeps me using Windows instead of Linux. X. XWindows is an old and dying project. A whole new windowing system needs to be built for Linux, before I'd ever consider using it as a primary desktop OS. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux itself. I would never want to work in console, with anything other than Linux/Unix. On that note, I do have to give some credit to Apple. I used to be a hardcore Mac hater. And I probably would still hate them if they hadn't released OS 10 and turned around their entire OS. Forget everything about how it's all pretty and swishy. I like the fact that it works. And, that it's built on a stable BSD core. Perhaps Windows should take notice and learn something.

Emulation; things you can't do with Windows

[yerricde]

Games? no.

Well over a thousand titles have been released for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance platforms. Just connect a cartridge reader to your parallel port and install the cartridge reader's driver. Then insert your Game Pak into the cartridge reader and "dump" it into a file on your hard disk, which you can use with the VisualBoyAdvance emulator. You can emulate most PS1 games as well, and this time, the reader is already built into your computer because PS1 games come on CD-ROM discs. (I chose GBA and PS1 because of the ease of finding media readers for those platforms.)

"Games" does not mean "first-person shooters, real-time tactical simulations, and massively multiplayer online games". Some people prefer platformers such as "Metroid Fusion" for GBA to Quake clones. (Not that "Metroid Prime" is a Quake clone or anything.)

But if there is somethign you want your computer to do. And computers are capable of doing it. Then a computer with Windows is capable of doing it.

Really? Then why does the least expensive edition of Windows XP support only one processor per machine, encouraging vendors not to make dual-CPU machines in the home user price range? (*Linux and some *BSDs support symmetric multiprocessing out of the box.) And why does the Windows kernel limit the number of simultaneous open incoming TCP connections to a ridiculously low level unless you're running Advanced Server? (On *BSD and *Linux you can change this either by recompiling the kernel, by editing a text file, or by running a GUI app that does either of those.) And why do the headers to write a file system module cost $1000 to license, putting it far out of the CS student/hobbyist price range? (On *BSD and *Linux, the source code for several sample file systems comes with the kernel source code.)

Re:Emulation; things you can't do with Windows

[Zathrus]

Well over a thousand titles have been released for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance platforms

Oh, hey, lets talk about MAME and stuff too! Think about the thousands of games available that way!

Talk about irrelevant.

First off, most people don't want to play GB/GBA games on the PC. They want to be able to go down to the store, buy some game released for the PC, and install it. Period.

Linux fails on this... even when you use Transgaming and whatnot. Until that changes, it will continue to fail on this.

Alternately, games could start coming with Linux binaries and auto-installers, but that's even more far fetched... the market is too small. To get this you'd have to solve the first problem, and then demonstrate some significant advantage of spending development time on Linux binaries over running it via Wine/WineX/whatever.

Then why does the least expensive edition of Windows XP support only one processor per machine

Maybe because home users would not benefit in the slightest from a dual CPU setup? Or most power users either? And, look, use XP Pro and you suddenly have multiple CPU capability. How is this something Windows can't do?

And why does the Windows kernel limit the number of simultaneous open incoming TCP connections to a ridiculously low level unless you're running Advanced Server?

Because you're not running a server? Uh... this is part of MS's licensing scheme. You can complain about that, but you can't say it's "something Windows can't do".

And why do the headers to write a file system module cost $1000 [microsoft.com] to license, putting it far out of the CS student/hobbyist price range

Because MS has no interest in that market would be my guess. Stupid of them, but that's their choice. How does this make it impossible to write alternate FS's though? Difficult, yes. Undoable? No.

BTW, I wouldn't agree with the parent poster that "anything you want to do can be done with a Windows PC", but I would agree that for what most people want to do on a computer, it's a lot easier to do under Windows (or a Mac - dependant on what you're looking for really). Linux as a desktop OS still requires far more Unix knowledge than most people want to deal with.

Re:Emulation; things you can't do with Windows

[cornjones]

This just struck me a silly. If you didn't sound so serious I would think you were being facetious. The parent poster was complaining about no games on linux for the average, non tech, user. Your reply is:

1. Just connect a cartridge reader to your parallel port and
2. install the cartridge reader's driver.
3. Then insert your Game Pak into the cartridge reader and
4. "dump" it into a file on your hard disk


4 relatively technical steps. the first requiring extra hardware. this is EXACTLY the problem. yeah it probably isn't that hard and yeah there are probably 4 different HOWTOs but you have to have the time to dick around and the inclination to dig under the hood of the machine.

I thought the parent poster made a great point. The non technical, idiot or not, doesn't want to fuck around w/ this kind of shit. I do, you do, but that is b/c the tech is a hobby and the process is as interesting to me as the final outcome.

You go on to talk about XP being single processor. Hardware these days has far outpaced software and the casual user really just doesn't need dual processors. Refering to the example in the parent post, he could have gotten a faster machine but what he was really interested in the functionality it was going to give him.

In alot of ways you can liken computers to cars. Cars have evolved to a point (in the last 15 years or so) that you don't really have to worry about what is under the hood. sure if you have specific needs (towing, racing) you are going to be very particular about it having 335 horsepower v8 or whatever. Overall though, the selling points thesed days (as evidenced by what the car commercials brag about) are other things. the toys. does it have a sun roof, does it have gps. the warrantee, etc...
30 years ago, if you had a car you needed to know some things about it. you had to be able to check your oil. that isn't the case anymore. Computing is still very much in the "need to change your oil" stage. Windows and possibly mac do the most user level coddling and try to avoid making you change your oil. linux, as much as I love it, makes you change your oil. Hell, as you point out in your post you have to rebuild your ##$%ng engine (recompile the kernel).

ahh I am just ranting now, i do like the granularity and control that linux gives me but most people don't want to deal w/ it any more than they want to replace the suspension on their car.

the truth that everyone is afraid of.....

[Lumpy]

There is one reason why Joe Longneck wants windows instead of linux and that is the large source of software from friends and relatives.. I get constant barrages from relatives asking if they can borrow my software, same as co-workers and friends... I give them the free/ open alternatives (OO.o in place of office 2000, the demo of Unreal2003, GLtron, AVir instead of norton... etc....)

Joe sixpack will gladly switch if the flow of free software from friends, relatives and acquaintances dries up...

microsoft is popular only because of the HUGE flow of illigitimate software... if they actually had to pay for it, they wouldnt want it.

Good idea, but not funny

[eGabriel]

And maybe it doesn't need to be funny. There genuinely should be more real world articles that question whether Windows is ready for the desktop, whether Grandma can use it, whether or not you should bet the company on it.

The problem is that a lot of the people who write articles about whether Linux is ready for the desktop don't want it to be desktop-ready for any nice, warm, fuzzy, cuddly reason. They want it there so they can invest in it, so they can draw big graphs of climbing profits, so they can sink their bloodsucking greedy teeth in it.

Honestly, if I like Linux on my desktop, why should I care if anyone else does? I've got my fluxbox, my nethack, my vim, and those things aren't going to get any better because a bunch of Windows refugees decide to use them too.

I don't get it.

Re:Switch == no problem

[Huge Pi Removal]

If at any point they have to type "make," or even look at a CLI, forget about it.

Well, you say that... remember that sometimes it's necessary to go into the CLI in OS X to fix/enhance things. This doesn't seem to have harmed uptake too much... What I have seen happen is for a student to get a Mac to go to Uni, then send it back to Apple and get a PC because all their friends are using Kazaa (and no-one's told them that Carracho is 10x better...). That's probably a sounder lesson to learn :)

But why *should* Joe Schmo / Longneck switch?

[xNullx]

I'll start out by saying that I'm a firm believer in Linux and GPL/GNU/Open Source/What have you. I use Linux for both my home and work stations and couldn't be happier with the setup.

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to know why Joe really should switch. Everyone is always advocating "Linux for the masses" and the benefits of open source, however they seem to be oblivious to the fact that Joe probably doesn't care about that. Joe has been using Windows for years, Joe is comfortable with Windows. Sure, Linux is free if Joe knows how to download it (he is Joe after all), and he gets only online docs and community support with that. That means if Joe wants his Linux with his manual and cds he still has to pay for it. Now why would Joe pay for something he's uncomfortable with when he could just as well pay for something he's used for years?

It isn't as much a matter of "Which OS is better" as it is a matter of "What are all the Joes of the world more comfortable with?". Most "Joes" don't like the idea of radically changing the way they use their computers.

Re:Switch == no problem

[jcsehak]

I can recall many "non-geek" folks (e.g. secretaries, reception clerks, managers) coping perfectly adequately with DOS commands in the course of their work.

Yeah, but someone had to teach them what the commands were. I'm sure they were very apprehensive about it until they got the hang of it. With a GUI, you can click around and explore with confidence that you won't break anything.

It's not that users are dumber now, they just expect it to be obvious how to use their computer. And it should. I mean, if you're just starting out you have to read through man pages just to learn how to create a new directory. That's not right. Time spent learning how to do something that should be obvious is time well wasted.

That said, the CLI has its place, and I think it's just SO COOL how I can open up a terminal in OS X, or if I want, totally ignore it.

Console gaming...

[CreateWindowEx]

I think the trend of the gaming market shifting away from PCs to consoles could be a great thing for linux and other operating systems. My P3-733 (Win98) has become "obsolete" enough that I stopped buying games or downloading demos; I later got a Powerbook with a Rage128 video card; so even among the small number of Mac games, it will still suck on anything recent.

But once I "let go" of expecting to run games on it and decided only to buy console games, it became a great computer for surfing, audio, etc. I started booting my PC with Knoppix on the rare occasion that I turn it on (it had been less than stable in Windows, and I really have gotten too old to enjoy reinstalling everything from scratch just to have a few months of "clean machine").

Now I can't deny that for certain genres of games, the consoles can't really offer a comparable alternative, and a lot of things suck about the "closed market" of consoles. However, it's really nice to have games work out of the box, run at the correct frame-rate, not crash or require updating drivers, not have weird sound problems, etc. To be honest, if you take games out of the equation, most people can be very satisfied with both a less powerful machine *and* a relatively small suite of application software. Linux still lacks good video solutions, and (IMHO) a competitive GUI. But these are solvable problems; wheras getting every new game to be ported to linux or run well under emulation is not realistic.

(this space for rent)

Re:/.: another step towards irrelevance

[CommandLineGuy]

Doh! As good software engineers, wouldn't it be better for us to pay attention and understand what we're trying to make the machine do rather than rely on syntactic sugar thereby making things happen by accident? ;-)

OMG!!! I should really be modded down for this flamebait! And I'm still cranky. I need a beer.....cheers.

(OT)Getting joe excited about platformers

[yerricde]

Try getting Joe Sixpack excited about anything that isn't up to par with Quake 3 or Unreal tournament.

Then why is Game Boy Advance outselling the Xbox? Heck, why is GBA outselling PS2? Hint: There is more to gaming than first person shooters.

Re:Switch == no problem

[rela]

With a GUI, you can click around and explore with confidence that you won't break anything.

The hell you can't break anything with a GUI. You are never touching MY computer, that's for damn sure.

Just because the gun has pretty colors doesn't mean you can't shoot yourself in the foot with it.