Slashdot Mirror
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"."
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.
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.
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.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
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 writesThe 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
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.
--- have you healed your church website?
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:)
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.
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.
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.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
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!
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.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.