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"."
of course it is, but is he ready for linux :)
"User interface. Look, XP has the best colors on any OS I've ever seen. Why would you use an OS with inferior colors?" Because God knows that's exactly why we should decide on one piece of software over another...
Its funny!
:)
The paragraph on clicking is worth the whole article alone. Why are the funniest things always the closest to the truth.
Always reminded me of the "mac needs a second mouse button" rant. Its true that power users love the second mouse button, but it still makes me want to pull my hair out when people single click on shit that needs double clicking, and even worse, trying to guide somebody through the gui and having them double clicking where they should be single clicking.
Say what you will about Windows, but the clicking conventions are a complete and utter mess. I'm not even sure power users can predict with 100% certainty when a particular drag and drop in a particular context will result in a move, copy, or make shortcut action. (And yes I know about the left click drag - its hilarious, that feature is a total hack for how confusing the drag & drop heuristics are.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
"The best way to get someone to touch something is to put a sign on it that says Don't touch"...
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
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.
Windows revolutionized the Desktop for the masses.. the funny part about this article is.. it's still not ready for us!
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?
No, really - why do we care? The real milestone will be when a desktop UI in the public domain is ready for Joe Sixpack - then the world will be a better place.
We should also realize that Joe Sixpack is going to naturally become a more proficient and knowledgeable computer user than he is today. He's decidedly better than he was five years ago. If Joe Sixpack is learning how to use a desktop UI, isn't it far, far better for everyone if he becomes familiar with a publicly owned desktop, instead of one controlled and sold by a private corporation?
Windows definitely *is* ready, however, for your friendly neighborhood trash compactor...
Read the article, people. It is humor. Laugh, don't make serious rebuttals or get defensive.
Personally, I love joke about the new "better colors".
I doesn't think so.
Richard K. Yamauchi at OSNews don't...
I know this is flamebait, but I think the place for windows IS on the desktop. The only time I ever oppose it is on the grounds of cost.
On the other hand, a Windows Server? What kind of moron would put up a windows server? Desktop fine, but that desktop had best connect to a Linux Router, then a Linux Server, protected by a Linux Firewall. That is unless you LIKE viruses and downtime.
I've got a client who called me up at 9:00am on Saturday wanting me to go down and patch up their MSSQL Server 2000 server to keep their precious precious data safe. It was a real pleasure to say, "Safe? Don't worry, your 150000 dollars worth of MS junk is safe behind the Linux firewall I put together out of a spare computer I found in a basement storeroom."
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In the article they point to netcraft which lists a windows 2000 box as being up for 2 years, in the same list (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.last.html ) they also have Mac OS X machines that have been up 1340 days which puts it's last reboot at 3.67 years ago, but the problem is Mac OS x was only released in early 2001, so it could have been up for at MOST 2 years, me thinks these stats arent worth anything.
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
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:)
Let's see if the site is still up after slashdot effect...two years without much traffic may be possible with Windows 2000 but how about under heavy load?
I really didnt understand the post after the first read, but now that Ive actually read the article, (yes, I really did!), I see that Its a joke. Its amusing and all, but this one paragragh actually makes sense!
/s". But there's one thing that has always bothered me: What if I want to do a Clean Install and still have all my applications that I installed on let's say Win98? Here's what you can do: You can do a clean install beside Win98, but you won't have all your applications on XP. You can also upgrade win98 and most of your applications, if not all will move to XP. However, what if there is an application that I NEED that won't run on XP. 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. Until this happens, Windows is just not ready.
That leads to the install itself. Yes, windows installing has gotten 100 times better since the days of DOS. Finally, users don't have to type "a:/setup" or "a:/install" anymore. And thank God "Sys c:" is history. And for the sake of all that is holy, good riddance to "format c:
Just goes to show that even in humor there often lies truth....
(Lies truth???)
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
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)
dybia felly dwi a hampster (i think therefore i am a hampster)
I like the following quote, "3. Stability. Netcraft has announced that Windows 2000 server has finally gone for over 2 years without a reboot." After checking netcraft, we can see their server is at byteandswitch.com. So fellow slashdotters, want to give them a hand?
REAL mice have THREE buttons...
I have this neato mouse that has 101 buttons. Unfortunately, it's a bit large and hard to move around, but I find this disadvantage is offset by the large number of buttons available for entering commands.
Now, there's some of you 31337 that are going to say RTMF. Or, WTF, WWF, or OMG. Or WWJD (Windows is What's on Jesus' Desktop)
.NET Framework SDK is FREE
... so what exactly was your point about not being able to develop for free?
No, you don't get the Visual Studio development environment, but you CAN compile VB.NET, C#, or C++ code with it.
If you want a visual dev environment and still don't want to pay for it, try sharpdevelop
If you'd done some research before posting, you'd have realized that your criticism is unfounded. Additionally, there's nothing stopping you from getting GCC running under windows as well. You also have perl, python, or any number of other languages
A middle-aged woman once hauled her entire computer setup - printer, monitor, cables, keyboard, manuals, everything - into our store and asked us if we could fix it. Our tech guy said, "What's wrong with it?" and she said, "I deleted the Internet." He said, "Really, the whole thing?" She said, "Yes, it's gone, I'm so sorry, I didn't even know you could do that." I said, "I think you mean that you deleted your web browser." She said, "No, the Internet is gone, there's no www or email." We were trying to understand what she was getting at, so our tech guy ventured another guess. "Oh, did you delete your dial-up connection?" She said, "No, we have cable." We went back and forth and eventually figured out that she deleted the AOL Installer icon that came pre-installed on her system, after she had tried to use email and the web without setting up any kind of Internet service. She'd heard about cable and since they already had basic cable, she thought they had the internet somehow magically flowing into her computer from the cable outlet, although she never physically connected them.
I don't blame her. My mother is not a stupid person and she still struggles to grasp when to single vs double click. She never had this stuff and it's intimidating. But nowadays she uses the web, books plane tickets and hotel books, uses email competantly, set up Quicken to download her banking stuff by herself, things she'd never have figured out on her own a year ago.
Needless to say, neither my mother or the woman who deleted the Internet will ever use Linux.
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.
"That was a joke son, you missed it." -Foghorn Leghorn
Oh, what has the world come to, when kids can't even properly quote Foghorn Leghorn anymore! Allow me:
Lookit here son, I say son, did ya see that hawk after those hens? He scared 'em! That Rhode Island Red turned white. Then blue. Rhode Island. Red, white, and blue. That's a joke, son. A flag waver. You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.
Bush Lies Watch
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.
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
Funny article ...
My Dad , a "Joe Longneck" indeed, really Likes Windows XP. Go figure. He digs the Media Player, the new GUI and the stability (he upgraded last year to a Dell P4 1.4 from a Whitebox P2 266 running Win 98)
His only complaint is that the GUI should have defaulted to the old look so he knew where everything was. Didnt take long for him to figure out ho to change it all back.
Go Dad !
"Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
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.
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).
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!
If the distro had:
-an MSword clone (and plug and play printer support)
-a p2p app
-a CD/DVD player
-a CD burning app
-a browser
-an email client
if all these things had an icon on the desktop that they could just double-click and use; if all of these things had a decent UI so you could use them without having to learn how; if game developers started making the latest games available on linux; and if, and this is the most important if, if people understood that switching to linux would mean that their 1.8 ghz pentium 4 which right now runs like a 386 because it's so smothered in adware, spyware, and conflicting whatevers, would actually run as fast as it should AND it wouldn't crash 3 times a day; they would switch in a second.
If at any point they have to type "make," or even look at a CLI, forget about it.
c-hack.com |
That was my question I had from reading the article, are all of these users that aren't ready for windows using Linux right now? And is that better for them?
I really can't figure out the guys freaking point beyond blatant MS/OS bashing, and alot of the crap he's slamming MS for exist a plenty on other platforms. So again, just what the hell was his point?
Was it that the current state of GUI interfaces in general are stopping Joe Blow from using computers? (And if so, why pick on MS only?) Or that just windows are that bad. And if that's the case, why are all these Joe Blow's out there using windows already when they aren't ready for it as the article states? (These same users that aren't ready for it by the way, seem to have a lot of knowledge of a certain 5 year old OS, which is hard to explain if these same people still aren't ready for windows...)
And further, it almost seems that if this is all the case, that the best thing that could have been done in the authors opinion is to keep windows 98?
My god man!
Slam Gui's if you want but sheesh, at least slam them all on the same merits.
XP is a wonderful OS, compared to all previous OS's from redmond. And it has a GUI that is VERY comparable to ALL other GUI's in major use right now, including problems and limitations. Sure, maybe one is worse than others in certain areas, but just what soap box is this guy standing on?
I could write a very similar article slamming either Linus or Mac if I wanted to, and what would it mean? Fuck all, just like this one.
No Comment.
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.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
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?
I do tech support for a government agency, and all that they really care about is how it looks. You replace someone's 15" CRT monitor with a 17" LCD, and the first they they whine about is that it doesn't match the color of their kb and mouse (none of them have yet to ever notice the tower behind all their space heaters, so that's not an issue.) They don't care about the performance of the monitor, or what it does for eyestrain, or what its maximum resolution is...all that they care about is that it isn't as pretty as the other one was. So yes, appearances are everything.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
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.
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.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I'ts just like this whole ethernet thing... it's just a fad! I'm sticking with Dr DOS and LapLink!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
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.
"Why not make a mouse that cannot double-click and make everything a single click."
I don't know about the rest of you, but my mouse doesn't "double-click". I do the double-clicking myself.
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
While I think Windows isn't without it's significant usability flaws, I have to say that I tried KDE 3 seriously for the first time today, and it was an absolute usability nightmare. I have no idea what people are talking about when they say that KDE is kindly-yet-computer-inexperienced-grandmother-frie ndly. I've been using computers seriously for 20 years now, and there were oodles of things that I either couldn't figure out how to do in the hour I used KDE, or that were incredibly unintuitive. I won't even begin to critique the KDE control panel. Talk about a nightmare of ambiguity, poor organization, and far too much complexity.
Not to mention - who thought up that hideous default sound scheme? I know that I'm going to have nightmares about it tonight. My skin was crawling for the few minutes it took me to figure out how to turn it off.
Not that Windows control panels are much better... Windows control panels are also hideously disorganized, with things in completely nonintuitive places (sometimes you have to access the control panel, other times you have to access certain features that you'd logically expect to be in control panels in menus instead, and other times you have to resort to running command line programs to get to windows that provide you with what you're looking for - e.g. ipconfig, msconfig), but I find that the user isn't quite so overwhelmed with options in Windows as they would be in KDE.
Mac OS X is the first operating system where the equivalent of the Control Panel (System Preferences) is logically organized and not overwhelming. I think that software designers should take a usability lesson here.
Whatever happened to the unwritten Linux creed, borrowed from Ghandi:
First they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
I know the article is supposed to be funny, but at its core it comes across as bitter and whiny. If Linux is better, then let it be better on its own merits, period.
provide one, and only one, way to access the hierarchical list of files. If clicking on icons to open folders full of more icons is how people learn to use the window manager, then why doesn't the save file dialog box allow the same interface?
The user goes to Save the letter to Aunt Gazelda they just crafted, and all of a sudden they're thrust into a new universe - files listed by filename, with little "plus signs" next to folders! The "current directory" on their desktop is not the "current directory" of the file chooser! This new tiny window looks totally different than anything they ever saw on the desktop.
This single issue has been confusing my parents for many years now. When I visit them, I have to search around their hard drive to find all the files they accidentally threw in the top level directory, or other wrong directories.
The concept that you can have multiple views of your files and folders is just overwhelming, for some reason.
There have been many, many times when I was quite sure that Windows was definitely ready for my 'joe longneck'. The BSOD really sucks.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
I knew that a childish, unfunny potshot at Microsoft would get you a +5 insightful here at
Besides being the pioneering IDE (text editor, compiler, debugging runtime, runtime library), the whole freaking thing was a less than 40 kilobyte (yep kilobyte) image. My guess is that the runtime library was the first 10-12 kilobytes because that is what got grafted on to your apps. The rest was text editor (I still use the WordStar idioms with Borland editors to this day) and compiler. The belief is that the whole thing was written in assembly language, but my guess is that only the runtime library (largely Int 21 and Int 10 function calls -- remember those?) was in assembler -- no big deal as it was largely hooks into DOS -- and the rest was in my guess written in Turbo Pascal itself -- probably initially hand translated to bootstrap itself.
And you could peek and poke both memory and IO ports and make any DOS Int 21 or BIOS Int 10 or whatever calls you wanted that weren't in the runtime library -- who need assembly language, I used it to control everything from video cards to A/D boards.
And that runtime environment caught runtime errors and put you in the editor at that line number -- what a concept. Too bad something like that doesn't work today. I find that no current Borland product these days produces a useful runtime error line number anymore, mainly because the bombs I get these days are from supplying wrong parameters to the Windows API (as an old Turbo Pascal hacker I have no need for this Delphi VCL stuff, I program to the API), and Delphi throws up its hands because it can't trace crashes into the bowels of Windows.
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.
Actually, recently trying to install told me this was not so. After putting freebsd on, i then expected to simply be able to put an xp cd in, and have windows installed (and yes, i also expected windows to overwrite my mbr so it could boot itself).
Not so. NTLDR missing. I tried a fixmbr and fixboot C: from the recovery console. Still nothing. I formatted my fresh install of freebsd away: i was getting desperate. Fortunately I had booted a knoppix cd, so i booted that up to try and find out what was going on. And here was the answer at M$ support. I needed to get a win98 boot floppy and sys c:.
*sigh*
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)
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?