Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP Edges Out KDE in Usability Test
AstroDrabb writes "Linux, once viewed as an operating system that only computer geeks could appreciate, is today a much more user-friendly software that companies, public administrations and consumers can master almost as easily as Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP."
Um, hello. Go to MS, download powertoys, right click on the taskbar, go to toolbars, check desktop manager, and viola, msvdm with support for 4 desktops you can toggle between or view all 4 at once. How much simpler can that be?
Considering Microsoft fortune of, according to this website (http://www.microsoft.com/usability/lab.htm) :
Most of our research is conducted in Usability Labs based in Redmond, WA. On average, approximately 750 participants per month evaluate our software. A database of 35,000 people in the Seattle area helps us find the right person to match the profile required for each given study.
MS has invested millions of dollars (and hours) on usability testing on its software. To consider that KDE is rated almost equally should be humbling to its UI designers and programmers. Way to go.... can't wait for KDE 4!
I really don't see KDE or any other linux desktop software beating Windows or MacOS in usabilities tests anytime soon.
You say that as if usability tests actually test something concrete and meaningful, like mass or height or temperature. But they don't really. Usability testing isn't physics. Yes, KDE may do slightly worse in usability tests than Windows, but what does that actually mean? At most it means that it takes a little more time to learn a few more quirks that the KDE interface has. Big deal. In return, KDE is also a more featureful interface and comes with a lot more software out of the box. Usability is only one of many things to optimize for in a piece of software, and it is not the most important one in many applications.
In fact, the fact that the users in the study had "prior computer skills" suggests that they had experience with Windows-like interfaces, which means that most likely a significant part of the slight Windows XP advantage was simply due to familiarity.
What this test shows is that KDE is in the ballpark, and that's all that is really needed.
KDE and GNOME keep playing catchup to windows instead of leading the way.
Many open source projects are unashamedly about providing open source versions of closed-source systems, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Sure there are some unique features, but the bulk of linux desktop development is recreating features that windows and macos have had for years.
Yes, and Microsoft and Apple copied many of those features from yet other systems. That's the way business and product development work: you look at what works in the market and you copy as much of it as you legally can. There is nothing wrong with that.
The KDE team does unquestionably good work, but they are going to need to keep stepping it up if they expect anyone to find their software more useable than the already existing mainstream products.
This test shows that KDE is close enough as far as usability goes. Maybe they can edge out Windows XP in such tests by sacrificing some features or some other hacks, but you are naive to think that there are any great hidden usability improvements possible.
Why can't the OS read an ISO9660 image natively? It's not like it's that hard -- ISO 9660 is already in the OS for cds.
I quickly stopped bitching about this once I found DAEMON Tools. Get it, install it, love it.
Also go here and download awxDTools, a great shell extension addon that allows you to mount any supported image type by right-clicking it.
"Do you want to get started on the path of what window comes with working, out of the box, compared to KDE?"
:-) I run SuSE 8.2 with a KDE setup (KDE is part of the Linux OS, just like the WindowsXP GUI is part of the WindowsXP OS), and last time I checked, it came with over 3000 usable, working applications. These applications are Free as well as being included in the purchase price. I have roughly 3 different options for Office suite to use, more email clients then I can shake a stick at, and a wide array of browsers. So as not to confuse anybody from the get-go, a sensible set of default applications are installed out of the box, while a very nice intuitive menu system lets me do a point and click install (for those who have never tried this little gem, on SuSE, click the "SuSE Work Menu/Administration/install software packages", and all the software you can install for that application/GUI combination is available as a one-click install). If that is too simple for your needs, or your application is not listed, you can invoke the powerful YaST software installer, that allows you to search on lots of criteria. After all, shipping 3000+ apps without a way to sensibly choose between them would be stupid.
Yes, lets
There are Webservers, portal systems, mailers, exchange replacements, 4 different major DB systems, development environments, compilers, code management systems, version management systems, common infrastructure components, such as DNS, DHCP, windows file sharing, as well as other file management stuff, such as NFS, OpenAFS, and other nice toys like that. I have grid applications and toolkits, several scripting languages, including some BASIC variants, artificial intelligence applications, a BOATLOAD of cool games, debuggers, profiling tools, educational software, scientific software, graphics software, including some really top quality 3d rendering software. I have financial planners, business planner, Internet communication tools, stuff to work with a whole load of palmtops. the list goes on and on. Oh, yes, using something like WINE or Win4Lin, I can run most native windows applications as well.
I can spend a good year just assessing all the software that comes on my 2 DVD's that came in the SuSE package. I also have over 1000 pages of truly useful printed documentation, something those bastards in Redmond are too cheap to include. and to be sure, that same documentation is also included as softcopy. All this for 50 pounds sterling.
Besides all that, I have access to the source code of all these applications. If I were so inclined, I could actually start rummaging around in the guts of the thing, making it just the way I want it to be, or learning how something worked. I know who the developers are, and I can take any questions or problems straight to the source, so to speak. No secrets, no hidden gotcha's, no "call home" stuff that reports my every move. No registration, no nazi software gestapo, no jack-booted thugs that will come to raid my business for license compliance.
So, let's talk about what Windows ships with working out of the box, shall we? (not a troll, just something to ponder...)
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
The answer to "Why do you have to click 'Start' to stop" has been answered more than adequatly by Raymond Chen here:r yview.a spx/History
http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/raymondc/catego
To sum up his answer:
While trying to create a simple yet space efficient design, they decided on a single button in the bottom left. This was called the 'System' button. However users would boot the system and look at it with a puzzled expression. So they called it 'Start'. Then they asked the users to shut down the system, and guess where they clicked? Yeah. The start button. So that's why it is.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)