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."
And KDE will win.
KDE is a very simple interface. To tell you the truth I had a harder time going from windows 200 to xp then going from gnome to kde. I know thats like compairing apples to oranges but i like oranges better anyway.
Everyday You see me is the worst day of my life -Office Space
I really don't see KDE or any other linux desktop software beating Windows or MacOS in usabilities tests anytime soon. KDE and GNOME keep playing catchup to windows instead of leading the way. Sure there are some unique features, but the bulk of linux desktop development is recreating features that windows and macos have had for years. 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.
For those of us that work with Linux and UNIX on a daily basis, especially in the work place, and have been at it for years, it's even easier than Windows. (That's not sarcasm, BTW).
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.
Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME
The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.
Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use
Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small half-assed Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.
Myth #3 - KDE is more popular
In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.
One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.
Myth #4 - Konqueror is
"60 users aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP"
So, people with really old computers, or pathetic liars? They haven't ever seen Windows XP in Wal Mart, or ANYWHERE?
How long did they have to search for these people?
Video Game News, FAQs, etc
Is this after one configures WinXP to be less annoying? Cause while I use it myself, in the postinstall configuration, it has it's annoying quirks. I never have cared for menus the map themselves to what I do. It makes me think things are uninstalling themselves off my computer.
-EndBabble
One group consisted of 60 users aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP.
They're either talking about old DOS users, or Mac users, and go on to say that "83% of the Linux users said they liked the design of the desktop and the programs, compared with 100% of the Windows XP users."
I've never met a Mac user who would even come close to complimenting the Windows XP interface, let alone a whole gaggle of them. This reeks of bias.
I'm not saying KDE is more or less usable than Windows XP, but you've got to admit that if KDE won the headline would be "KDE Stomps Windows XP in Usability Test".
It has a Fisher Price GUI that holds your hand when you do anything complex.
:)
Ultimately make computers easier to use and you will get more idiots using them. What we really need is a computer operation license like a driving license
Exactly. XP simply has more features than KDE. That is, in XP, one can install a few apps and make things nice and cozy entirely within the GUI; even with a relatively easy-to-use desktop like KDE, Linux and Unix require a healthy amount of command-line activity.
Really, the "preconfigured system" usability test is more a test of GUI applications than of a desktop environment (the users copied CD's and edited text, for example).
But when it comes to the design of the desktop interface and programs, Windows XP still has a strong edge: 83% of the Linux users said they liked the design of the desktop and the programs, compared with 100% of the Windows XP users.
This is an interesting metric. I'm curious to know whether they tried a few different themes and window decorations with Linux/KDE, and in general how they arrived at this number. I will agree that XP seems more polished than KDE in many respects, but my personal experience has been that there are some aspects of KDE that initially take a little getting used to, but become indispensable once you are comfortable with them. Multiple virtual desktops, for instance - I feel so limited under Windows for not having this simple feature.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
But don't kid yourself and think this means anything in the Big Battle: Linux vs. Windows for the mainstream desktop. For Linux to succeed there, it had to get over three hurdles: 1) ease of install, 2) overall usability, 3) compatibility with existing Windows tasks. (1) and (2) are essentially complete, but (3) will never happen.
Try to convert a mainstream Windows user to Linux, and you'll get a long stream of questions like, "Does it run AOL?" "Can I run program ZZZ on it?" "It uses Outlook for e-mail, so I don't have to move any addresses and stuff over, right?" Until someone, somehow, finds a solution to these problems, you just won't get mainstream desktop Windows users to convert to Linux (or anything else).
It says -as- competent though. Which could range anywhere from "I could rig this box tight" to "I think I know how to double-click the email icon".. To "What's a double-click?"..
On the other hand, it stated only that the users had no prior experience with XP or Linux. They made no mention of whether they had prior experience with 95/98/ME or NT/2K, all of which would give a fairly large boost to the XP side of things since most non-administrative tasks are accomplished in the same way, with XP only adding a few colors and curves to the mix.
I's funny how the linux community tends to embrace hundreds of standards... yet no one is seemingly able to get the GUI geeks to come together to for some sort of Linux UI standards consortium.
Linux will never be as usable (GUI wise) as MacOS or Windows until a standard GUI path is chosen and development proceeds with tight integration to the core OS.
Right now everyone seems to be caught up in this "my software works better then yours" BS.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
So most games won't run on Linux.
This just makes Linux that much more attractive to the corporate market. And the corporate market spends more on software than the home market does (not counting games).
People said that last year, and the year before, and so on into the past.
There are entire interface violations dying to be fixed, as well as technology problems like X itself, before Linux can be a desktop environment. For instance, sane install/uninstall procedures that don't require an "RPM manager," or app writers who don't use "://" as the button for their open dialogs.
I don't understand why it's so hard for free software to have good interfaces. The easy answer is because it's "programmers writing for programmers," but anyone who is used to Windows freeware and shareware knows that their interfaces are typically as high-quality as any other commercial application. Why are Windows programmers doing it and Linux programmers not? I'm genuinely curious. Is it the difference in easy-to-use development environments?
"Sufferin' succotash."
It said that the users didn't have "Windows XP" experience, but that's not the same as saying that they didn't have any Windows experience. If the user has Windows 9X, NT, or 2000 experience then it says more AGAINST Microsoft that they made XP so different that existing Windows users had to re-learn it. Now if the users had NO Windows 9X, NT, 2000, or XP experience then I'd say it was more of a fair comparison.
The other questionable method is to have 20 Windows' users and 60 Linux users. Why not do 40 Windows' users and 40 Linux users? That way each person's vote would count as an equal percentage. The way it was done 1 Windows' user is 20% of the test group and 1 Linux user is 16% of the test group. I don't know if that's an advantage for Windows or Linux, but it's definitely inconsistent.
I'd be more interested in seeing a study in which half the group tried it on GNU/Linux,KDE first then on Windows, and the other half, vice versa.
Why? How many totally nave people are there that are likely to start using a computer, KDE, Windows XP, or otherwise? Most people have used Windows boxes. Those that haven't aren't that likely to start to, and will probably be full of people who would resent being made to, so I doubt they'd exactly volunteer to be in a study about it...
I wonder, did they consider experience with Windows 9x as _no_ experience with Windows XP?
I imagine so. Most people who would start using Windows XP or KDE for the first time have probably learnt Windows 9x, so as unfortunate as it may be, this should be an assumed knowledge.
Look out!
I was just about to sport wood until I remembered our office is still on Win2k for at least the next year or two... :(
Then again, I think we tend to underestimate the flexibility users have. I mean, the same users were able to learn key-combinations when they used Wordperfect 10 years ago, and some were damn fast using them. Good introductions and documentation on how to get stuff done, thats what counts. Once users know how to get mundane stuff done, they couldn't care less if they're looking at tux or clippy...
This sig is intentionally left blank
GNOME2/KDE3 makes for a very usable desktop, I'd say it's along the caliber of WinXP/Mac OS. Linux starts to fall down when you try to install 3rd party applications (what if you can't get RPMs? what if you're running an older GLIBC?) or hardware.
You take a person who never used a computer and teach them. Guess what, they'll pick up DOS, Linux, Windows, BeOS, any GUI, any console, pretty much just as easily.
People can understand, but geeks have an ability to understand right away. They then assume that everyone one else is a flipping idiot for not understanding. Some people just need to be taught.
Imagine something that doesn't come naturally easy for you, say cooking. Now imagine not being taught but just kind of trying different things. Not so easy is it? Remember you don't have a natural ability to cook so you're not going to pick it up easily.
Now think about how you might fare if you took courses and practiced a couple of times a week. You wouldn't be great but you'd get by. Of Course you'd still get stuck sometimes. That's what it's like for Joe and Jane computer user I think. We assume they should just know, and they just need some courses to get by.
They still annoy the piss out of me with their annoying questions.
-- taking over the world, we are.
The key phrase is here:
with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP
In other words, unless they were running these tests for months, this was a "learnability" test, which measured how productive you will be with your computer for the first few days you use it. Unless you're only planning to use the computer for a few days (and other than offices who hire a lot of temps I don't think this is a very common situation) this probably isn't the best measurement to optimize for.
It's the easiest measurement for computer magazines to make, though, so it's probably the closest thing to actual "usability testing" we'll ever see, and it's better than nothing. I just worry that it will lead to companies improving learnability at the expense of useability. It reminds me of the way commercial Linux distributions at one time seemed to be competing to have the easiest damn installation in the world at the expense of post-installation config tools, because all the "reviews" of different Linux distributions stopped shortly after the installation was over.
What seems to be happening if most linux appliactions have 3 interfaces:
Welcome to the model/view/controller paradigm, or perhaps more correctly isolation of interface from implementation. Last time I looked, all those GUIs for cdrecord actually invoked the command line program after getting the parameters with the GUI.
This is the way apps should be written, it makes them vastly more (re)usable. (Interactive programs can still do this via an app-specific text-based protocol -- and thus become easily scriptable or controllable from another app.)
-- Alastair
Do the KDE team have a usability expert contributing? Or does the KDE team do usability testing? There is always the need for someone other than coders on a software project!
How do I continue to list marginalized features that have no bearing on how the majority of people use their computers in a vain attempt to discredit the useablity of Windows?
Re:KDE/GNOME/etc is much more useable than XP
*shrug* If I get to define the criteria, I can prove twm is superior to XP and find a few dozen geeks to back me up. The aforementioned study indicates that KDE comes close to XP in usability for a group of average users. Which I think is quite an accomplishment. Go KDE!
I love that they're testing the important tasks for computer users ... "copying a CD" .... I'm sure the RIAA will love this article.
Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
Considering Linux UI is basically a copy of Windows (for the most part) this isn't surprising at all. Take something you know people like and copy it and people will like what you will do. When I boot RH9, it looks like a Windows knock-off, which means any person with Windows experience will have an idea of what to do. That said, it will get them close to being as easy to use as Windows, but always a step behind. Until they start actually innovating UI usability instead of trying to copy what Windows does, it will always be a step behind.
Where Linux really lags behind Windows is 2 areas. Install/uninstall programs and UI conformity. Installing/uninstalling many programs is still a chore. Where does it install? What's this stuff about compiling (if there isn't an RPM). How do I uninstall? And the UI conformity is nonexistant. Almost all Windows programs have the same setup. The menus have the same option in the same places (cut/copy/paste is always under Edit, which is always second from the left on the menu). In Linux, every app has it's own look and feel. Which means most apps have to be completely learned from scratch instead of building on the base. Until Linux overcomes these 2 major hurdles, it will always be 2 steps behind Windows.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
This may be off-topic, but ...
...)
As "Joe User" with moderate technical acumen, I recently made the jump and set up dual-boot SUSE. The install went very well, and I was very pleased with the KDE GUI.
But very quickly I had to spend a couple of hours doing things like learning how to set up header files in order to re-compile my kernal to support NVIDIA drivers.
I figured it out. But it took a while.
And still -- after a lot of careful study and research on linuxquestions.org -- I can't get my sound card to work. The best I have gotten for folks with the exact same configuration is "buy a new soundcard and save yourself the trouble".
My point is not to complain, but to indicate that there is still "geek time" and knowledge that must be "paid" to support free software. For many people it becomes like changing the oil on the car -- it's something that *can* be accomplished with enough time and patience. But how much do you want to fritz around with it, when all you want to do is play an MP3 ?
God forbid I want to hook up my digital camera.
Pay the dude $30 for an oil change.
For Linux, the last piece of non-geek usability may be the hardest to attain.
(It's not like I WANT to use MS XP
But just wait till the recently converted KDE user goes to the store and tries to find any software for her new OS.
KDE and GNOME are not vastly different desktop models than Windows XP. They may have different implementations and use different back end technologies but their model is pretty much identical. All three present the "desktop" as an application itself rather than a metaphorical top of a desk. A desktop should be something you get work done on not get work done with.
Think about sitting at a real desk (sans a PC). You might have some pens, paper, a manilla folder or two, a calculator, a Rolodex, and a small calandar. None of these items are built into your desk, they merely sit on top of it. The top of the desk provides a surface for you to work on. A computer's "desktop" ought to have the same idea.
Items on a real desktop only have a limited number of functions and their shape and design give a large hint as to what they're for. The Windows application model suggests that items on a real desktop are all shaped and look the same with only labels at the top of the objects denoting a difference to an observer. A calandar "program" looks like an addressbook "program". If you couldn't see the label or window contents you'd be at a lose to tell which was which. On a real desktop a Rolodex is definitely different from a pen or calculator.
The functions of real world items are also suggested by their controls. A Rolodex goes forward and backward, it has a knob on the side to perform said action. The organization of the contents of the Rolodex is obvious. A digital Rolodex ought to be just as obvious to work. Controls to move the selection back and forth and a means to easily and obviously determine the oganization of the contents.
I think if KDE and GNOME want to expand past Windows they ought to move in the direction of context packed interfaces. Design interfaces not to look like real world items necessarily but to function as simply and directly as possible. This would also allow them to get back to the core Unix ideology of small simple programs that do one thing well. KDE and GNOME ought to be collections of tiny applications that effortlessly meld together to get a larger task accomplished. Instead of being window centric they ought to move to be more function and document centric. Menus ought to be attached to a single on-screen widget and be modal to the entire application. There's no point in having each document open in KWord having its own menubar wasting space and being inefficiently placed. A single widget to get at an application's functions is more adherent to Fits' law and more efficient overall. Muscle memory to a point on the screen is easier than needing to roam the screen with the cursor to hit a window's Edit menu.
Truly changing KDE or GNOME's interface model to one superior to Windows will make it a better long term choice to users. Retain the option to emulate the craptacular Windows interface but move beyond it.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Windows was not meant for gaming, either. The history of how Windows turned from "not for games" into "not bad for games" is an interesting read.
As you seem to think that the power of numbers is essential to being the best gaming platform (I agree) you'll certainly grok that all Linux needs to do to become the best gaming platform is to be more popular.
If people had these features they'd be able to use them and become power users. He simply shows how limited windows is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Therefore a new user would get lost! Think about it.
Look at the applications that are currently offically included in the GNOME desktop. Whether or not applications get included is specifically dependent upon whether or not they are compliant with the GNOME interface guidelines.
What we really need is for Nautilus to be more mature, and for there to be more GNOME 2 media applications which are compliant with the guidelines.
I know that many Slashdot readers scoff at what is being done in GNOME 2, but I am convinced that this is the path to a more usable UNIX desktop.
The simplicity is beautiful.
This is coming from someone who's primary use of X up until just a few months ago was 1) to have multiple xterms on the screen at once and at higher resolutions, and 2) to run Mozilla (Firebird).
The reason that I've switched to GNOME 2 on my laptop, is so that I can be a better prepared and better informed advocate for the UNIX desktop.
When people see what I am running, I do not want them to say, "Wow, that is incredibly esoteric, and looks totaly technical."
Instead, I want them to say, "That looks really great, it really looks like something I would enjoy using, and could pick up real quick."
Be an advocate.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
And how's this any different from Windows? My friends have called me to fix their Windows install many, many times because they can't figure out how to do it themselves. Windows is *not* better than Linux in this case.
Installation problem? The solutions are called apt and urpmi. If you're using Mandrake you already have URPMI. If you use RedHat, download Apt4RPM (the next version of RedHat will include apt).
"I can't stand distros that use graphical boots or boot up into X"
X is the windowing system and graphics subsystem. How do you want to run a graphical desktop without X? It's no different than Windows booting from the commandline to the GDI.
"so what the hell are they doing trying to turn it into windows?"
Because everybody expects it to be like Windows. If developers don't listen to them, they will get flamed down for being elitists and people will post on Slashdot about how Linux is Not Ready For The Desktop *and* get modded up as +5 Insightful.
I disagree. The first place where Linux will replace Windows will be at work. This is because a Linux admin can handle more users than an equally skilled Windows admin. At home a familly consists of just a few people, so they doesn't benefit from Linux scalability.
But at work, your sysadmin is supposed to know whatever OS he is deploying in his organization.
He is also likely to preconfigure the desktops of his users to fit whatever business tasks they are expected to perform.
This means that comparing a tweaked Linux against a tweaked winXP would be a far more interesting if you are contemplating switching computer platform for your company.
And when the workplace have switched, home users will follow.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Why is debugging in any way a special activity? It's not supposed to require any special priviledges that keep you from killing the debugger if you feel like it.
Sorry for ranting like that. Couldn't help it, I just had to get this off my chest. And thank you for giving me another reason why Windows is crap.
Technology problems like X itself? I keep hearing people beat this dead horse, but no one has actually come up with a _valid_ reason why X is bad.
I strongly disagree that X is bad - in fact it's one of the great strengths of Linux/*BSD/Unix windowed interfaces. It was designed correctly to begin with.
Let's slay the most common myths about X now:
Argument: X is network transparent. All the requests are done over a socket. This means it's slow.
Rebuttal: On the local host, the X protocol goes over a Unix domain socket. It's just a form of interprocess communication - it does not use the TCP/IP stack on the local host. Windows also uses IPC. There is direct rendering for games (RTCW:ET and UT runs just as well on Linux/X as it does on Windows).
Argument: Xlib is complicated.
Rebuttal: So is Win32. But hardly anyone programs directly in Xlib, and hardly anyone programs Win32 directly either for GUI programs. Windows programmers will use something like the IBM Class Library or MFC. X applications will use Qt or GTK+.
Argument: No one uses the network transparency anyway.
Rebuttal: Most UNIX admins I've known who have a network with more than one UNIX/BSD/Linux machine use the network transparency as a matter of course every day. The Secure Shell includes X forwarding to make it even easier. It's convenient and easy.
I think people criticise X because they simply don't understand it, or think that since it's been around since the mid-80s, it ought to be replaced. X has grown with technology, and because it was designed right in the first place, it still makes a great foundation for a GUI today.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Well I guess you have to mention features that the
vast majority of computer users don't use if they
are features Windows lacks.
If you will pardon the expression - duh!
A couple of those mentioned are so genuinely useful
that I doubt you can honestly disparage them from
a position of understanding.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
IMO, the biggest problem I have is that I can't find a decent shell in Windows.
In Linux, even when I run SX, I just open a bunch of terminals and type happily away. I can do everything from CLI whether it's inside a GUI or not. In windows, I keep looking for bash or any decent shell, but all I can find is this stupid Dos shell that seems only useful for changing directories. I can't quickly check my running processes, launch an app or 2 , write scripts or code and check on stuff running in the background while changing some stuff in my Mysql databases.
It's like the GUI works against the OS not for it..
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
Right, and to ask the grandparent further: What is wrong with the RPM (un)install process??! .debs.
It works, it keeps your system clean and, different to windows, it's something like a standard. The same about
There are still many many installers and uninstallers for windows, all doing their own stuff, having their own interface and requiring their own space on the hdd.
I think you should bare in mind that Windows XP is the 6th version of Microsoft GUI OSs which have been under development for over 10 years (Win31, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP). Now, call me old fashioned, but I think you should see progressive improvements in each version of a software product. Considering that KDE is only at version 2, XP should be a lot damn better. The article says that WinXP is only a small bit better. The reason why we don't see the expected 10 years worth of functionality, is because of MS marketing droids dumping flashy features that actually make the UI less usable (for example, the fad-in menus and screen wasting fat titlebars). All novice uses I talked to hate the telly tubby user interface.
Yet, it still requires at least "guru" status to fix a problem when it does go wrong, particularly where things like hardware and device drivers, or configuring the GUI, are concerned.
Aren't MCSEs and other monkeys trained in the M$ circus required to handle those tasks on a windows machine? How is it that someone who can manage a Linux system is automatically labelled as being a guru? As flattering as it may be to some people's ego, this preconcieved notion is a stumbling block in the public's willingness to adopt the OS for common use. As far as installing and configuring a Linux system being a nightmare, i'm a little vague in following that point. Installing even the more spartan distributions like Slackware is an effortless task. Configuration of the system is probably were most people who are too familiar with a device mangler get into trouble. Configuration of various daemons, however, can get a little more involved. However, on a windows platform, we expect a trained tech to handle those tasks (services) anyway. So I'm still not sure why gurus are needed to configure a GUI or install a driver. Linux is just a different OS and it requires different knowledge to do these things. Sure, you might need to know more detail about your hardware when setting things up manually, as opposed to windows or Mac. That's the beauty of Linux and Unix platforms. They don't need to rely on an overworked, underpaid programmer overseas to write an autodetection program to guess the specs and limits of a said piece of hardware for a driver installation. Your point is well taken, and I agree with you whole heartedly, just wanted to add my 2 bits.