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."
Really, it would probably be a way more relevant test to see the same test subjects take each OS out of the box, install from scratch, install a few apps, configure their gui, etc. All this shows is that yes, after someone has tweaked the living hell out of a Linux box, it can look and behave almost as well as a Windows XP box. Whoop-de-doo!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
And rather short on details (such as what is the nature of the assigned tasks used in the test? Copying a file? Formatting a drive? Partitioning a drive?) Also, they had 60 users "aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP" work on KDS, and "20 users with the same qualifications who performed the exact same tasks on Windows XP."
Eh? Why not have them all do it on each? Or even out the groups a bit more?
Anyway, a short, vaguely interesting pro-Linux article. So I'll just be happy, but this could have been much cooler with bigger samples, better planning, and more detailed reporting of the results.
everything in moderation
"One group consisted of 60 users aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP"
Great, they haven't used the WinXP interface before, but really, isn't the only difference between Win XP and Win2000/ME/98 (from the users perspective) the stupid blue widgets? So, these people in the study basically have an edge since they indeed have MORE experience with WinXP, albeit indirectly? Of course these people have used other Windows OSes before.
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. I've never heard from someone who has never used either operating system having new experiences with both of them.
I wonder, did they consider experience with Windows 9x as _no_ experience with Windows XP?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
i think the study is still valid, but i wonder how much of the percieved ease of use is due to familiar graphics. Since people have been trained to recognize specific graphics, the familiarity of an icon plays a significant role in over all ease of use. One example from first hand experience is website design. When designers try out fancy text or graphics, it ends up negatively impacting usability. When the layout follows the user's expectations, the usability tends to go up. A subtle thing like the color and shape of icon has specific trained behavior. The article doesn't mention if that was taken into consideration.
...the ease of use is only for USE. Not for support. There are a bajillion different variants of "desktop Linux" system, and each has to be supported differently. (Compare and contrast with Windows, where its much-berated centralization actually makes it easier to support. You see users helping OTHER USERS with Windows-- e.g. "Yeah, you just have to click on X, then click Y and you're done". You'd never see that with Linux.
What's more, to most of the people I've talked to about Linux, ease of use is not even a factor so long as commercial games won't run on Linux. (No, I'm not talking about WineX or VMWare. I'm talking about native support.) Most users are unwilling to talk about how easy Linux-based systems can be to use if they can't use them to game. You may poo-poo something that seems so frivolous, but it's a HUGE factor to many (most?) Windows users, particularly those under 30.
I love Linux. But frankly, this sort of story just seems like the Linux community patting itself on the back. Here's a challenge: Go to a college computer lab (make sure you fit in, i.e. don't do this if you're 45 and have a long gray beard) and ask random students if they've heard of Linux. (It may help to wear a Debian pin, or a Tux pin, or both, or the like). Then ask if they've considered switching to it. Be sure to tell them that some distributions of Linux can be quite easy to use. It won't matter... You may be surprised by what they tell you. And I guarantee games will be on the menu (in the majority of cases, anyhow).
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I can't live without virtual desktops... The poor man's multi-monitor setup. Barring extensions like litestep, Windows has never done this. This is a big useability feature puts linux desktops ahead of Windows. How can you multitask when you can only have one desktop. KDE could include spikes that stick out of the computer and pierce my skull every five minutes, and I would still prefer it over the single desktop windows interface.
You should really try KDE one time. In a lot of cases KDE is far superior over WindowsXP. KDE should really become the standards desktop on any GNU plattform. It's clean, simple, integrated and powerful. Not to mention really functional. What really needs to catchup here is GNOME it's still miles far behind KDE. The interface looks nice (the icons and so on) but technically (what's under the hood) beats the hell out of GNOME anytimes but it's hard to convince people with these arguments. Usually it doesn't take 5 mins until GNOME's task force shows up and relativate everything.
Actually, with a little bit of customization, I bet a KDE desktop would at least match Windows XP or MacOS in useability tests. This can easily be rectified with a little customization using basic KDE functionality.
:) For GTK apps, you can get the Geramik GTK theme, which mimicks the KDE Keramik style quite well and leads to less confusion and more consistency.
Which is the main thing that KDE has going it for -- it is infinitely customizable, yet the customization ability doesn't get in the way of ease of use.
KDE apps generally adhere to design guidelines, not unlike those for Windows XP or MacOS, which gives the system a consistent look and feel.
My tips would include changing the "K" menu to look more like the Start button in Windows; if you're going to use OpenOffice, get the OpenOffice.org Quickstarter; to create a "My Computer" and "Network Neighborhood" icons using symlinks and folder; and turn off the desktop switcher, as this just confuses most non-techie users.
Also, the default KDE style, Keramik, is very nice and usable, I recommend sticking with it.
My journal has hot
It could be simpler if it was supported out of the box, instead of requiring the user to download something from MS, which in turn requires that they know that it's available. :-) KDE doesn't have a 4-desktop limitation, which can be kind of nice sometimes.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
How do I make a window always-on-top in any version of Windows? No way that I know of unless the application supports it.
How do I get virtual desktops in Windows? Litestep, the best way I know of, involves replacing explore.exe, the brunt of Windows's interface.
How do I locally display just a single application (such as a systray program) without viewing the entire screen of the remote system? VNC/TerminalServer doesn't come close.
How do I update every single installed program from a single command entry without rebooting in Windows? (OK, maybe that's not relating to the GUI argument.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I live in the real world. The real world runs on Windows. In my private life, the world runs on Linux and MacOS (currently)... with an unavoidable smidgeon of Windows because it's necessary in the real world. (One of these days I'm going to get off my butt and learn to use WINE or VMWare or something...)
I knew that "something Linux" would become equal with Windows eventually but I didn't expect the time to arrive so soon. Bravo but "beating Windows" isn't the point exactly is it? It's fun but not the purpose of Linux, KDE or OSS.
The next "what if" is "what happens when Linux rules the desktop?" I tend to see a touch of chaos in the future. Very unpredictable. The next "what if" is about innovation. If Linux becomes king of the hill, where will innovation lead? Where will it come from? I don't want to open the debate about whether or not Microsoft "innovated" anything but when Linux finally captures the hill, where will it come from?
I know of a very prominant financial institution known for its stodginess...still running WinNT 4.0 on many of their machines who is starting to run Linux on their machines as well. Linux is an eventuality.
This is definitely a milestone. This is a "sit up and take notice" moment. But once Linux leads, Microsoft will have no choice but to make "compatible" software... and this time they won't dare to make their stuff lock out the competition or they will be ignored... in the future...
That's bullshit. I can literally get 70% or more work done on my linux box and laptop then i ever could in windows. Things like being able to open a remote file in the file browser of kate(text editor). Its as easy as putting in the location bar "ftp://username@host" or "smb://host". I can open, modify and save the file without it having to be moved to my computer. I am a PHP developer and this is an absolute godsend. I can literally hit ctrl+s and then refresh my browser. Plus the fact that I run dual 21 inch monitors with 1600x1200 res on both does help for producitivity. But the fact is that getting work done in linux is much easier, faster, and more enjoyable.
75% of all statistics are made up!
Do you want to get started on the path of what window comes with working, out of the box, compared to KDE?
Not a troll, but something to ponder.
In certain business environments, Linux can be far easier to support. Many business users need a small suite of office and productivity apps, and not much more. A great setup is to put diskless workstations on each desktop, then run a few Linux terminal servers, locked down, in your datacom closet. Once the initial setup is done, maintenance is a breeze. Backups can be made from a central location. The user environment is portable to any workstation in the office. The admin can all be done in one place.
Obviously this is not a solution for every environment, but where is fits, it fits really well.
And a god-awful network browser and control panel (or are they in Win2K also?)
Everytime I try to browse a LAN from XP I am like, where the fuck is Entire network, it pissess of and humiliates me.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Everything you say about games is correct, and none of it matters. Windows will always be the best gaming platform. There is nothing the Linux community can possibly to do change that fact. The power of numbers is just too much to overcome.
If someone values gaming too much to switch to linux, it's really not my problem.
From your tone it almost sounds as if you think Linux has to win over gamers in order to survive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Linux does not need a large userbase in order to thrive. All it needs is a small group of dedicated developers and the assurance that it will not be outlawed. Anything more than that is nice but not necessary.
Linux is not useful for gaming. Linux is not meant for gaming. I don't use Linux for gaming. Gaming is not the only thing in the world that computers are used for.
The mindset that a computer platform has to win market share or die is an artifact of the commercial software paradigm that has no relevance to open source software like Linux. With Linux, the users are the developers, and while new users are certainly welcome, there will always be certain markets like the gaming market where Linux serves no purpose and plays no role.
Maybe my pirated windows installation is fucked, but when I change virtual desktops, it appears that all the windows are minimized. The transisition is very choppy. Contrast to my GNOME install, which is much more quick (even with a slower CPU).
I tried a couple illegally-downloaded cracked commercial "virtual desktop" utilities but none of them made the cut. Whilst trying to find the software I ripped off; I came across a Slashdot article: Virtual Desktops for Win32. Maybe those stuck on Microsoft will find it useful.
Interestingly enough, the linked article recommends LiteStep, a GPL'd application for a Win32 virtual desktop alternative shell. So here I am, on a cracked commercial OS, downloading cracked software, and I find that the freely available programs (LiteStep and GNOME for Unix) work better.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
My video card came with nview, which allows up to 32 virtual desktops for Windows...
Thanks for mentioning "multitask" as an opening for one of my long standing rants.
Neither Windows or KDE support a sensible multi-tasking window focus model. My definition of sensible is a model which will raise new windows, but not give them focus. If I'm typing in a window and a new window appears, I want my keystrokes to keep going to the same old window. Mouse clicks are trickier but if I click on a window and a new window appears as I'm clicking, the new window should become focused but not process the click.
Without this sort of focus model, running lots of interactive tasks at once can become a random game of chance and wasted moments undoing errant keystrokes.
Windows that pop-up from other virtual desktops are just as annoying.
Yeah, KDE is pretty usable. But it's lacking real smarts. I consider usability to mean "the interface is efficient, and acts as I expect it to". Here are a few (what I consider fairly obvious) features that would really improve KDE for me.
1. Drag-and-drop menus. In Windows, the Start menu is really just a directory structure, and a special case of the Explorer view. You can drag and drop new items into the Start menu / Taskbar and they appear there instantly. You can "Explore" the Start menu and arrange / delete / add items as you please. Compare and contrast with the latest version of KDE that I've tried, where you essentially need a "menu edit" application to set up new shortcuts. Painfully old-fashioned.
2. Faster file access and directory listing in Konquerer. Comparison:
Windows - to view C:\mp3 takes 3 seconds.
Mandrake - to view \mnt\Windows\mp3 takes 9 seconds.
What's more, in KDE the files display one-by-one as they are "found". My "Jazz" folder might appear first, but by the time I go to click on it, more folders have appeared and it has moved. Ugly.
3. Please, give us the option of a double-click interface.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
don't get me wrong. i've been using linux for a year as my main desktop, and whenever i touch a windows box i get lost due to the lack of my favorite applications (tcpdump!)
but kde/linux still has a LOT to do to even come to match with windows. like being able to run more than 3 applications (what is it with even the simplest apps taking 10 megs of memory? including "tray" icons), printing (admitedly not kde specific, but i STILL can't print anything on linux), and god-awful latency on anything less recent than a p4 3ghz (right now im using a pII 333 with 320 megs of ram, takes 5 seconds to switch tabs in firebird. and that's WITH a preempt kernel)
Well a few people have made the point "stop making the linux-has-this-feature so-drop-windows-now argument". And i agree. We shouldnt be spouting off "linux can do this" "and "linux can do that". What are we corporate PR people?
Heres my reason as to why you should switch to linux: "Its open. It doesnt deceive me. It doesnt install software without me knowing. It doesnt hide things from me. It doesnt try to control all the content i look at. It isnt controlled by one person or company whos only goal is to sell more units and not make better software. I dont have to worry about my computer secretly sending my info to HQ. Yes that sounds like a consipracy theory but hey its true. I honestly dont know what windows is doing. Ever. Period. So i cant say it is sending my info. But you cant prove it isnt either. Cause no one can look at its insides and tell us. The future is coming and happening. Who do you want controlling every piece of information you and everyone else in the world deals with and absorbs. Microsoft? a HUGE reason to use linux is simple. Its open. There I said it. The reason isnt it has this widget and that feature. Its that it is open. It was made with the rights of the users in mind. Your not signing your soul and rights away with a single yes click to an EULA that says your fucked hard core if you do anything that you would expect as the owner of something. Linux has no strings. No big contracts or legal agreemants that you have to agree to before using. The GPL is a contract, but one that guarantees a users freedom to use and modify software, not restrict it. It is controlled by the users. Use linux because you want freedom. Now if you dont want freedom and you like your rights to be crapped on, go right ahead and keep on using Microsoft. It doesnt hurt me. Its only hurting you."
75% of all statistics are made up!
The new network browse is a stroke of genious by MS. Now it primarily lists all those random comments by machines as if they were the actual machine name and puts the actual machine name in only as an after thought. I mean what sort of company would have some sort of organization in the network neighborhood when people want to browse right?
I dread the day 2000 is no longer supported...
As a long term user of Linux, and OpenBSD I find that Windows is less effort to use as long as I'm not trying to do much at once. It's only when I started doing complicated things, or lots of things at once that I find Windows harder. You get this brick wall effect.
I find that simple things like running multiple programs at once annoying on windows.
But if I just want to write an email, send an instant message, browse a web site, play some music, and transfer some files that Windows is easier. It's also prettier, and faster to do initially.
But I find that I'm not like that when I'm actually "getting stuff done". I have 10 virtual desktops (9 at home currently, as I've been trying out GNOME 2.2) and I use the window manager ion, and it's not uncommon to have 20+ xterms open at once, and I use mpg123 or ogg123 to play music, and I make use of the shell to choose artist or song title or group or such. And then to wake myself up after a nap I'll prefix 'sleep 1800;' in front and it's just so much less effort. I ssh to one machine that I always read my personal email from wherever I am, which means I have an archived collection of all my email, with all the joys of mutt and vi. I use screen to run long-running programs that I may want to reattach from elsewhere. And with zsh I get wonderful completion, that can even complete remote file names.
Also I find the brightness of Windows makes me feel uncomfortable after prolonged use, even at a refresh of 85 hertz white still flickers away.
And I use diskless NFS booting Linux at work, and diskless NFS booting OpenBSD at home. I can't stand noisy computers, and even a quiet hard-disk is too noisy. (I tried, and the performance boost wasn't good enough, and invariably I'd set it to shut down regularly, which meant that I had to wait whilst it spun up) I still don't know how to make Windows XP boot over network. I'd love to know, for those occassions that I want to use Windows.. but if it means using a hard-disk, I know I just won't be bothered.
Or they could be people who haven't used computers before. I promise, they exist. Leave Slashdot and interact with people for a while -- I work at a small company with around 100 employees, and I'd guess as many as a fourth of them had virtually no computer experience before working here.
By the way, I have an OS X PowerBook that I love, and I like the Windows XP interface quite a bit. Not as much as OS X, but I'd say it's the best Windows yet, and a bit better than the Linux desktops I've used.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
If you've been using KDE, Gnome, or Blackbox for any length of time, you look for ways to make it work on your company's MS network. Am I right? I've downloaded everything the KDE team has done since its first beta, I do believe, and I can't tell you how superb it feels to sit down at my workstation in the a.m. with my cup of asphalt-like java, fire up rdesktop and Citrix ICA client, and LEAVE THEM ON DESKTOP #6. Heh heh. Well, it's particularly nice to run Outlook that way. I set it to pop up when a message comes in. Otherwise, I play in Linux GUI land all day long. When you've had a nice Linux desktop, Windows seems anemic and limiting. But I will say that the Windows GUI is sharp and fast, and some work still needs to be done in that area of XFree86 and Open Source GUIs.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
I'll bite...stupid me (;
It sounds like you are mentioning the listing of shares collected by the auto-browse thingie in XP. For a small home network, seeing "MP3's on (insert machine name here)" is nice, IMO. Especially when there are multiple shares with the same names on different machines (I love the home user...no really!). You actually only see the comments field if you use the "Details" view, and even then, those comments come after the share and machine name...Although I haven't used XP Home, so if its different in that version, well...you shoulda mentioned which version (;
When browsing the "Entire Network", machines are listed by machine name only, and if you find yourself browsing the Entire Network alot (or a specific domain) then you should just make a shortcut to that item and save the hassle of the multiple clickthroughs. But thats the same hassle that is in Win2k, not something new to XP.
Next show at 10...
Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
Here's why Windows XP's multiple desktop manager bothers me so much:
Windows XP's Fast User Switching is implemented using Terminal Services. Each user has their own, isolated virtual desktop space; they can be loaded concurrently. Terminal Services was robust enough in Windows 2000 to do this, and I'm glad they chose this approach; take an existing server technologuy, and bring it to the desktop in an attractive way.
But why can't it create multiple desktops in Terminal Services and just switch between those like if it were switching between users? It would really be multiple desktops, each desktop would have its own GDI resources, so if something screwed up, your other desktops would be entirely unaffected.
As a Windows user, I've been nothing but irritated that MS keeps changing where to find anything but the most basic items. From Win95/WinNT3.51 to WinXP, they've moved everything from Network ID to the command prompt icon. There haven't been more than two releases in a row on either track where at least one feature I would consider fundamental hasn't been moved. I'm not saying that some of the changes haven't been useful, or logical, but some just look like another way to require certification. I would consider myself fairly adept, but nothing irritates me more than trying to remember where a particular feature is in this particular OS. If MS proponents want to complain about the multitude of Linux window managers, they should think about this. At least in Linux, a coimpany can pick one, and keep it on multiple versions. Some would say you can with Windows, too, but the useful new features are tied to the new UI, too.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Let's see some pictures, shall we?
Windows 2000 Professional
Here's my network in Win2K SP4. Mapped drives are marked neatly as "share at machine." Machine names show in My Network Places, with the comment showing to the right in details view.
Windows XP Professional
This is my network in WinXP SP1. Microsoft got rid of the nice mapped drive names of Win2K, so now it uses the longer and less useful "share at comment (machine)." That's one thing they shouldn't have changed IMHO. The Entire Network part of My Network Places hasn't changed at all; however, the root of My Network Places shows all the shares on the network in alphabetical order, which I think is stupid and disorganized. Worse, it still uses "share at comment (machine)" for the listing so it's even harder to follow, especially on a large network.
It's an operating system, not a religion.
I believe KDE has too many bells and whistles distracting the user. I'm talking thing enables by default like animated mouse cursors, task-bar apps. Some of the task bar apps are really clumsy (eg. the disk mount thingie, I had to show my dad trice until he could use it -- and he's not a moron). Nevertheless, I find KDE easier to use than the new default Winzode XP look. Always switch that to classic.
Maybe its because all the Linux UIs copy the MS UI instead of doing something different.
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.
I hope the study is flawed, because its too depressing to consider the alternative. Btw, why no MacOS in the test? Then we would see how KDE measures up to an OS with good UI.
Things being the way they're are I'd consider XP ahead of the game in the Home Desktop area for several reasons.
/home/user directory as far as they're saving things and when they search for their files it should be done in there. Installation really needs a revamp such as the user want's X functionality it presents them choices and they click 1 button.. downloads and installs and works perfectly the first time! Otherwise it's just a mess of download compile install and pray for many applications.
Drivers
Video Card support
Cant play dvd's out of the box for 2 distro's that are mostly used.. Mandrake and Redhat
Video Game's (Transgaming helps here)
Now other than that it's mostly elemental on how the computer works.. Normal user accounts should not be able to see anything above their
It would be better if all distro makers got behind one format for installations and bundle all applications to work that way.. then a install would be essentially the same for a RedHat/Mandrake/SuSE/Gentoo or whatever else someone run's.
> And what happens when you want to get to the desktop?
Try right-clicking on the taskbar and selecting "minimize all". Then you can return to your previous state by repeating and selecting "undo minimize all".
Incidentally, you say that in Linux you never use desktop icons. Why do it differently in Windows? There's no more need for them, if you organise your start menu properly. (I recommend making sure everything at each level begins with a unique letter; then you can just hit Ctrl-Esc, or the windows key if you have one, and type a brief command, to load any application.)
The KDE GUI is just fine by now, more or less at least (I still can't stand X), but the real problem is the integration with the underlaying OS, especially since it can be different OSes and different Linux distributions (which does thing differently for no good reason at all).
An example, it took me 10 seconds in 1995 to figure out how to share a folder in win95, but after almost an hour I gave up on getting samba to share properly in gentoo. I have a fair amount of Linux experience, and would count myself as knowing quite a lot about computers (I'm a software engineer), but I have no intention of learning all about smb just for getting a few files over.
That is the problem with KDE, that is the problem for Linux, if you want to make it an easy to use system for ordinary people (if you want to make it a geek system that's never really finish, well, it's there;)).
Overall, I agree. Yet I disagree with that we have to be like windows to be accepted by the general public.
Yes, that's the easy way. "Here, it looks like windoze, it acts like windoze, there are equivalent apps, but it's written by different people."
But you can also make it more usable by creating a "novel" (as far as the windows user is concerned) yet user-friendly interface. Something that people will work easily with. We need some more HCI people.
One problem is that many many programmers can't think like 'normal' users. And the GUI subsequently comes out too technical. At least let HCI people have their say. <troll> In some usability lists I was a member, your opinion counted (only) if you knew how to program it, it seemed. </troll>
On a side note, personally I'd be happier if we tried to imitate the Mac. For me OS X is Unix without the headaches. And they've always been known for user-friendliness.
Trian
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
More seriously, this test suffers from small number statistics - with only 20 users being tested on WinXP, the difference between 80% and 85% is one person - not a very significant margin.
With the 'liking the interface' question, 100% of WinXP users liked the interface = 20, 83% of Linux users liked the interface = 50. So I could turn the statistics around and say that more than twice as many users liked the Linux interface. Perfectly true, and just as bogus a conclusion.
Finally, the English version of the report hasn't come out yet and my German is far too rusty to even try looking, but how was XP configured? If it was configured to look like Windows 2000/Me, which is often done in business/govt. environments to remove the colourful distractions, then any user of those older Windows versions would have been instantly at home. And how was KDE configured? KDE can be configured to look and behave very much like Windows, or quite differently, skewing the results either way.
To make this kind of thing sensible, you need:
- much larger and more equal samples of people;
- through descriptions of the two configurations - or, better still, more test groups - Windows XP in 'colourful' mode and in Win2K mode, KDE in native mode and in Win-clone mode;
- a clearer assessment of previous user experience.
Otherwise, tests like this have little real value except for marketing hypeAnd it has been this way for at least 15 years! (Probably longer, but that's how long I've been working with it.)
What this journalistic snippet fails to mention is the fact that there are some tasks that XP excelled and other tasks where KDE outperformed XP. In other words, while XP was a bit faster for the user to initiate email it was easier for the Linux user to play an audio CD.
Most of the numbers were expected. For example, the Windows Media Player is a more complicated tool than the KDE CD Player; therefore it is not surprising the KDE was quicker at this task.
What did surprise me was that KDE took so long to change the background (almost x2 as long as XP) yet the users thought it was easy. This might have something to do with the more advanced background features native to KDE; for example, a background per-desktop or a scheduled background change.
To modify shortcut icons in the toolbar was much quicker under KDE and I have always found this to be more cumbersome than XP. Perhaps the XP "personalized" menus have something to do with this? Users not only took less time to create icons in the toolbar but KDE users generally graded this task as easier than their Windows XP counterparts.
One other interesting comparison is email; users took a little longer to perform this task under KDE but they generally graded this as easier to do than their XP counterparts.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
You can seriously mess up your computer MUCH easier in Linux than in Windows. Which is much preferable to Windows seriously messing up your computer for you.
No, it isn't bananas, KDE is most definetly part of the Linux OS in the full meaning of Operating System". (According to dictionary.com, OS means "Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it." Both windows as well as KDE fall within that catagory.)
You wanted to compare "Windows out of the box" with "KDE out of the box". That is comparing apples with oranges. KDE by itself is not an OS, Windows is. KDE is just a GDE. This isn't about the packaging system, this about a fair comparison of a standard WindowsXP box with a standard Linux box. (The fact that KDE will run on other platforms as well is simply a bonus.) Then, you are comparing like with like. I don't see how calling me a sycophant is relevant at all to this discussion. according to dictionary.com, sycophant means "A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people." What influential people?
As somebody who architects large IT projects for Fortune 100 companies, I have an agenda that stretches a bit beyond the "OMG LINUX IS RAD". I was willing to go with the "not a troll, just something to ponder" comment, but your agressive, name calling comeback to somebody who actually pondered your comment makes me think twice about that. Unless, of course, you are simply so insecure with yourself that you take this to be an ad-hominem attack as opposed to an opportunity for mature discussion.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.