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 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
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.
...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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.