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."
does it have a Start button?
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!
"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
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
For the unheard of low price of $0.00, you can install KDE and get rid of those annoying popups.
How about functional? KDE doesn't seem to suffer from the annoying popup problem.
I just fixed this problem on my neighbors computer, and he then asked me, "How do I secure Outlook?". I replied, "Uninstall it."
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
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.
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
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 think the one thing the article overlooked was the API set of which KDE is based on.
KDE is a clean, multi-platform API built from the ground up, not only for ease of use but easy development of applications to run on top of it as well as easy to maintain. Microsoft should learn something from that.
Regarding the ease of use, ultimately, it will depend on the end users background. If a person has never touched a computer, will KDE be easier? if a person has used a Windows PC all their lives, would they find KDE easier?
What ever the situation, the one thing that can be assured is the fact that the KDE community won't settle for second or third place, they are aiming to be the best.
This type of "technical" motivation is going to benefit the end user in the long run.
"The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen
For most people, that's all they need. Should have something to steal music and upload pictures. but, that's about it. The other stuff is admin stuff.
This is my sig.
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 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.
Then you obviously don't know the trick to winning this kind of game. The trick is to stop implementing new features at the exact moment that the "leader" commits to becoming an unusably bloated, worthless feature ladden pile of... Oh my gosh! Stop! Stop!
-- MarkusQ
What like you could do any of those task on a stock non-OEM version of windows without pre-configuring?
Last I checked... the windows XP cd burning software that was built in was a pain in the ass. Try burning an ISO. And windows XP itself doesn't have an office suite now does it...
Where as most linux distros come with a whole shitload of application by default.
I touch computers in naughty places
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
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
The title on slashdot is misleading--the study compares Suse 8.2 Pro (with KDE as the desktop environment) with Windows XP. It then says it kept track of how long it took users to complete certain tasks, such as word processing, sending email, copying CDs (don't let the RIAA find out about this study), and managing files, to name a few. These things can be done by KApplications alone, but you would have to know what SuSE makes as the default email client (Mozilla, KMail, Evolution), word processor (OO Writer, KWrite), and cd writer (K3B, X-CD-Roast, cdrecord (ok, not for people new to Linux)). This title could be better titled as "Windows XP Edges Out SuSE in Usability Test".
Unfortunately, I won't know what applications users were expected to use or did use for a couple days.
I'm not surprised that XP won out in all categories
The article states that their subjects were people, "with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP",
Now, unless they got a bunch of Mac people, I'm guessing (from the way that line is worded,) they got people who had "computer experience" from Windows 95/98.
Migrating from 98 to XP would be a bit easier than 98 to KDE. Microsoft has gone out of their way to provide a continually improving, yet consistent, interface for their target audience.
I just happen to not consider myself part of that target audience. I use Ratpoison myself, but KDE is a very good windowing system. Were I to sit here and list out all of the 'Microsoft ui vs. other windowing systems' I would not only be mostly preaching to the choir, but also mostly off-topic, but I just wanted to point out that KDE is designed by people who want usability with some gloss, but not necessarilly at the cost of having the ui try and 'do everything' for the user.
Unfortunatly the 'do everything' is exactly what Microsoft intends for the Windows ui. Prefect for my mother maybe, and obviously for their testers, but not for me
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 am sleepy (it's 10:20pm here) and working in the other window (doing some paperwork), so I can't go to bed yet. :(
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
KI Kdon't Kknow Khow Kyou Kcould Kpossibly Ksay Kthat!
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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...
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!"
The second paragraph says that a full english report will be available in a few days. This is just a write-up.
I'll take the redundant risk and say it anyway! Good going and I can't wait to see your future work!
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
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."
I don't have apt-get. I spent a few minutes the other night trying to find where to get it, but gave up.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
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.
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.
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
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!
Windows Media Player is the only one of those that's made by Microsoft...
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!
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.
A scientific comparison of Apples and Oranges
Hmm, I see your point, let me take it to the next level.
Let him express his feeling that the argument is pointless, because he represents a part of the community.
I'll let you express your feeling that him feeling the argument is pointless is pointless.
Now, me? I'm part of the community that will express my feeling that your feeling that him feeling the argument is pointless is pointless is pointless.
*bows*
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
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.
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!
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
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.
The unix style is much more intelligent - if there's more than one match, you'll usually get some audio feedback and it will complete up to the point where there's a difference. If you double-tab, you'll get a listing of all the possible matches (sometime it's just on a single tab) and if there's a big list of matches, you'll usually get prompted if you really want to see the whole list.
This is as area where unix has had a big head start, though. How long has unix tab completion been around, anyway? The Google search wasn't very helpful.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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
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.
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?
Command line. /all"
"ipconfig
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Yesterday I was trying to help my brother with some configuration problems on his Windows XP machine. Maybe it is just me that is too used to better things from four years of using Linux. But at least I found it hard to do just some very simple tasks. For example I would like to generate the list of all files in a directory including subdirectories. I had to give up, I couldn't find a function to do that. I'd also like to compare the contents of two directories. Again I had to give up. Finally I realized that perhaps it would be easier to just copy all the stuff to my Linux computer, because at least there I have all the tools I need. However the attempts to copy files bailed out with cryptic error messages. And I wasn't even given the option to continue with copying the rest of the files. And the progress indicator was useless, for more than half an hour it said there was 17 minutes left. While I had the computers connected I also found, that this XP installation by default had a directory shared with read+write permissions for everybody in the world. It is fortunate that this machine is not on the internet yet.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
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
They're both branding strategies. How are they not analogous?
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.
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.
That's a rather Fishy translation...
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.
where they get test subjects that used neither XP nor linux/KDE...
;)
mac users? i can't believe that! they'd never be pleased with the appearance of XP
The tests found from 26.6.? 16.7.2003 in Berlin instead of.
... in ..." so it's "findet von .... in berlin statt". but when written in isolation, and translated out of context, "findet" means "finds" and "statt" means "instead of".
now thats a classic... i love this. (german speaking mods will agree and mod this post funny)
for all those who don't speak german:
the sentence should say "the tests took place in berlin from 6/26 to 7/16 2003 in berlin". "to take place" is "stattfinden" in german, but the verb is split because of the "from
(non-german-speaking moderators will have learned something and mot this as informative)
Free as in mason.
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.
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;)).
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
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.
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
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)
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.