Pepping Up Windows

PhairOh writes "Toms Hardware has an article about improving Windows with free and Open Source Software. It features everything from the obvious like Gimp and OpenOffice and also some interesting choices like Virtuawin. From the article: 'The average Windows user tends to be less than satisfied with Windows. And that's no surprise, either, given the rather woeful state of its default applications.'"

Comments

WinDir

[schnits0r]

I like WinDir Stat. It gives a nice colourful representation of your disk usage by directory and by file allowing you to see ther really big files on your system like .Vob, or clusters of really small ones like .jpg.

It's really a fun little thing to look at and use.

IS this an on topic first post?

Re:WinDir

[Frederic54]

SpaceMonger is a pretty nice application for this too, take a look at a screenshot

Re:WinDir

[L. VeGas]

Not to pimp my own site too much, but the entire site is dedicated to free tools to improve Windows. It includes many of the tools just listed here. nedwolf.com

Talking out both sides of out mouths.

[XorNand]

The average Windows user tends to be less than satisfied with Windows. And that's no surprise, either, given the rather woeful state of its default applications. Consider that both Wordpad and Notepad refuse to open larger files, the integrated audio recorder limits recordings to 60 seconds, and Paint, the integrated graphics program, offers only the most rudimentary of features. Worse still, Internet Explorer can neither be considered modern nor safe for browsing, while Outlook Express is known for its affinity for contracting any number of worms and viruses. In short, the out-of-the-box Windows configuration is usually outdated and problem laden.

Ummm.. I'm a bit confused here? When MS started trying to make the OS everything to everyone, they were accused of predatory behavior and taken to court numerous times. Now we're complaining that MS Paint isn't powerful enough for graphics editing and that Windows Audio Recorder doesn't hold a candle to other third-party utils?

It's one thing to point out some nifty FOSS apps to people that may not have heard of them. It's an entirely another thing to jump on the anti-MS bandwagon and claim that this functionality should have been included in the OS.

Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.

[JPriest]

You my friend must leave Slashdot right this minute! We won't have your logic or reasoning getting in our way.

Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.

[Prophet of Nixon]

Yea, in many people's minds MS just immutably damned... what they actually do or don't do doesn't really affect their damnation.

Maybe they could make everyone happy by dropping their half-assed small apps and supporting some FOSS apps in Windows by default. It would be awesome to install Windows 2000 or XP and have the option to install GIMP, VLC, Crimson Editor, a better console, and a decent FTP client preloaded. OpenOffice would be nice too, but since MS-Office is big business, I could understand that being left out.

Actually, some of those small apps still do have roles... for instance, Paint vs. Gimp. Paint is perhaps 1% of Gimp, but Paint also opens almost instantly, and is perfect for dumping printscreens or copied bit of graphics (if only it had better save options). Notepad is similarly useful for dropping bits of text for later use, without firing up a larger, slower, ram-eating word processor. I don't really use either as an application to do work in, but I use them incessantly as buffers between other applications or documents.

They're sort of like pockets. My pockets don't get any work done for me, but if I'm out in the shed to find some bolts I need for the car, I can cram the bolts in my pockets, walk out front to the car, and proceed to completely mangle the car since I'm an awful mechanic. The pockets got the bolts there so I wouldn't need to take the car directly to them.

Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.

[olman]

Maybe they could make everyone happy by dropping their half-assed small apps and supporting some FOSS apps in Windows by default. It would be awesome to install Windows 2000 or XP and have the option to install GIMP, VLC, Crimson Editor, a better console, and a decent FTP client preloaded. OpenOffice would be nice too, but since MS-Office is big business, I could understand that being left out.

You know, if they did that, everyone would hate Microsoft for cashing in on the voluntary work of OSS guys..

My Brother, The Windows Fanboy

[geomon]

My older brother is a 100% MS man. He spend about half of our visits together telling me how I have wasted the last 10 years working with Linux. On one of his last visits he saw me switching virtual windows in X and thought that looked like a cool app. I searched the web and Virtuawin. When he came over I installed it on his laptop and he has reported that his productivity has increased. I don't know what he is using for a metric, but he likes the idea of switching windows to applications that aren't buried behind muliple instances of IE.

I guess there are still some ways that *NIX can influence Microsoft, but at this point everyone is using and recycling each other ideas. Few companies are actually building new and interesting interfaces.

how many people actually _like_ windows?

[tjr]

I get the impression that there are more users who actually _like_ (not just put up with) Mac OS X (or maybe even GNU/Linux) than there are who actually _like_ (not just put up with) Windows. Anyone here actually like Windows? I'm not trolling, just want to know. If you do, what do you like about it?

Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?

[mblase]

Anyone here actually like Windows? I'm not trolling, just want to know. If you do, what do you like about it?

Nine out of ten Slashdotters surveyed answered "a second mouse button."

Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?

[tjr]

And that's a big part of it for a lot of people. Gaming is one of the primary uses for home computers, and frankly, neither OS X nor GNU/Linux offer enough games of the sort that the users actually want.

Windows itself isn't actually better in this regard (the operating system isn't necessarily better for gaming), but the net effect of its popularity is that more games are written for it.

I myself am not an avid gamer; I still play my Sega Genesis every now and then, and some freeware arcade games on my Mac. I spend most of my home computer time working with digital photography, writing, web browsing, and programming, all of which work great on a Mac. If I were an avid gamer, then a Mac probably wouldn't cut it for me.

Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?

[Kaa]

Anyone here actually like Windows? I'm not trolling, just want to know. If you do, what do you like about it?

It runs software (from Photoshop to World of Warcraft) that I want to run and does it on generic hardware.

Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?

[JoshDanziger]

I like windows. There.. I said it. Will anyone on /. actually continue to read my comment? Only time will tell....

And it's not just because I'm an MS fanboy either. It's a good operating system.

1. It's stable. It has gone BSOD on me a few times, and that was because I had a bad HP print driver that was bringing it down. I never feel a need to reboot it because its "getting sluggish". The programs that crash on my PC most frequently are Mozilla Firefox followed by Microsoft Outlook. In fact, I prefer when Outlook Crashes. It just restarts and repairs itself and I pick up where I left off. When FF crashes, I usually lose 10-20 tabs that I was looking at and will never recover.

2. The software is good. Despite /. popular opinion, MS Office is good software. I tried using OpenOffice once, and it was just as good. But the Mail Merge interface sucked, and that was an important feature for me.

3. It's faster. My 1.8ghz Celeron laptop with 192MB of ram runs Windows 100x better than Linux. Fedora Core takes significantly longer to start up and feels more sluggish when running applications (I use gnome, the FC default environment).

4. Easier to install applications. I think that's a given. Linux needs a better package installation system, period. Yum and apt are good, but they don't hold a candle. Windows' automatic updates are far superior to RHN

5. Configuration Utilities. They're just better in Windows. Period. The closest that I've ever had to get to a command line for Windows Administration is the "ipconfig" utility. Windows doesn't have nasty configuration files. I've only HAD to enter the registry to fix something (which is nasty) once.

   Even when there is a GUI configuration tool in Linux, I have a hard time finding it in FC. There are at least two different interfaces to configure network adapters, but only one of those two interfaces can start/stop the network card. It just doesn't make sense.

As a disclaimer, I am not a sheltered Windows fanboy who has only ever tried Linux out for 5 minutes. I do all my my development for CS classes in Linux, and I am no stranger to the command line. I *do* run Linux on my laptop, but the most common way for me to interact with it is by running an X server on my windows machine and an ssh connection to the laptop.

I am convinced that Open Source development is a superior model, but I am not convinced that Linux is a superior system simply because it is an open source OS. At least not on the desktop.

Virtuawin not necessary

[jshaped]

MS already has a power toy for multiple desktops.
I've been using it for awhile, it works pretty well.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

Transformation through OSS

[Ckwop]

Don't forget UnixTools, GVim, Password Safe, Paint .NET, Cruise Control, Subversion the list goes on to infinity.
This is a bitter-sweet pill. It's great that OSS is making the Windows platform so rich, it bad that it's creating inertia to change platform entirely.

I'd have switched to Linux a long time ago if the application stack for Windows hadn't been so greatly improved
by the army of budding OSS developers. Progress is being made though. I'll never use Microsoft Office again now that
I've fallen in love with Open Office 2.0.

It's no so much Open Office that made my mind up, it's the fact that we've got OpenDocument. OpenDocument is far more important that anyone really realises right now.
Why is it important? Well, I used to work for a company that wanted a web based way of doing sales quotes. The problem is that you need a nice document at the end where they can enter a bunch of text so that it feels tailored to that particular contract.

With Word this involved a bunch of mailmerging with the horrible Telemagic database with a bunch of Macros to create the document. With OpenDocument I can generate the base document itself from the database using any language of my choice. I can even add my own XML namespace so I can denote sections of the document that
were generated automatically and those that were added by the user.

The power of OpenDocument is not just in the ability to switch Office suites although that is obviously nice. It's in the ability for application developers to author and manipulate documents in powerful ways that simply aren't possible with macros or mail-merges.

OSS, through it's openness, is threatening to transform computing just like the PC transformed business. It's fucking awesome.

Simon.

My suggestions:

[Spy der Mann]

Media Player Classic (open source). Who needs WMP anyway? :)
IrfanView (freeware) for image browsing and very basic manipulation, like gamma correction or applying photoshop filters

Re:My suggestions:

[skryche]

Well put. These are two programs the average user would actually use. Cygwin? If I put that on my mom's computer, she'd probably hit me.

You can't have it both ways

[antarctican]

Whoa wait a minute here....

They're less statisfied because of the woeful default applications, unlike Linux you have to buy/download all your additional tools.

However when Microsoft tries to bundle things with the OS to solve this problem (think IE), they're demonized for being a monopoly and trying to leverage their OS to cut out the competition.

So which is it? Do we want an all-in-one OS and application suite or do we want a distinct separation of the OS from it's applications to prevent abuse.

I am NOT defending MS. I'm personally on the side that they're exploiting a monopoly. However this means you can't expect everything to "be there" when you're finished installing Windows.

Just a random ponder.... I wonder when M$ or others will accuse SuSE or RH of trying to stiffle the competition by bundling apps with the OS.

</devil's advocate>

Re:You can't have it both ways

[nine-times]

They're less statisfied because of the woeful default applications, unlike Linux you have to buy/download all your additional tools.

However when Microsoft tries to bundle things with the OS to solve this problem (think IE), they're demonized for being a monopoly and trying to leverage their OS to cut out the competition.

This is true, to an extent. There are people who think Microsoft shouldn't bundle apps, and there are people who think that they should. However, bundling applications is just one of the issues that cause people to claim Microsoft is abusing a monopoly.

It's not just the fact that they bundle their own applications. It's that they:

• refuse to bundle anyone else's application under any circumstances. The fact that IE comes pre-installed, and Firefox doesn't, provides a big advantage for IE.
• make it impossible for you to remove their applications (at least in any supported way).
• refuse to document the APIs that their own apps use, thereby allowing their own applications greater integration with the OS than other developers are capable of doing.
• are suspected of purposefully sabotaging other applications by making changes to their undocumented APIs, file formats, and protocols.

Perhaps there are other concerns too.There are some that believe Microsoft should either cease bundling their own applications or start bundling alternatives as well, providing an option for users. I can see why people would want this, but I can also see a valid objection from Microsoft that if they bundle 3rd party applications, Microsoft would then have to provide support for products that they don't control. I don't think it would kill them, though, to throw a copy of Firefox on and put a disclaimer that it won't be supported by Microsoft.

Either way, I suspect that if Microsoft provided a means of uninstalling their applications (or not installing them in the first place), just like any other program, and documented all their APIs, protocols, and file formats, then a lot of the criticism would go away.

Paint.NET

[Eslyjah]

Rather than messing with the GIMP on Windows, I prefer to use Paint.NET for my light graphics needs. It's not as powerful as Photoshop or the GIMP, but it is quite nice and available under an MIT license.

Are you sure?

[delta_avi_delta]

I know this isn't going to go down well in our little world here, but I contest

The average Windows user tends to be less than satisfied with Windows.

At the very least I'd like to see compelling evidence supporting the statement. "The average user" is probably frustrated with computing in general, "the average user" hasn't tried any other operating system, and in my experience, when "the average user" tries another platform, the initial frustration spike caused by evertyhing being slightly different, is enough to see them run back to suckle at the Microsoft's corporate teat.

I sometimes feel I'm in a silent majority here, who actually acknowledges that all their average user friends except the arty kid, not only user windows, but haven't even considered anything else.

Integration versus Bundling, Choice

[PhYrE2k2]

When MS started trying to make the OS everything to everyone, they were accused of predatory behavior and taken to court numerous times. Now we're complaining that MS Paint isn't powerful enough for graphics editing and that Windows Audio Recorder doesn't hold a candle to other third-party utils?

Bingo. But the topic becomes integration versus bundling. There is nothing wrong with providing a tool, such as including a web browser, chat program, mail program, graphics program, word processor or so on.

The link is not between the operating system and the applications, but the act of choice.

The key to Linux is that inserting a CD doesn't give you every tool you could want, but rather you need to tell it what you want by selecting "hey- I need productivity tools" and clicking it. You need to go "hey I need to dialup to the Internet" and install modem and PPP tools.

Contrast that to windows XP that offers _NO_ choice to software installed. If you think there is choice, you're thinking of Windows 2000 or 98 where they let you check off whether you wanted media player and outlook express (be it that it may only hide them, it still does the same end effect for the user). Windows XP installs do not prompt for software inclusion (maybe if you start tweaking INF files...).

Media player just shows up as the default media player and takes over associations from time to time. IE pops up for a Web URL and has an icon on the desktop by default. An install of XP doesn't give the user a choice to say "you know what- FireFox is the browser for me. no thank you " and then install FireFox. It doesn't give you the option to decline installing media player. Sure you could go through a nest of confusing (to a new user) menus for Start | Settings | Control Panel | Add/remove components | system components | media tools followed by a very full dialog of information.

Given that, there is a degree of tools that are necessary and don't really compete with their counterparts. Notepad is a good example, as well as calculator. These are handy tools that don't mean a lot, and if you do need a powerful solution, you'll get UltraEdit or similar. These are arguably a part of the O/S that may or may not need removing.

So where am I getting at? The key reason why Microsoft got in trouble was it's INTEGRATION (IE as a part of the OS) and LACK OF CHOICE (media player installed by default) and not the fact that it was bundled on the CD. It's that no matter what a user thinks, IE is installed. That no matter what you say, you're getting a copy of media player that will always come up from time to time. That the user is not INFORMED that "hey- I have the option to install media player... maybe there are better/other players out there I should research and find something that is faster".

-M