Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
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.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
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.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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?
MS already has a power toy for multiple desktops.
r toys/xppowertoys.mspx
I've been using it for awhile, it works pretty well.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powe
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.
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.
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
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
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.