Please give an example because I find the opposite to be true. GNOME is very well thought through and happens to be ten times more consistent than XP. What exactly is so consistent with XP anyway?
Best example I have at the moment is to add a launcher to a subfolder of the "applications" menu, one would assume a right-click of said subfolder would allow adding it. Instead, one has to go to an item in the subfolder, whose context menu has a menu branch for the folder containing it. It's just niggly bits like that - they build up.
What does the taskbar do in Windows that can't be done in GNOME? In fact GNOME taskbars are more capable and versatile than XP taskbars.
They're animated. Things "slide" back and forth and so on. Although it seems minor it is picked up on by the user. Obviously in OSX I'm referring to the dock menu.
It's not lack of versatility that Linux is lacking - in fact, for mass acceptance, that may even be a disadvantage if it can't be hidden. Expert users are generally more than happy to customise their system with things that need to be "delved into", but a wealth of options and commands often serves only to confuse a naive user. GNOME is making good inroads with this, in particular.
As your post's parent pointed out, though, regardless of look, many previous releases of Linux managers (and GNOME is by far not the only one) have just not been thought through before they were implemented. Consistency, and consequently usability, suffer as a result. This is one of the major reasons that people find it harder to use Linux than Windows - there's just not the consistency, and still some (simple, but important) things need to be changed by playing with GConf and the like. It is getting better though, and this release looks to be a step forward. I worry that while many are focussing on appps, whether they should be attempting to critically analyse the existing layout, though.
Another thing that both Windows and OSX have over existing Linux systems (and OSX significantly moreso) is "Bells and Whistles". The all-singing, all-dancing, all-animated taskbars in Windows or OSX reassure people that their computer is doing something, and above that, modern. This is something that Linux can't currently compete with, although it is catching up at a good rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Please give an example because I find the opposite to be true. GNOME is very well thought through and happens to be ten times more consistent than XP. What exactly is so consistent with XP anyway? Best example I have at the moment is to add a launcher to a subfolder of the "applications" menu, one would assume a right-click of said subfolder would allow adding it. Instead, one has to go to an item in the subfolder, whose context menu has a menu branch for the folder containing it. It's just niggly bits like that - they build up.
What does the taskbar do in Windows that can't be done in GNOME? In fact GNOME taskbars are more capable and versatile than XP taskbars. They're animated. Things "slide" back and forth and so on. Although it seems minor it is picked up on by the user. Obviously in OSX I'm referring to the dock menu.
It's not lack of versatility that Linux is lacking - in fact, for mass acceptance, that may even be a disadvantage if it can't be hidden. Expert users are generally more than happy to customise their system with things that need to be "delved into", but a wealth of options and commands often serves only to confuse a naive user. GNOME is making good inroads with this, in particular.
As your post's parent pointed out, though, regardless of look, many previous releases of Linux managers (and GNOME is by far not the only one) have just not been thought through before they were implemented. Consistency, and consequently usability, suffer as a result. This is one of the major reasons that people find it harder to use Linux than Windows - there's just not the consistency, and still some (simple, but important) things need to be changed by playing with GConf and the like. It is getting better though, and this release looks to be a step forward. I worry that while many are focussing on appps, whether they should be attempting to critically analyse the existing layout, though.
Another thing that both Windows and OSX have over existing Linux systems (and OSX significantly moreso) is "Bells and Whistles". The all-singing, all-dancing, all-animated taskbars in Windows or OSX reassure people that their computer is doing something, and above that, modern. This is something that Linux can't currently compete with, although it is catching up at a good rate.
Just like those relational databases were when they were invented, yeah?