Like what ? Where do I begin? UAC, for one. Deleting a shortcut shouldn't ask me to approve three times. I have to move over and scroll within a start menu, and then click on folders instead of mousing over. Dialogs, control panel extensions, and options are nested and hidden all over the place, making me take extra steps here and there. Plenty of people have documented the list of issues, and usability studies have shown that people are less productive since the UI slows them down.
Someone who is "lost" in Vista after using XP for years, is going to be vastly more "lost" using Linux (or OS X for that matter). Sadly, this is why I didn't just give him an openSUSE box. Upfront I'd spend more time getting him comfortable with the Linux box, but in the long run I'll likely support his Windows box more.
Seriously. The fundamental UI in Vista is still the same as Windows 95. Then you might as well suggest that KDE, Gnome, Win95, Vista, OS X, etc. all basically have the same fundamental UI. They use windows and you click on icons. Except that argument is overtly flawed. The UI has changed considerably over the years. Fire up NT 4, or 95 in a VM and use it for a bit. Largely, you'll know how since you've been using Windows for years, but you'll find that many shortcuts and interface elements you've come to rely on simply aren't there.
Of course he'd say that. He's on commission. 2 gigs is plenty. And when XP launched, 256 megs of ram was plenty! Yet I wouldn't try to run XP without a gig today. As service packs and such come out, requirements go up. Apps and patches require more resources. And 2 gigs isn't "plenty", it is adequate for Vista, especially if Aero is enabled. Plenty of people in this very thread have noted Vista using well over 1 gig of physical memory with just a few putty sessions and Firefox open. It isn't hard to break the 2 gig barrier.
One could make that same argument about just about every version of Windows since Windows 95 (and every version of every other OS from some time back in the '90s, with the exception of OS X since it was so late to the party). And I'd say you're wrong. I don't hate on MS. XP is the best iteration of Windows ever put out. I preferred DOS to 3.1. I loathed 95. 98 SE wasn't bad. ME was terrible. NT was terrible. 2000 was decent. XP after SP1 was great. Vista is terrible. Even the biggest Microsoft supporters agree, and Microsoft agrees, which is why they are rushing the next version of Windows.
First off, I can't believe anyone on/. is recommending IE.
Secondly, yes, the start menu operates differently. That alone threw him for a loop. There are plenty of users who flip out when items are relocated, or operate slightly differently from what they are used to.
Many tweaks to the UI cause you to jump through new hoops, slowing down productivity and causing me to get irate. An OS should enable me to use my computer, but slow me down.
Last week I was in a store purchasing a new computer for my step-dad, and all he needed was a web browser. I was damn tempted to give him a Linux box, and I'm not sure he'd notice. But we buy a new PC with Vista. He's used XP for years, but now he is totally lost. And the salesman was insisting 2 gigs of ram isn't enough for Vista, and that we needed a box with 4. Here is the crux of it. Vista offers no new features that will blow anyone away, yet the requirements are considerably higher.
Why slow down my machine with something that is going to cause nothing but trouble, when I get no benefit out of it?
There are people who cope reasonably well with Vista, but that isn't a reason to upgrade.
As someone else pointed out, SharePoint is more akin to storing docs online, sharing them with people, communicating with them, wiki functionality, etc.
And as someone who just implemented a SharePoint system, SharePoint is very expensive and requires some massive hardware. Google Docs is free and requires zero hardware purchase.
Sonnet - It isn't simply spell check but a bevy of language tools including language recognition and grammar check. Nepomuk - This is FAR more than search. http://nepomuk.kde.org/ Solid - I don't know anything about I/OKit, but Solid provides an easy API for apps to interact with hardware. Plasma - In many ways it offers previous functionality (panels, dock, widgets, etc) but it brings them all together under one library and framework, however the real innovation and advantage of Plasma is the ability to generate apps easily in most any language. And while widgets have existed for a while, most widgets are useless toys. Plasma provides powerful data engines to create actual useful apps.
I don't use a dock, but I believe XQDE is written in QT 4, and from the last I read, it is supposed to be leaner and faster than its KXDocker predecessor.
There is this big minimalist fight over what uses the least amount of resources, or hard-core you are by using the most minimalist of software. If you have an older computer, and you can't get modern software to run, then by all means, use older software. But having system resources sit around unused isn't helping you either.
In discussing how "slow" or "fast" something is, two things come to mind. The first and foremost is sitting around and waiting for slow software while your computer sits frozen and unusable. The second thing, less commonly thought of, is a lack of modern features, or a poorly designed UI that forces you to jump through hoops to perform basic tasks.
In that regard, some people will swear by XFCE, or OpenBox, or twm, or whatever because it uses so few resources. For my use personally, they don't provide me the features I need to get my work done quickly. Honestly, the best part about Linux is having the choice to get the features I want or don't want. Picking between XFCE and KDE is picking between a scale of features vs. performance. Picking between Gnome and KDE isn't really about which one uses less memory (KDE with benchmarks to prove it, though people often assume Gnome most because it has fewer features) but rather about design philosophy.
Gnome removes choice and option from the user, along the notion that the user is an idiot and doesn't know how to configure their box. KDE can look like OS X, Windows, even Gnome (now that QT 4 has a native Clearlooks engine) if you like. KDE can look totally original as well. You configure it to operate and look however you want, because you are given so many choices. I'm confused by the mindset of users who don't like choice, and prefer others to dictate to them how their desktop will operate.
The KDE 4 design is considerably cleaner than KDE 3. It uses less memory, and runs faster, and when KDE 4.1 hits with QT 4.4, it should improve significantly again. There is a known issue with QT 4.3 that forces some hackery in screen rendering that is resolved in QT 4.4
I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.
Each can coexist and have their own niche, and perhaps that is the way it should be. Some games you absolutely need a keyboard for. That being said, I had zero interest in reading TFA until I saw that he admits "Vista blows".
I agree, and this is why Firefox has this feature. Unused memory isn't helping you, so Firefox intends to use it. It is only really a major problem when you do need the memory for another task, or when the OS pagefiles when it isn't necessary.
As a comparison, I've had this Firefox session open for probably two days. I'm using a daily trunk build of the Firefox 3 Beta 4 branch. Firefox is using 90 megs of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I can't believe anyone on /. is recommending IE.
Secondly, yes, the start menu operates differently. That alone threw him for a loop. There are plenty of users who flip out when items are relocated, or operate slightly differently from what they are used to.
An honest question gets an honest answer.
Many tweaks to the UI cause you to jump through new hoops, slowing down productivity and causing me to get irate. An OS should enable me to use my computer, but slow me down.
Last week I was in a store purchasing a new computer for my step-dad, and all he needed was a web browser. I was damn tempted to give him a Linux box, and I'm not sure he'd notice. But we buy a new PC with Vista. He's used XP for years, but now he is totally lost. And the salesman was insisting 2 gigs of ram isn't enough for Vista, and that we needed a box with 4. Here is the crux of it. Vista offers no new features that will blow anyone away, yet the requirements are considerably higher.
Why slow down my machine with something that is going to cause nothing but trouble, when I get no benefit out of it?
There are people who cope reasonably well with Vista, but that isn't a reason to upgrade.
Conversely I have 9meg from Cox, and I actually get close to those speeds.
It is PFM that a company delivers on what they're selling you!
You're suggesting that sophisticated buyers are buying Vista.
I really like the new gui.
HP is rolling out openSUSE on their computers I do believe. And WalMart has been selling Linux desktops.
WalMart is about as mainstream as you can get.
As someone else pointed out, SharePoint is more akin to storing docs online, sharing them with people, communicating with them, wiki functionality, etc.
And as someone who just implemented a SharePoint system, SharePoint is very expensive and requires some massive hardware. Google Docs is free and requires zero hardware purchase.
We managed to /. the original interwebs. The circle is now complete.
Sonnet - It isn't simply spell check but a bevy of language tools including language recognition and grammar check.
Nepomuk - This is FAR more than search. http://nepomuk.kde.org/
Solid - I don't know anything about I/OKit, but Solid provides an easy API for apps to interact with hardware.
Plasma - In many ways it offers previous functionality (panels, dock, widgets, etc) but it brings them all together under one library and framework, however the real innovation and advantage of Plasma is the ability to generate apps easily in most any language. And while widgets have existed for a while, most widgets are useless toys. Plasma provides powerful data engines to create actual useful apps.
There are several docks for KDE.
http://xqde.xiaprojects.com/
http://www.xiaprojects.com/index.php?section=All&project=KXDocker
http://www.kiba-dock.org/
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=12097
I don't use a dock, but I believe XQDE is written in QT 4, and from the last I read, it is supposed to be leaner and faster than its KXDocker predecessor.
MSDOS 6.1 also uses far less memory than XFCE!
There is this big minimalist fight over what uses the least amount of resources, or hard-core you are by using the most minimalist of software. If you have an older computer, and you can't get modern software to run, then by all means, use older software. But having system resources sit around unused isn't helping you either.
In discussing how "slow" or "fast" something is, two things come to mind. The first and foremost is sitting around and waiting for slow software while your computer sits frozen and unusable. The second thing, less commonly thought of, is a lack of modern features, or a poorly designed UI that forces you to jump through hoops to perform basic tasks.
In that regard, some people will swear by XFCE, or OpenBox, or twm, or whatever because it uses so few resources. For my use personally, they don't provide me the features I need to get my work done quickly. Honestly, the best part about Linux is having the choice to get the features I want or don't want. Picking between XFCE and KDE is picking between a scale of features vs. performance. Picking between Gnome and KDE isn't really about which one uses less memory (KDE with benchmarks to prove it, though people often assume Gnome most because it has fewer features) but rather about design philosophy.
Gnome removes choice and option from the user, along the notion that the user is an idiot and doesn't know how to configure their box. KDE can look like OS X, Windows, even Gnome (now that QT 4 has a native Clearlooks engine) if you like. KDE can look totally original as well. You configure it to operate and look however you want, because you are given so many choices. I'm confused by the mindset of users who don't like choice, and prefer others to dictate to them how their desktop will operate.
http://xkcd.com/378/
Since when did Mac OS and Windows have stuff like Sonnet, Strigi/Nepomuk, Solid, Plasma, Decibel, etc?
Oh wait, they didn't.
It really irks me when people look at a window decoration, and assume that fully encompasses the work of KDE 4.
Minimalist? What do you mean by that?
The KDE 4 design is considerably cleaner than KDE 3. It uses less memory, and runs faster, and when KDE 4.1 hits with QT 4.4, it should improve significantly again. There is a known issue with QT 4.3 that forces some hackery in screen rendering that is resolved in QT 4.4
I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.
You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault.
I agree. Is IKEA evil if they provide the NSA with desks?
If "drying her laundry" is a euphemism for the mass quantities of porn she is downloading, then I'd be doing the same thing.
Someone please mod parent Troll.
Didn't Sony last year or something file a patent on games that you interacted with via thought?
Each can coexist and have their own niche, and perhaps that is the way it should be. Some games you absolutely need a keyboard for. That being said, I had zero interest in reading TFA until I saw that he admits "Vista blows".
Linus is very pro-KDE and very anti-Gnome, so I doubt he is on Ubuntu.
Meanwhile, there are rumors that once the PS3's start rolling out with 45nm CPUs and GPUs that they will drop $100 in price.
$400 for an entry-level player, or $400 for the PS3?
Let me ask you. What version of Firefox are you using?
Download Firefox 3 and try again.
I agree, and this is why Firefox has this feature. Unused memory isn't helping you, so Firefox intends to use it. It is only really a major problem when you do need the memory for another task, or when the OS pagefiles when it isn't necessary.
As a comparison, I've had this Firefox session open for probably two days. I'm using a daily trunk build of the Firefox 3 Beta 4 branch. Firefox is using 90 megs of memory.