That's the exact point, though. It's not "that simple," it's actually pretty damned complex. Why should I have to go to a commandline to install software, for instance? Do you realize that the majority of computer users don't even know HOW to get to a commandline?
In Windows or OS X, I can just double-click an icon... that's a lot more simple. Many applications in OS X don't even require an installer at all, you just have to drag the single file to your applications folder (or somewhere else, if you want to run it from there.) That's even more simple.
Your post sums up to "Linux is hard to use, cope with it." What we're saying is that Linux *shouldn't* be hard to use in the first place. It's apples and oranges.
The Linux and open source philosophy is supposed to produce higher quality software. We hear that argument time and time again here on Slashdot, every day. And yet the install process for Linux applications is demonstrably worse, usability-wise, than on other systems. How do we reconcile this?
1) I'm not going to replace my entire OS for a spreadsheet. What the hell kind of parallel universe do you live in where people do stuff like that?
2) Knowing OpenOffice is crap on Windows, I don't see how it could possibly be any better on OS X. Frankly, I didn't even consider it when I was looking.
3) Gnumeric doesn't even have an installer. Plus it requires X11. Given those two things, I can safely say that there's no way it's better than Excel on OS X.
I don't have a machine to test the above, but I'm sure at least one of them would work well.
Maybe if you only do very basic things in your spreadsheet software.
Running Debian would be the easiest way to get an alternative if it has been made to work with your current machine (x86 or PowerPC).
Oh yeah, that's very easy... all I have to do is erase my entire OS, throw away my thousands of dollars in OS X software, and set my computer time-machine back to 1998, or whatever damned year Debian's stuck in. Easy as pie.
Did you even start to think before typing that sentence?
Any are sure to run better and be more frequently updated than the two year old kludge that is Office of OSX:
Since I have a PPC Mac, that "kludge" doesn't matter one bit to me. Additionally, even being 2 years old, I can pretty much guarantee Excel runs about 5 times faster (even if you don't count start times) than OpenOffice does on Windows.
Wooo-hoo! Freedom and choice in crappy and expensive software. My horizons in non free have been broadened. M$ emulation is everywhere.
Your little rant doesn't change the fact that Windows isn't required to run Excel.
Yeah, but then it's not Caps LOCK, it's Caps REVERSE. The key should do what its label claims it does, and lock-on capitals regardless of shift. Either that, or the label should be changed to read Caps Reverse on Windows, and stay Caps Lock on Mac OS.
Apple's packaging is always just big enough to contain the product and enough foam to keep it from bouncing around too much and no bigger. I was amazed, when I bought my iBook, that it shipped in a box the size of... an iBook! (Dell ships laptops in the same boxes they use for desktops, or at least it seems like it.)
iPod boxes are probably a little bigger than they technically have to be, but it's not like they're excessively huge.
If Excel is over, point out to me a good replacement for it on my Mac.
I'm waiting.
(Ok, I'll spoil the surprise: There isn't one. MarinerCalc doesn't have the features I need, nor does ThinkFree Office.)
Oh, and BTW, Excel doesn't require Windows... that's a pretty damned ignorant statement. Maybe you should actually learn something about Excel before writing stuff like this up, huh?
Let's go into a little more detail on point 2, there.
If Microsoft indeed has a "proven track record" then surely you can provide a link to it? I've asked this in the past, and I've NEVER received proof that Microsoft pays posters to astroturf websites.
... except it's not funny. No more than the "chair-throwing" jokes are that get posted into every goddamned thread. The Bill Gates as borg thing wasn't funny back in 1997 when it was first made, and it's certainly not funny now.
I think it's more likely that they made this set of icons in 1996 in Paint or some other crappy image editor, and they've been too lazy to change any. That's why most of the icons are constantly out-of-date, and why they asked (when the site was being redesigned) that the new site fit in with the old icons.
Besides, I seem to recall that other companies that are constantly ridiculed (like SCO) have normal logo icons. Why does Microsoft get the special treatment?
9/11 is the first instance EVER where the hi-jackers were actually trying to kill themselves and a lot of other people. Before 9/11, every hi-jacking, EVERY ONE, ended up landing peacefully at some airfield and we dealt with without any danger to the plane or passengers.
What you say is easy to say now, but pre-9/11, you would have been called a fool. Why risk your life fighting a hi-jacker when you could just wait for the plane to land for fuel and get out peacably?
Most people spend $480+ a year on cable TV. Dev kits that game developers buy usually are in the range of 5,000-10,000. Either way you look at it, this is dirt cheap.
Plus, you can build the game for free and publish it on PC to as many people as you want. The $99 is only if you want to make a Xbox port as well.
... or maybe it just means Microsoft doesn't want the bad press when you decide to release "Nazi Jew-Killer Columbine Shooter 3.1" to the public, and you're a bit paranoid.
I don't think it's unreasonable for Microsoft to actually hire a few people to play through these games and take a look at the content before they let every random Joe download them.
RealBasic and Cocoa can do all of those things easily.
Except "geometry management" (I've only heard that term from you, so I'm thinking it can't be the most popular term used to describe it). If I understand what you mean by geometry management... if you mean automatically scaling controls when the window changes size, then yes RealBasic and Cocoa can do that. If you mean automatically making buttons longer based on how long the caption is, then you have to write a bit of code.
But I think the real problem here is that you're still thinking in terms of "GUI libraries." I think you've been programming the old fashioned way too long and you're not having an easy time adjusting to GUI development. From my experience, people in this situation usually produce horrible GUIs anyway because they think too much like programmers and not enough like users.
True, but we also have the obligatory "chair throwing" joke that hasn't been funny for over 6 months now, even though somehow it still gets modded up. And of course we have the expected "but... but... but... Nintendo!!!" that's in every gaming thread even when it's grossly off-topic (as it is here.)
So it's a little nice that Slashdot is giving some credit to MS, but now let's work on getting the moderation system to actually get rid of off-topic and non-funny crap.
All the other "Express" products have absolutely no restrictions on the distribution of programs created with them. I'm guessing XNA is going to be the exact same way... I'm sure there's a contact email there you can ask.
1) Nintendo's not just going to give a dev kit to every random Joe who asks for one. You're either going to have to be an established game company, or have an agreement with a decently big publisher before you're added to the list.
2) Even if Nintendo does give you a dev kit, that doesn't mean you'll be able to release games for their system. All consoles have a logo program, and games that aren't vetted and approved can't be run. That's not to say it'll be trivial for you to get Microsoft to approve your game, but at least Microsoft is out there assuring people that it'll happen.
3) $1700 vs. $99/year. If you're paying $1700 for something, you're basically already a full-time game developer. $99/year is cheap enough so that Microsoft is going to have tons and tons of people on their kit, and they'll be able to pick and choose the best from the lot. Plus, you can start development of your game for free... the $99 is just for access to more documentation and Xbox portability. You can develop and release you PC version for free, THEN decide to pay $99 to port to Xbox and try to get it on Live.
4) Isn't it telling that every time Microsoft announces something truly innovative and, frankly, pretty damn refreshing, there has to be a counter-post saying that Nintendo has the same thing... even if they don't? I love Slashdot. Give credit where credit is due... this is a great move on Microsoft's part, and a win-win for every gamer out there.
You can already do that with applications like GraphicConverter almost as quickly. But having every possible image manipulation command in a contextual menu isn't "a bit cluttered", it would make finding anything in there impossible. Especially since contextual menus are hard to use for the majority of users, and you're making them even harder... kind of defeats the purpose.
Uh, visual programming languages didn't exist 20 years ago. Visual Basic, Real Basic, Objective-C/Cocoa have changed GUI programming a LOT. In fact, I'm kind of curious what the heck you're talking about.
That still doesn't really answer how it would work. Let's take your image rotation example.
So we add this functionality into a contextual menu, which seems a logical place. But when you think about it... shouldn't we also add contrast to it? And maybe brightness? How about inverting the colors?
Now you have a contextual menu that's 450 items long... how have you improved anything or made anybody more effective?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the exact point, though. It's not "that simple," it's actually pretty damned complex. Why should I have to go to a commandline to install software, for instance? Do you realize that the majority of computer users don't even know HOW to get to a commandline?
In Windows or OS X, I can just double-click an icon... that's a lot more simple. Many applications in OS X don't even require an installer at all, you just have to drag the single file to your applications folder (or somewhere else, if you want to run it from there.) That's even more simple.
Your post sums up to "Linux is hard to use, cope with it." What we're saying is that Linux *shouldn't* be hard to use in the first place. It's apples and oranges.
The Linux and open source philosophy is supposed to produce higher quality software. We hear that argument time and time again here on Slashdot, every day. And yet the install process for Linux applications is demonstrably worse, usability-wise, than on other systems. How do we reconcile this?
What does this have to do with the user interface? WTH? Have the moderators completely missed that this, while interesting, is 100% off-topic?
1) I'm not going to replace my entire OS for a spreadsheet. What the hell kind of parallel universe do you live in where people do stuff like that?
2) Knowing OpenOffice is crap on Windows, I don't see how it could possibly be any better on OS X. Frankly, I didn't even consider it when I was looking.
3) Gnumeric doesn't even have an installer. Plus it requires X11. Given those two things, I can safely say that there's no way it's better than Excel on OS X.
I don't have a machine to test the above, but I'm sure at least one of them would work well.
Maybe if you only do very basic things in your spreadsheet software.
Running Debian would be the easiest way to get an alternative if it has been made to work with your current machine (x86 or PowerPC).
Oh yeah, that's very easy... all I have to do is erase my entire OS, throw away my thousands of dollars in OS X software, and set my computer time-machine back to 1998, or whatever damned year Debian's stuck in. Easy as pie.
Did you even start to think before typing that sentence?
Any are sure to run better and be more frequently updated than the two year old kludge that is Office of OSX:
Since I have a PPC Mac, that "kludge" doesn't matter one bit to me. Additionally, even being 2 years old, I can pretty much guarantee Excel runs about 5 times faster (even if you don't count start times) than OpenOffice does on Windows.
Wooo-hoo! Freedom and choice in crappy and expensive software. My horizons in non free have been broadened. M$ emulation is everywhere.
Your little rant doesn't change the fact that Windows isn't required to run Excel.
Uh, iTunes does carry music videos. So... what are you waiting for?
Yeah, but then it's not Caps LOCK, it's Caps REVERSE. The key should do what its label claims it does, and lock-on capitals regardless of shift. Either that, or the label should be changed to read Caps Reverse on Windows, and stay Caps Lock on Mac OS.
Apple's packaging is always just big enough to contain the product and enough foam to keep it from bouncing around too much and no bigger. I was amazed, when I bought my iBook, that it shipped in a box the size of ... an iBook! (Dell ships laptops in the same boxes they use for desktops, or at least it seems like it.)
iPod boxes are probably a little bigger than they technically have to be, but it's not like they're excessively huge.
If Excel is over, point out to me a good replacement for it on my Mac.
I'm waiting.
(Ok, I'll spoil the surprise: There isn't one. MarinerCalc doesn't have the features I need, nor does ThinkFree Office.)
Oh, and BTW, Excel doesn't require Windows... that's a pretty damned ignorant statement. Maybe you should actually learn something about Excel before writing stuff like this up, huh?
Let's go into a little more detail on point 2, there.
If Microsoft indeed has a "proven track record" then surely you can provide a link to it? I've asked this in the past, and I've NEVER received proof that Microsoft pays posters to astroturf websites.
If these posts were about the Microsoft Xbox 360, you'd all be called "astroturfers." Just pointing that out.
"Almost" doing something isn't newsworthy, damnit. Yes I am grumpy.
... except it's not funny. No more than the "chair-throwing" jokes are that get posted into every goddamned thread. The Bill Gates as borg thing wasn't funny back in 1997 when it was first made, and it's certainly not funny now.
I think it's more likely that they made this set of icons in 1996 in Paint or some other crappy image editor, and they've been too lazy to change any. That's why most of the icons are constantly out-of-date, and why they asked (when the site was being redesigned) that the new site fit in with the old icons.
Besides, I seem to recall that other companies that are constantly ridiculed (like SCO) have normal logo icons. Why does Microsoft get the special treatment?
Ignorant or elitist? Taking all bets!
9/11 is the first instance EVER where the hi-jackers were actually trying to kill themselves and a lot of other people. Before 9/11, every hi-jacking, EVERY ONE, ended up landing peacefully at some airfield and we dealt with without any danger to the plane or passengers.
What you say is easy to say now, but pre-9/11, you would have been called a fool. Why risk your life fighting a hi-jacker when you could just wait for the plane to land for fuel and get out peacably?
What exactly would make you happy? Microsoft giving YOU $100 every month and providing backrubs for developing for 360?
Most people spend $480+ a year on cable TV. Dev kits that game developers buy usually are in the range of 5,000-10,000. Either way you look at it, this is dirt cheap.
Plus, you can build the game for free and publish it on PC to as many people as you want. The $99 is only if you want to make a Xbox port as well.
... or maybe it just means Microsoft doesn't want the bad press when you decide to release "Nazi Jew-Killer Columbine Shooter 3.1" to the public, and you're a bit paranoid.
I don't think it's unreasonable for Microsoft to actually hire a few people to play through these games and take a look at the content before they let every random Joe download them.
RealBasic and Cocoa can do all of those things easily.
Except "geometry management" (I've only heard that term from you, so I'm thinking it can't be the most popular term used to describe it). If I understand what you mean by geometry management... if you mean automatically scaling controls when the window changes size, then yes RealBasic and Cocoa can do that. If you mean automatically making buttons longer based on how long the caption is, then you have to write a bit of code.
But I think the real problem here is that you're still thinking in terms of "GUI libraries." I think you've been programming the old fashioned way too long and you're not having an easy time adjusting to GUI development. From my experience, people in this situation usually produce horrible GUIs anyway because they think too much like programmers and not enough like users.
True, but we also have the obligatory "chair throwing" joke that hasn't been funny for over 6 months now, even though somehow it still gets modded up. And of course we have the expected "but... but... but... Nintendo!!!" that's in every gaming thread even when it's grossly off-topic (as it is here.)
So it's a little nice that Slashdot is giving some credit to MS, but now let's work on getting the moderation system to actually get rid of off-topic and non-funny crap.
All the other "Express" products have absolutely no restrictions on the distribution of programs created with them. I'm guessing XNA is going to be the exact same way... I'm sure there's a contact email there you can ask.
1) Nintendo's not just going to give a dev kit to every random Joe who asks for one. You're either going to have to be an established game company, or have an agreement with a decently big publisher before you're added to the list.
2) Even if Nintendo does give you a dev kit, that doesn't mean you'll be able to release games for their system. All consoles have a logo program, and games that aren't vetted and approved can't be run. That's not to say it'll be trivial for you to get Microsoft to approve your game, but at least Microsoft is out there assuring people that it'll happen.
3) $1700 vs. $99/year. If you're paying $1700 for something, you're basically already a full-time game developer. $99/year is cheap enough so that Microsoft is going to have tons and tons of people on their kit, and they'll be able to pick and choose the best from the lot. Plus, you can start development of your game for free... the $99 is just for access to more documentation and Xbox portability. You can develop and release you PC version for free, THEN decide to pay $99 to port to Xbox and try to get it on Live.
4) Isn't it telling that every time Microsoft announces something truly innovative and, frankly, pretty damn refreshing, there has to be a counter-post saying that Nintendo has the same thing... even if they don't? I love Slashdot. Give credit where credit is due... this is a great move on Microsoft's part, and a win-win for every gamer out there.
Wow. That never gets old.
Your last point is valid, but:
The visual IDEs are only for the trivial GUI cases. In order to do anything advanced, you have to manually program the GUI.
I call BS. What "advanced" thing are you trying to do that visual development environments won't handle? Cite a specific example, please.
And there is no 'standard' algorithms for geometry management, window updating etc as they are in other domains.
What "standard" algorithm are you looking for? I don't even know what "geometry management" means, really.
You can already do that with applications like GraphicConverter almost as quickly. But having every possible image manipulation command in a contextual menu isn't "a bit cluttered", it would make finding anything in there impossible. Especially since contextual menus are hard to use for the majority of users, and you're making them even harder... kind of defeats the purpose.
Uh, visual programming languages didn't exist 20 years ago. Visual Basic, Real Basic, Objective-C/Cocoa have changed GUI programming a LOT. In fact, I'm kind of curious what the heck you're talking about.
That still doesn't really answer how it would work. Let's take your image rotation example.
So we add this functionality into a contextual menu, which seems a logical place. But when you think about it... shouldn't we also add contrast to it? And maybe brightness? How about inverting the colors?
Now you have a contextual menu that's 450 items long... how have you improved anything or made anybody more effective?