All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
blah
rumor:
Since my last post apparently produced a total brain meltdown in the usuals at this forum since no one could even muster up something like "this is nonesense, wtf" (which i guess is to be expected from you geeks who aren't aware that there is a whole world outside their rooms), i'm going to post about something closer to home but related to the original post.
Apparently you totally refuse to accept that user-friendly interface and ease of use has any importance in an OS. Apprently you're so proud of linux because it takes a lot of skill, knowledge and experience to use it. Guess what, an OS that cannot be used by someone who spends less than 14+ hours a day on a computer is a piece of shit. At that point to the user it doesn't matter that when it does run something it runs it well. This is the reason why there are no applications or drivers for linux too - a problem you yourself admit exists.
Oh and if it's easy to use for YOU obviously doesn't mean that it's easy to use. Don't even try to use this excuse, you know that a causual user cannot install linux and probably will not be able to use it, and this is a VERY important drawback which has kept linux from becoming more popular. Sure maybe it's the perfect server OS, and a perfect server admin OS, but what can it do for anyone else? What percentage of computer users are sysadmins/programmers?
I say fix the interface, find a better way to explain people wtf there are 300 versions (distros) of the same OS, streamline installation - windows-easy installation mode maybe, make it possible for a user to learn the advanced features while using the OS to some extent - means make it use a windows/some-other-*good* interface mode by default after the OS installs. Command line commands and keyboard shortcuts are great, but make it possible for an OS to be used without them "out of the box". After you acomplish all that you can start marketing it and actually begin to expand the user base. Untill then, forget it.
jtpenrod:
quote:Since my last post apparently produced a total brain meltdown in the usuals at this forum since no
one could even muster up something like "this is nonesense, wtf"
--- End quote ---
OK, you want thoughtful? Here's thoughtful. I dusted off and fired up my Windows partition, whence I'm writing this reply. Windows boots and now I'm looking at the desktop with the wallpaper it took me 3 GD hours to install. I didn't like any of the wallpaper His Gatesness supplied, so I added my own. It took me less than three minutes to install my own pictures on all four of my KDE desktops. Not very user-friendly, if you ask me. So I have these icons running down the left side of the screen that I can click on to launch apps. Gee, just like KDE. In the bottom, left hand corner, there's this button with a squiggly and "Start" on it; in KDE it's a silver wheel with a gold hub - only difference. I click on that, and get a menu of apps. Just like KDE... except... where's the history list? Shouldn't there be a list of my most used apps, automatically added to the menu? Oh... that's right, this is Windows. Let's do some web surfing, click on the internet dialer and connect: only difference, it doesn't say KPPP in the title bar. Select Netscape, looks exactly like it does in Linux. No difference. Lets do some file management. Start Windows Explorer. The left half of the screen shows a tree view of the file system. Here, the folder icons are yellow; in Konqueror, they're blue: only difference. I drag a file from one folder to another and drop it... wait a minute, where's the dialog box asking if I want to copy, move, or cancel? Oh that's right, silly me, I have to remember that keyboard shortcut: hold down "shift" while dragging to move the file. Close Win Explorer, I do most of my file management from the command line. Click "start" and select "MSDOS-prompt" (just like starting an xterm). OK, Windows remembered I like the full screen view. I'm not too sure how that copy command works:
C:\> man copy
Oopps! That didn't work. Got to dig out that DOS manual to look it up. Not user-friendly at all! Hell, I do that in Linux, and I get the information right there on the screen. (Now where did that #$%@!!&* DOS manual get to?)
You get the point yet?
quote: I say fix the interface, find a better way to explain people wtf there are 300 versions (distros) of the
same OS, streamline installation - windows-easy installation mode maybe, make it possible for a user
to learn the advanced features while using the OS to some extent - means make it use a
windows/some-other-*good* interface mode by default after the OS installs.
--- End quote ---
My answer in three words: Kay Dee Eee!
voidmain:
He's an obvious troll. From someone who has to install many of the MS OSs and many *NIX versions I can tell you that Linux is FAR easier and faster to install than setting up NT Server (or Win98 for that matter). *And* I don't have to reboot 40,000 times in the process. An install from scratch on NT server and getting it up to corporate standards takes about 4 (FOUR) hours. Linux takes about 20-30 minutes start to finish, including applying all the updates and configuring.
Sounds like this person spends 14 hours a day on an MS os. Maybe if he tried using another OS for a while (a serious try) he might only have to spend 1 hour a day on the machine.
I haven't seen a single valid point in this post. But like I said. A troll. My 10 year old has very little computer experience and he has no problems getting around either OS. Both my kids prefer Linux (albeit they have to listen to their father pacing around the house muttering "Bill Gates is the devil" all day long).
As far as "usability" I would say that if you took someone who has never used a computer before that they would be able to navigate either desktop about the same. It's hard to find someone who isn't "already" familiar with Windows is the problem so when something doesn't work exactly like it does in Windows they incorrectly think it is broken. And Linux is 100 times easier to install and will install where YOU want it to, not where MS thinks it should be...
But I digress....
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
jtpenrod:
quote: It's hard to find someone
who isn't "already" familiar with Windows is the problem so when something doesn't work exactly
like it does in Windows they incorrectly think it is broken.
--- End quote ---
For me, it's gotten to the point now that when something in Windows doesn't work exactly like it does in Linux, I wonder if it's broken. ;)
A troll he may be, however he doesn't rave and froth at the mouth. He seems reasonable, and he could influence the impressionable. There are all too many out there (and a lot who ought to know better) who won't give Linux a try simply because they assume it's too "geeky" and therefore, must be beyond them. I see ideas such as rumor's and wonder if they've *ever* seen a Linux desktop.
Calum:
the thing is, in Windows, there's a good chance that it is broken.
btw, Windows does ask you what directory to install to when you install it. Small consolation, it doesn't win any points from me just the same.
I am a total command line dimwit. I have little to no command line skills, but have used DOS more than any of the Linux command interfaces. I have to say though, that the Linux command lines always seem more helpful than dos.
You can ask for help with commands, it tells you what the problem is, when there's a problem, instead of all this trial and error "bad command or filename" crap you get in DOS, where you try the same thing 8 or 9 times, with the spaces and dots in different places before deciding that the computer would be better used as a paperweight.
BTW, i just reinstalled windows again, and it was a pain in the ass to set up too, you know, what with hunting around for the drivers, because windows detected the wrong ones, and didn't even recognise the 'plug 'n' play hardware et c. And there's another thing. Do you have to keep reinstalling Linux? i suspect you install it once, then use it until you want to install another OS. Sensible? yes. Well with windows, you have to reinstall the fucker every few months just to show it who's boss, which is a distinct pain in the arse. If you don't you very quickly get crashes and data losses and all sorts of fun stuff...
Well those are my thoughts. What you are really asking for, rumor, is that Linux and KDE be preinstalled when you buy your factory manufactured IBM straight off the shelf of your local department store, from a smiling man who wouldn't know his BIOS from his elbow.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version