Is Linux nearing XP usability?


I prefer:  

407 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

g-n-t

you should try cedega. it really is a good program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Douglas
I'll give MS that, VS.NET is amazing...

585380747[/snapback]

pff, VS.NET can't hold a candle to GNU Emacs :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
When y/our competition is as powerful, successful, and as well-funded as Microsoft is then you cannot overestimate their capabilities.

I was not underestimating the capabilities of Microsoft as a company.

They have resources, plenty of them financial. But they are falling back, Linux is powered

by a worldwide community.

I'll give you an eg. : when some security flaw is discovered on a system running Linux on some cases it takes only few hours even less for a patched version to be realesed, if this happens on Windows what can you do if not wait and despaire for it to be put on Windows update site... Too long if you have a productive machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
i could NEVER get my digicam which was supposedly win-xp approved to work in windows xp.

i got another model, this one worked, but if i unplugged it and plugged it back in, it wouldnt work. id have to restart to get it to work again.

thats not exactly my definition of "usable."

585380716[/snapback]

did you ever get it to work with Linux? Funny how you mentioned that you couldn't get it work with XP. I have a Sony Mavica that works well with XP...but I still haven't figured out how to get it to work with Linux. *sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spawnbut

Where Microsoft wins is in the User Interface department. Take installing software which on Windows is as straightforward as double-clicking the installation file. In Linux often it involves going to the terminal (or "command line"), an alien concept to many users, then typing in ./ install. Before that you must make sure you are in the right directory either by cut-and-paste or by manually typing it out. Heaven forbid if you don't then come up against some dialoge asking you to choose the directory to put it in and that is confusing in itself, with choices like "/ust", "/var", and other nonsensical labels, or some dialgue asking you for an administrative password. In Linux when you want to uninstall software you have to hunt down the application folder and find the uninstall file. In Windows you can just go to the control panel then add/remove programs and click "remove" on the application you want to uninstall.

The complexity of this process befudles many users. Many of these choices should be made automatically (such as installation location) like in Windows.

I feel once installation of new applications is made much simpler then Linux will

Link to post
Share on other sites
fissy
Where Microsoft wins is in the User Interface department. Take installing software which on Windows is as straightforward as double-clicking the installation file. In Linux often it involves going to the terminal (or "command line"), an alien concept to many users, then typing in ./ install. Before that you must make sure you are in the right directory either by cut-and-paste or by manually typing it out. Heaven forbid if you don't then come up against some dialoge asking you to choose the directory to put it in and that is confusing in itself, with choices like "/ust", "/var", and other nonsensical labels, or some dialgue asking you for an administrative password. In Linux when you want to uninstall software you have to hunt down the application folder and find the uninstall file. In Windows you can just go to the control panel then add/remove programs and click "remove" on the application you want to uninstall.

The complexity of this process befudles many users. Many of these choices should be made automatically (such as installation location) like in Windows.

I feel once installation of new applications is made much simpler then Linux will

585381031[/snapback]

So you had to:

find website

download software

double click on exe

go through install options choosing place to install, icon on desktop etc

In linux I:

open my package installer

choose the software i want to install

click go

Which is more confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spawnbut

Consider that Linux does not put a short-cut of folder in the application menu (the "start" menu) or icons to access it on the desktop or on the panel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fissy
Consider that Linux does not put a short-cut of folder in the application menu (the "start" menu) or icons to access it on the desktop or on the panel.

585381124[/snapback]

Urm, yes it does

Link to post
Share on other sites
NeoXY
with windows and OSX, you feel like you are trying to trick the computer into working. linux it gives you a lot more freedom.

585379954[/snapback]

Tricking it?.......for windows....I would some what agree. But for OS X...I for sure would not. There is for sure no guessing game in OS X...and Linux...I like...

Link to post
Share on other sites
aldo

No, sorry, Linux is screwed on the desktop until someone works out a proper installation format (like autopackage.org). It needs to be:

Binary

Cross-distro

Free for commercial use

Has a great UI for installing stuff.

Can resolve dependancies 'well'.

Autopackage has all of that, but it's still not ready.

It would be impossible to have a 'universal' apt-get repo with hundreds of thousands of tested, no-dependancy-problems, mirrored-in-hours-of-official-release. Imagine the hardware requirements of it, with some games being 5GB big, you'd need a few petabytes just to store the games. Nevermind all the rest of the software.

And if anyone says 'Linux can do fine without commercial software! We'll write our own!', I'm afraid the answer is a big fat no. Games, for example, just ain't possible with a libre development process, because it's usually 15% coding and 85% non-portable graphics/sound/video/modelling which can only be used for that project. I could give you loads of other niche software that OSS will never fill (think of little programs that are in VB at the moment, they'll be millions of them around the world).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spawnbut
Consider that Linux does not put a short-cut of folder in the application menu (the "start" menu) or icons to access it on the desktop or on the panel.
Urm, yes it does

I meant to say that it is not consistent as it is with almost all Windows applications.

And see this interesting article:

A Linux Geek Embraces Mac OS X

"Installing applications [in Mac OS X] was extremely convenient, you just drag the install file to your Applications folder and that's pretty much it. This didn't throw me because I had heard something about it in one of our forums a while back, so when it came time to install something, I just dragged and dropped it into the Applications folder. Linux distributors should steal this idea from Apple. Linux newbies would love this kind of convenience."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Douglas
Where Microsoft wins is in the User Interface department. Take installing software which on Windows is as straightforward as double-clicking the installation file. In Linux often it involves going to the terminal (or "command line"), an alien concept to many users, then typing in ./ install. Before that you must make sure you are in the right directory either by cut-and-paste or by manually typing it out. Heaven forbid if you don't then come up against some dialoge asking you to choose the directory to put it in and that is confusing in itself, with choices like "/ust", "/var", and other nonsensical labels, or some dialgue asking you for an administrative password. In Linux when you want to uninstall software you have to hunt down the application folder and find the uninstall file. In Windows you can just go to the control panel then add/remove programs and click "remove" on the application you want to uninstall.

The complexity of this process befudles many users. Many of these choices should be made automatically (such as installation location) like in Windows.

I feel once installation of new applications is made much simpler then Linux will

585381031[/snapback]

or you could just use Synaptic

Link to post
Share on other sites
fissy

I think gobolinux can do that drag and drop style installation already, but i'm not entirely sure.

In what way is it not consistent? The windows way is horribly inconsistent, what goes in the start menu is up to the individual software producers, and they quite often put a bizarre heap of crap in there.

My gnome menu has only program launchers (aka shortcuts), thats consistence.

edit: hi code_monkey

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lechio
   

How it works: Inductive user interfaces

Behold: the interactive print right-click mouse powered button:

printme

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spawnbut

"Autopackage, the distro neutral binary packaging framework for Linux systems.

* Build packages that will install on many different distros

* Multiple front ends: best is automatically chosen so GUI users get a graphical front end, and command line users get a text based interface

* Multiple language support (both in tools and for your own packages)

* Automatically verifies and resolves dependencies no matter how the software was installed. This means you don't have to use autopackage for all your software, or even any of it, for packages to succesfully install."

That's is so cool!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spawnbut
Behold: the interactive print right-click mouse powered button:

printme

Okay, I jumped the gun. But Linux is not more usable than Windows.

Linux feels more like a collection of parts than Windows or Mac OS X.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fissy
Okay, I jumped the gun. But Linux is not more usable than Windows.

Linux feels more like a collection of parts than Windows or Mac OS X.

585381263[/snapback]

You're so just making it up as you go along.

Try ubuntu

Link to post
Share on other sites
g-n-t

that article sucks.

while he has some good points, the reason those things arent in KDE is not because they cant be replicated, its because noone wants them.

i dont want a start button, i prefer the k. i dont want a "order prints from one of MS's bitches" button next to my pictures. i dont want a print button there. because i never USE those. they just take up space in xp. even if i DID want to print a picture in linux, i dont want to go through a wizard to do it. i want to use the program I want to print it with.

For the people that still havent realised how expensive and low quality it is to print a picture on an inkjet, they can continue to use windows. :yes:

and the K menu is MUCH better than the start menu. it organizes everything by category so it never takes 3 panes to show all your programs. i have AT LEAST a hundred different programs in my k menu, yet it only is one single menu that doesnt take up the whole screen.

also, when you are in xp start menu and you want to browse your C drive through menus, or if you go new-something in a context menu, it takes FOREVER to load those menus. linux is instantant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5Horizons

I think markjensen is right. Once you get it configured (which has always been a pain in the ass for me, probably just specific hardware) it's fine for people who don't know a lot about computers.

I think that at its core, though, Windows is still easier for the super-beginner. It has a bunch of wizards and buttons everywhere related to things you might want to do and a consistant, inituitive UI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurmoth

As much as I love Linux stability, 99% of the applications I use on a daily basis run on Windows. So my vote goes to Windows XP!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ariel

I am waiting for the day when I can play my games (uncracked :whistle: ) and run some simple windows programs, like a atmel chip programmer which uses a com and lpt port..

Link to post
Share on other sites
g-n-t

yes, it does take some time to learn the ropes. but ive gotten to the point where i can take a formatted computer and set it up 100% with yoper in 20 minutes or less.

with linux, there is a learning curve, but at least you learn.

in windows, after you figure out the interface, you cant learn anymore. thats the biggest reason i stopped using it. it was a waste of time. you just end up spending all day trying to patch the computer against spyware/virii and get rid of the crap MS put on it to optimise it. that is something you dont have to worry about in linux. just choose a distro taht is optimised enough for your tastes, install it, and get to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
g-n-t
As much as I love Linux stability, 99% of the applications I use on a daily basis run on Windows. So my vote goes to Windows XP!

585381312[/snapback]

like what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.