[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: KDE - The joke's gone on for far too long.
From:       Henry Stanaland <henryst () MIT ! EDU>
Date:       2001-02-13 18:04:53
[Download RAW message or body]



Paul Fredlein wrote:
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> >The larger picture also include an SDK and API that
> >isn't completely foreign to the Windows developer. Also, existing Windows
> >code for GOOD applications becomes impossible to port the further you get
> >away from established application models.
> 
> Have a look at the Windows API, MacOS API, and the BeOS API they're all
> different but all have the same basic structure. In fact, the Win API and
> MacOS API share functions with the same name but some argument differ or are
> passed in a different order. (The Mac does not need a HDC, the arguments in
> PtInRect are the same but in a different order.) All the windows be it Mac,
> Win, BeOS or KDE must have basically the same controls - scroll bars, max
> and min buttons etc.
> 
> But the Mac desktop is far superior to the Windows desktop.
> 
> All I'm saying is that KDE must be innovative to set itself apart from GNOME
> and the rest, this is not the case at the moment. The KDE Desktop, like the
> GNOME Desktop suck.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul

Okay, I am ready for this conversation to end as much as the rest of the
people on this list(so we can move on to actually productive stuff). 
But,
one question for you is why do you think the MacOS is so superior?  I am
sitting next to about 10 Macintosh's(with OS versions 7.6 - 9.0.1, as
well
as OSX).  There is are WinNT, Win2000, Win95, Win98, and WinME here.  I 
work in tech support in case you are wondering.  And I don't see any 
fundamental difference in any of them.  Mactinsoh <= 9.1 is almost an
exact replica of Windows in interface.  There is an "apple menu" instead
of a "start" menu, there's the same "widgets," etc, etc etc.  Even OSX.
It's not much different from the KDE & Gnome panels.  You can remove the
"application menu" and put all the applications on the panel and it
would
be very similar functionally(except the OSX style couldn't handle the 60
applications KDE/GNOME users like to have in their launcher).  Sure,
there 
aren't any neat special effects, but how does that change how the user 
interacts with the machine.  Furthermore, have you seriously used the
Mac 
OSX, instead of just looked at it?  The mixing of of the application
launcher 
and taskbar actually cause confusion to users.  Because when you
"minimize" 
an application it keeps the icon right next to the "application
launchers."  
So you could think that there are no applications open, but you could
have 
20 of them open.  I have Mac users call us all the time because "the
machine 
is slow" and they think no applications are open, but there are like 10
or 
more.  The OSX just makes this worse.  I'm not trying to dawg the Mac,
I'm 
just saying it's not necessarily better just because it's different(or
pretty).
Maybe when we can assume everyone has a $2,000 computer, KDE & Gnome can
put
in those neat effects, but for now usuability comes ahead of Gee-Whiz.

It is easy to complain, but where are your solutions?  Also, some of the
anti-windows-like-style mentioned BlackBox.  Isn't that the beauty of
Linux:
if you like Blackbox, freaking use it.  The rest of us will use KDE.
KDE shouldn't copy Blackbox, considering few seem to like it.  And those
that do like it, should just use it.  I've used Blackbox, but I use KDE.
Doesn't that tell you something?

Regards,
Henry Stanaland

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]