Making Ubuntu Look Like Windows 7 473
DeviceGuru writes "Although it won't help Linux run Windows-specific software applications, this easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web. The process installs a Windows 7-like GNOME theme on an otherwise standard Ubuntu 10.04 installation, although it might work on other Linux distros with GNOME and appropriate other packages installed. Naturally all this begs the question: why would anybody want to do this? Why indeed!" People have been doing this sort of look-and-feel swap-out for years; it seems best to me as a practical joke.
begs the question (Score:2, Informative)
Naturally all this begs the question
No, it doesn't. Proper use of "begging the question. [wikipedia.org]
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory. I suppose it's happened before (for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it, now it is a one that is so likely you may as well not fight against it) but I still cringe whenever I hear it said this way.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory.
They’re not contradictory. It is possible to simultaneously raise an obvious question and assume an answer that doesn’t follow from your facts. Rare, perhaps, but possible. TFA actually managed it pretty well.
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems pretty contradictory to me. If someone raises a question, they are inviting you to think about the possible answers. If someone begs the question, they are trying to get you to assume the answer that supports your argument. It might be possible to raise the question and then assume the answer, but to me those are two separate actions not something you can do in a single statement.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Tell me about it. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" is a perfect example of this. It sounds simply moronic to use "I could care less" at the times that people do, but people do so often and don't even realize what's wrong.
Re:begs the question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But caring extends on an infinite continuum in both directions, and it takes effort to increase the absolute value of your caring. You have to expend effort to not care to an extreme degree.
So if you're apathetic about something, you could still care less about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Funny)
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Interesting)
for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it
When was that? AFAIK, "Foregone conclusion" comes from Othello, where it means not "unlikely conclusion" but a conclusion that already happened. Not quite the modern sense of "predetermined conclusion", but pretty close.
Contronyms (Score:4, Interesting)
it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory.
You mean like "cleave" and other contronyms [wiktionary.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I cringe whenever somebody uses "bandwidth" to mean data transmission rate. It is not exactly contradictory, though, as the two quantities are proportional to each other (when you ignore other factors). The use of "broadband" as a marketing term is particularly annoying, as if a certain modulation technique would guarantee higher channel capacity. But I guess people have a propensity for using fancy technical terms, even when they are incorrect.
Then people tell me, language changes, get over it. IMHO, la
Re: (Score:2)
it is still "improper" and incorrect. Or should we continue just redefining what is right and what is the truth and pretend we are moving forward?
LoB
Re:begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this argument keeps coming up is proof that it's not an acceptable usage now. I sure as hell don't accept it. The phrase "begs the question" is more useful as a logical fallacy than it is as a synonym for "raises the question". That's the only argument that matters.
Did you even read the pages you linked to? I'll quote (emphasis mine):
In any case, whether the improper use of the phrase is more common than the proper use of the phrase is irrelevant. That just means ignorance is widespread.
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Insightful)
So by your logic I should refer to my monitor as my computer? I mean if widespread usage dictates meaning then that would in fact be acceptable, perhaps even the standard usage
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I think "it raises the question" is a better fit for the usage that I have seen.
Re:begs the question (Score:5, Funny)
The other day I had a huge argument over the use of the phrase: "if I do say so myself".
You must be a delight at parties.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why, I am, if I do say so myself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which begs the question...what is an "improper" use? Does it cease to be "improper" once it has become ubiquitous?
It probably depends on the audience. I appreciate good grammar when I hear or read it, and expect it from journalists and formal writers. There are definitely people who will judge you as an uneducated hick for using too much slang but sometimes in casual conversation using proper grammar just makes a person sound like a pompous ass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Wikipedia gave an example of improper use of begging the question:
Proper use of begging the question:
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, it begs the question: Even supposing I wanted to use Ubuntu, why would I want it to look like Windows 7?
You're messing with us, right? If you were to *properly* invoke "begging the question" here your counter argument would need to be along the lines of "it is not proven that potential users of Ubuntu ever want for a UI that looks like Windows 7"...
Re: (Score:2)
it is not proven that potential users of Ubuntu ever want for a UI that looks like Windows 7
That was exactly what my question asked. If I was a potential user of Ubuntu, why would I ever want it to look like Windows 7?
There are plenty of decent answers to the question, but TFA didn’t give any. It just assumed that I would.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the project kind of does beg the question "why would anyone want this". The project assumes the answer to the question is that people are afraid of migrating to Linux because it is unfamiliar or that people prefer the windows UI to the available Linux UIs. Without that assumption the project is worthless and wouldn't have been done, so it is safe to say that those who did the work did beg the question after all.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
One of my pet peeves is the number of people who appear to believe that “ ‘begs the question’ is always incorrect” and “everything not proven is hereby false because of Occam’s razor”.
Re:begs the question (Score:4, Interesting)
It was circular, in a sense. Look at the following:
[T]his easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. It’s particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from Pandora, YouTube, and elsewhere on the web.
The claim in bold is only a true claim if you already wanted the UI of your system to look like Windows 7, but it is given as a justification of the implication (made by the non-bolded statement) that you’d want your Ubuntu desktop to look like Windows 7.
Maybe the circular reasoning would be clearer if it was written like this:
This easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. Now – “Why would anyone want to make a Ubuntu desktop look like Windows 7?”, you might ask. Well, Ubuntu is particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from Pandora, YouTube, and elsewhere on the web, and if you did decide to install Ubuntu you’d obviously want it to look like Windows 7.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the link?
Dual boot... (Score:3, Funny)
That is dumb... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure it's better to have something behaving differently actually look different.
I see you are running Windows 7... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I see you are running Windows 7... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
idea 105 anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a more interesting thing here would be to share desktops in (hopefully) a one-click magical and revolutionary solution. Idea 105's time has come.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if I only didn't occasionally have to go into the "Appearance" preference, just to make Ubuntu remember that it's supposed to be using a theme.
Re: (Score:2)
because... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Office drones is another word.
Its easier to train someone with "it's right there, just like Windows", rather than "well on Windows it was there, but now it's going to be up here and behind this there and see, click."
Transitions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife uses XFCE; she's not a techie. In her words: "I don't see the difference".
For most people a computer consists of a browser and possibly an email client, although that's less and less.
Add an mp3 downloader app and you've got about 99% of home users covered.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all people will pick it up fairly quickly, but if you are moving someone into a new system anything you can do to set them at ease will make it better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For most people a computer consists of a browser and possibly an email client
And if the browser's icon doesn't look like a blue e (or like whatever other non-free browser the user is used to, such as Safari or the full version of Chrome), the user might get confused.
Acting "wrong" worse than looking "wrong" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
One problem I've had with showing some people (especially older folks, or folks who are very set in their ways) a linux desktop is that they get bogged down fairly quick when they see something that doesn't look "right." Having a Windows-esque desktop could be helpful in transitioning people over.
I'm not sure. Once they get past the initial superficial impression of "looking right" they may quickly fall into this "acts wrong". Acting wrong is probably a greater negative than looking wrong. Especially since the words "right" and "wrong" are being overloaded here. Looking wrong is more synonymous with looking different but acting wrong is more synonymous with being defective.
There is also a "false advertising" aspect, the look gave the expectation of certain behavior. With a different look the different behavior is far more acceptable.
If the only way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If the only way... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait...we're still doing that one?
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the difference? We have had year of the Linux wireless router for almost a half decade (WRT54GL) and year of the Linux cell phone (Android) and almost no one noticed that Linux was under the hood. It was good for the consumer, good for the tinker and good for the manufacturer.
As for this, I'm seriously tempted to buy my mom "a new computer", just to see what happens.
Still has all that gnome wasted space (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if you look at the picture of the explorer windows (particularly, the "icon view" dropdown), it still has the ridiculous amount huge UI widgets and wasted space that the default gnome does. Why do they insist on wasting so much screen real estate? I never understood this.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What semi-naked celebrity are you going to have to scrunch into the empty part of the screen?
"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!" (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why wouldn't I just use Windows 7 then?"
Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
use Microsoft powershell then, once you get to know it's oo model, it is stronger than bash
Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7! (Score:5, Informative)
Then use Services for Unix or PowerShell. Problem solved 11 years and 6 years ago respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason I have a mac-esque desktop on my Ubuntu system (well, if OSX had frosted glass window borders and buttons that meant something) ... I want to run Linux, but I find the Mac desktop attractive. (And yes, my launch menu wandering around does get confusing, but I have launchers for my favorites.)
Obvious comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for nothing, but I kind of dislike Gnome. Too much irrelevant junk in the right-click menus, not enough relevant stuff there. But my installation here is a good piece of a decade old, so yours may be newer and improveder.
The best part is (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming up: (Score:5, Funny)
Next week we feature: Make your Ferrari look like a Ford Escort.
Re:Coming up: (Score:5, Funny)
I think you missed the joke in the most complete way possible.
Put it in a library or lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
The end user just needs to Feel comfortable. Once a user gets into a web browser, they don't really care about the OS. Something like this would be great for hotel lobbies (with free internet), libraries, and other public access sites.
My wife (a linux hater) used it in a hotel lobby to print out some airline tickets. She had no idea it was Linux, but I noticed the differences. She had a great experience (managed to get her items printed out without an issue), and just assumed it was a windows machine.
Her view of the hotel improved because of a simple amenity that helped her out. The hotel had a PC without a costly OS, saving them money. I can easily see the value in something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the issue exactly.
I've recently started playing around with a ubuntu guest OS through virtual box. And while I appreciate how it works in many ways. I am also annoyed in various other ways because I have had 15+ years using Windows and am not accustomed to the very different way some things work just on the UI level. I'll probably eventually get over it but why bother learning a whole new layout if it's unnecessary.
Reskinning a linux install to look and act in all the user friendly ways that the majo
Windows wouldn't be my first choice but (Score:2)
it does look better than Ubuntu's default desktop (even Ubuntu's old brown looked better).
Oh for the love of Linus... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu is not Linux. Ubuntu is not GNOME. This is not Ubuntu specific and it should not be posted as such.
Also, scripts like this have existed for months and even years. I remember a recent story about getting GNOME to look like Windows XP [omgubuntu.co.uk] as well. Exactly how is this news, and even if it is news, how is it Slashdot-worthy?
It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web.
Exactly how is Windows more usable than GNOME? Yes, more people are used to Windows than GNOME and GNOME-based operating systems, but I find GNOME to be much, much, much more usable than Windows has ever been to me for various reasons. Also, how exactly do these activities benefit from a windows-like visual environment? They're just as easy to do in vanilla GNOME (if not easier) compared to Windows. As the great Wikipedia has often said, [citation needed], and I'm saying this to the original article, not the poster himself.
Dock (Score:5, Interesting)
The basic idea of a theme isn't new. A friend of mine had an XP theme on his desktop, and had a guest at his home using his computer for over half an hour without noticing anything. He asked "Do you find my Linux computer easy to use?" and the guest hadn't even realized it wasn't Windows XP.
That sort of thing is mainly useful as evidence to counter the idea that a Linux desktop is "hard to use".
The major new thing with Windows 7 is its dock. I have never much been interested in docks but it seems like they are popular. Do you use a dock in Linux? If so, could you please answer these questions:
0) Which dock do you use?
1) Why do you prefer your dock to others you have tried?
2) Is your dock similar to the one in Windows 7?
I know someone who uses Gnome Do and Docky [davebsd.com], so I'm interested in those, but I know there are others around.
steveha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
Because with lucid, Ubuntu's interface is already on the way to looking like Windows Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
I am amazed that this was approved as an article. (Score:5, Interesting)
look and feel of ubuntu? (Score:4, Funny)
Is there something that I can load on a Windows box that will make it look like Ubuntu?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's still not too late to jump in there with an awesome joke!
Hiding from the corporate network police (Score:2, Interesting)
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading Slashdot for a decade I've finally got Linux on my home desktop and I'm very happy with it, I have it playing my movies and songs, interfacing with my iPhone, and playing World of Warcraft under Wine and connecting to Ventrilo with Mangler. I just installed a native version of Google Chrome a couple of days ago! None of this requiring text editing, and I got a default desktop that looks very pretty with the nVidia proprietary drivers. I'm running legal when there was no way I was going to pay for a Windows retail package.
So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..
On the other hand, if anyone wants to point me to how to move the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top right hand side of windows I'd appreciate it
Windows 7? (Score:3, Insightful)
Realistic uses. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunatley desktop linux has yet to catch up on some of the usability smarts Windows 7. One killer redeeming feature of 7 is the way the start menu search feature includes a lot of administrative functions. I recall a phone conversation with my dad:
Dad: "How do I change my account password?"
Me: "Click on start menu and type 'password' in the box you see there"
Dad: "Oh there it is, change password, it came up before I finished typing, I click on that ja?"
This is refreshingly easy and saves me time - he'll likely remember the trick for other tasks, and not call back.
In gnome or something else it would be several layers deep under a drop down menu that isn't even categorized correctly, and I'd likely have to boot up one of my gnome machines to talk him through it.
It's perhaps unfair to beat up on gnome over it's infamously poor menu system, it's an easy targt.
Needless to say I'm not into supporting novices in linux in the same way i'm not into plucking hairs individually with tweasers.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've not tried this particular one, but for me it needs to be either precisely the same in every way, or completely different. If it is almost the same, it confuses me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that the Windows 7 GUI is abysmal, but I have to use it.
The alternate GUI for Linux is not for experienced Linux users but new converts from Windows might find it useful. Certainly it helps to lessen the learning curve. Once the newcomer becomes experienced with Linux he might learn that there are better GIUs out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if you want to ask someone to try out Linux, you are better off showing them something like what they are used to. And, increasingly, that's Windows Seven.
Ubuntu (and its variant, Mint) were what got Linux in my household, and I suspect that is true of many people. Ubuntu made an experience that is similar enough to Windows XP that my wife could easily switch to it. It has a start-ish sort of button, a notification-ish sort of tray, a favorite-ish sort of quicklaunchy area, boxes that show what w
Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Question is: Why?
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows. For years and years, the Linux community members have assumed that Average Joes are simply mis- and uninformed about the alternative. Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say. But it works. It's something that people got accustomed to, and if you want them to switch, then you need to offer them similar appearance , at least.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that. They don't want more efficient guts, they want the pretty. And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc. and make a webpage where people can sort them in order (drag and drop would rule!) from most attractive to least attractive. Ithink we all expect no surprises in what would be on top of the preferences.
Now getting back to your comment, you mentioned usability, speed and features. They are important. To you and a very small community (weighted in size against the mass of regular users). They don't matter AT ALL to anyone else. What matters to them is design. That's exactly why Apple products sell like... well, Apple products
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask people to switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, or from Windows XP to the default Ubuntu set up. Which would they find easier? I guess it would be a tie between the two.
Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't.
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows.
There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.
Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.
Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz. It's also why every window manager or desktop environment out there has extensive theming abilities. Compare W7 to something like this [flickr.com], Enlightenment wins hands down.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that.
There's a phrase for this, "casting pearls before swine".
And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
That's simply not the case. I've had numerous comments, from artsy female types even, about how nice my Cthulhain themed Fluxbox desktop looks. Now they'd never be able to use it, but it's certainly not ugly.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Um, I have no idea who Taylor Swift is, and I heard of Jay leno. Never watched his shows.
You seem to make a confusion between what's popular in the US and what's globally popular. But I got your idea. However, again you seem to misunderstand the difference between quality that makes you think and quality that makes life easy.
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
Compare W7 to something like this [flickr.com], Enlightenment wins hands down.
That thing is ugly as hell.
1. Fonts are ugly.
2. Windows title bar text is almost unreadable.
3. Top-left window: has 2 panes instead of tabs.
4. Middle Window: why on Earth would you care what the HDDs full names are? Why would you put the Temp folder as Favorite?
5. All windows: the menu button and the close/maximize/minimze buttons are reversed, compared to Windows. This is a major issue for a Windows user who is interested in switching.
6. The gizmo on the lower right side looks like a patch of some sort and the text on it is barely readable.
7. I don't care about desktops depictions/thumbnails on the left, I only care where my open programs are. A list of open programs (similar to Windows Taskbar) is a lot more helpful then going through 6 desktops in my quest for the "You-Name-It" program that I remember to have had open somewhere.
All of these in just one screenshot. And I looked at it for like 2 minutes.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
You pick anything you'd like, man, I just threw some random examples. :)
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
See, that I can agree with.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Organization. Give each desktop a purpose, and you can switch between tasks much easier. Say I have a bunch of PDFs open on one desktop and I get a notification tha
Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop? (Score:4, Informative)
> I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
You can use them to organize desktop clutter, like any other desktop container.
You don't need a 2nd and 3rd monitor just to have things sorted and nicely laid out and handy.
If you do anything but use your machine as an xbox or a web kiosk, the extra real estate and organization is very handy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Two responses to that.
1. Have you ever had more than >5 windows open while working on >1 project?
2. You are the only person I have ever heard say that ever. Virtual desktops are always the #1 "oooh" feature every time I've ever shown someone a free desktop.
Microsoft usability research (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that it's fashionable to hate Microsoft...
But, they do spend a lot of time and money on usability testing.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not just a bunch of morons throwing crap on the screen either.
I remember seeing the presentation they posted on the development of the ribbon. Seems like smart people doing reasonable things.
Re:Microsoft usability research (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, what I don't get is why they are having so bad usability despite all this testing? The ribbon is really an awful idea. I cannot find anything there plus it takes far too much precious vertical screen area. I also know that basically all our customers (a lot and very IT savvy people) use pre-ribbon Office.
Then there is the fact that win7 does not have virtual screens. I find that I am not happy with at least a 3x2 grid of them and usually use 3x3. Is this why some people doing development work on Windows want two monitors? They would not nearly be enough for me. And with edge-scroll (fvwm has had this 20 years ago) it is actually faster to switch virtual desktops than turn your head.
There are other things, like no icon boxes, hard to customize menus and the like.
I guess, I am just not in their target group, possibly because I have not only seen how to do it better, but also used something better for more than 20 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, copying Windows is such a wonderful idea. If you work really really hard at it you'll get... a "Windows clone". Yeah, not exactly earth-shattering. But what you'll most likely end up with instead is a "half-assed Windows clone", which is as bad as it sounds.
And worrying about home users is an utter waste of time if you care about adoption rates, as Apple has shown for the past two decades. Face it, 'shiny' may attract you and a very small community, but what most people care about is being able to rel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because a user who has used Windows all their professional life won't whine as much if they know where crap is to click on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you want to be more avant-garde about being modded down, rant about how Ubuntu is vastly inferior to your favored microdistro.
Ubuntu is for noobs; Microsoft Linux [mslinux.org] is vastly superior for those that know what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 7 doesn't (by default) use dark UI elements, there's no transparency for the task/menu bar,
Win7 Grue edition?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, like how Apple made such an effort to have Mac OS X look and feel like Windows, they hyped that as a sell-point in their switch campaign... or not.
I know you'll just make some remark about how snobby Apple users are, but honestly I think that attempting to emulate the user experience of another product beyond instances where form follows function is just asinine. It lulls people into a false sense of security, and then when things don't work the way they expect, then all of a sudden its "X's fault that
Re: (Score:2)
Making the OS look like something it isn't raises expectations that the system might work the same as well.
Re: (Score:2)