[News] Proof that Windows is Not Ready for the Desktop
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| You probably do not use your computer in the same way I use mine. That
| is exactly why a rich and configurable feature set is so important --
| everyone will have different situations, different preferences, and
| different ways of using their computers. A feature-rich, configurable
| desktop like KDE allows people to work how they want to work. The MS
| Windows XP desktop is more of a "one size fits all" or "any color as long
| as it is black" desktop. One with limited features. Some people may not
| mind that; I do. Surprisingly, I have yet to find any feature in WinXP
| that made me say "Wow! I wish KDE could do that."
`----
http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
proof.
The Ghost In The Machine
<newsg...@schestowitz.com>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:51 +0100
<2414149.Z...@schestowitz.com>:
A few very minor issues, and an introduction of Gnome
into this mix (since that's what I'm familiar with).
[1] XP System monitor has an option to be on top. I don't
know whether it defaults or not. It can be annoying,
though one can iconify it and get a little green area
in one's tools subarea. In Gnome an equivalent function
is had by a specialized panel applet, which also has the
ability to display VM usage, network, swap, system load,
and hard drive throughput. More informative, and more
useful; also uses more space, if that's important -- but
usually not a problem for me personally. I don't know
what KDE has but would be surprised if it didn't have
similar bar-applet sysmon functionality.
The Gnome system monitor is quite powerful, though some
of the stuff is a little peculiar. However, the moving
graphs are more fun to watch (since there are more of them)
and are customizable (they could use ticks but there's
not that much point since they're not long-term graphs).
The mounted devices area is a bit static but it's a
reasonable place to put it -- although one might wonder if
they really need to update every 5 seconds. Fortunately,
statfs() is reasonably cheap.
I don't have KDE so don't know what its monitor has.
I *do* have kxmleditor so I can see the file dialog.
A minor annoyance for me: if one clicks in the wrong
place in the Gnome control bar one is likely to get the
system monitor, instead of going to another workspace.
[2] Screenshots are easily gotten at in both XP and Linux.
In Gnome, one can simply press the PrintScreen Key --
I do it often enough even without intending to print,
but ESC works nicely enough to cancel the request.
Presumably KDE has similar behavior. If one doesn't
like the Print Screen keyboard button one can also
capture using Applications>Accessories>Take Screenshot,
in Gnome.
[3] Regrettably, the KDE File Dialog appears to have
that same dratted horizscrollbar that Win95 "innovated".
Thankfully, it doesn't waste nearly as much space in the
columns, and is resizable as well; it also doesn't do
stupid things with the file extensions. If one wants a
vertical scrollbar one can show a detailed view, which
gives one maybe a little more data than one really needs
but that's why it's detailed, after all. The columns in
KDE are movable as well; put them where you need them.
One can of course sort on any column (though one might
question the wisdom at times); a small arrow indicates
which column is the key and which direction. Multiple sort
keys are not possible but are also rarely required.
"Separate folders" is nice; the folders are put in their
own column; however, they have no attributes therein, which
is a reasonabl compromise. (Besides, all that will tell you
is when someone last created or deleted a file -- not that
useful.)
For its part WinXP now allows resizing (Wow. What an
"innovation"!). IIRC it has several views: small icons,
large icons, list, and detailed. Columns are sortable
but I don't remember whether they are movable.
For *its* part Gnome has a rather weird (but logical)
dialog where one can type in the name and store in the
"default folder" (one can select from a dropdown list;
I believe it has a memory as well) or click on "browse
for other folders" and get a more traditional file dialog,
which displays things using a vertical scrollbar and also
shows modified date; one can sort on name or date, but the
columns are immobile though one can extend the size of the
name column by dragging the spacer bar in the headers).
Both KDE and Gnome have bookmarks to the left; Gnome has
filtration by a small pick menu just above the Open/Save
button.
Gnome has a scrollable button/tab construct; KDE has a
type-in folder box with history. WinXP shows one the
desktop root and the path, one per menu line -- but
does not show the path, merely the name of the folder.
This frequently gives me a "where the hell am I?" feeling.
Maybe they'll fix that in Vista, but I have my doubts.
[4] The WinXP registry is a *binary* file, although one can
access it through such tools as REGEDT32, which displays
results vaguely similar to the WinE file shown. Gnome
has a registry concept but AFAIK it is intended for run-time
temporary data only.
Nice to know that the most intelligent interface in the world
is not the most hyped one. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Roy Schestowitz
In KDE I use system monitor (for real-time gauges that are about 16x16 pixels
in size). There's also a small dockable version of KSysGuard, which give an
histrical type of trail. It's very useful to have in sight and it doesn't
consume much screen space either. These two, along with KPager, are merely
the only widgets that are always visible, unless I push an edge with the
cursor (7 panels exist). KDE is good for adding clutter, as well as hiding
it effectively.
> The Gnome system monitor is quite powerful, though some
> of the stuff is a little peculiar. However, the moving
> graphs are more fun to watch (since there are more of them)
> and are customizable (they could use ticks but there's
> not that much point since they're not long-term graphs).
> The mounted devices area is a bit static but it's a
> reasonable place to put it -- although one might wonder if
> they really need to update every 5 seconds. Fortunately,
> statfs() is reasonably cheap.
>
> I don't have KDE so don't know what its monitor has.
> I *do* have kxmleditor so I can see the file dialog.
>
> A minor annoyance for me: if one clicks in the wrong
> place in the Gnome control bar one is likely to get the
> system monitor, instead of going to another workspace.
>
> [2] Screenshots are easily gotten at in both XP and Linux.
> In Gnome, one can simply press the PrintScreen Key --
> I do it often enough even without intending to print,
> but ESC works nicely enough to cancel the request.
> Presumably KDE has similar behavior. If one doesn't
> like the Print Screen keyboard button one can also
> capture using Applications>Accessories>Take Screenshot,
> in Gnome.
There are many methods for doing this. Some are desktop
environment-'neutral'..
Different Ways Of Taking Screenshots In GNU/Linux
,----[ Quote ]
| The simplest way to take a screenshot, whether in the GNOME
| desktop environment or in KDE, is to press the "Print Screen(PrtScr)"
| key on the keyboard. Most probably a small window(Dialog Box) will
| popup prompting to save the screenshot under a filename.
`----
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1693
How to Take a Screenshot in Linux (Ubuntu)
,----[ Quote ]
| I'll start with the common ways to take screenshots in Linux, and then
| show you a nice shell script for taking custom screenshots in GNOME with
| just one click of the mouse. The shell script will also work in other
| windows managers like KDE, but you will have to figure out how to make
| the custom application launcher for it.
`----
http://tips.webdesign10.com/how-to-take-a-screenshot-on-ubuntu-linux
> [3] Regrettably, the KDE File Dialog appears to have
> that same dratted horizscrollbar that Win95 "innovated".
> Thankfully, it doesn't waste nearly as much space in the
> columns, and is resizable as well; it also doesn't do
> stupid things with the file extensions. If one wants a
> vertical scrollbar one can show a detailed view, which
> gives one maybe a little more data than one really needs
> but that's why it's detailed, after all. The columns in
> KDE are movable as well; put them where you need them.
> One can of course sort on any column (though one might
> question the wisdom at times); a small arrow indicates
> which column is the key and which direction. Multiple sort
> keys are not possible but are also rarely required.
>
> "Separate folders" is nice; the folders are put in their
> own column; however, they have no attributes therein, which
> is a reasonabl compromise. (Besides, all that will tell you
> is when someone last created or deleted a file -- not that
> useful.)
>
> For its part WinXP now allows resizing (Wow. What an
> "innovation"!). IIRC it has several views: small icons,
> large icons, list, and detailed. Columns are sortable
> but I don't remember whether they are movable.
KDE adds an almost unstoppable extension of merely anything. Whether it's a
good or a bad (e.g. confusing) thing is another matter. Each menu has a
"Default" button just in case you b0rk something by mistake, so it's fairly
safe.
It has a lot to do with marketing and inertia. But it's getting there. And
the more people use it, the more demonstrations will be out there to have
your mates aware of a {better way}^TM. *smile*
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Open syntax, Open API's, OpenSuSE
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:05pm up 62 days 11:17, 8 users, load average: 1.68, 1.12, 1.08
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Erik Funkenbusch
Ok, but the reverse is also true. I've never seen a feature in KDE that
made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature
of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
Erik Funkenbusch
> http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
>
> Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
> proof.
By the way, this guy has so many things wrong it's amazing...
Apart from the stuff that you can get as a free download or inexpensive
add-in (such as virtual desktops), here's everything that's wrong:
Klipper: Office XP and 2003 include a clipboard manager tool. It does one
better and allows you to copy multiple items to the clipboard and then past
them back in reverse order, or choose any item from the list. There's also
any number of free ones like ClipDiary
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Clipboard_Management_Tools/ClipDiary_Screenshot.html
The Network Monitor is part of TaskManager, and TaskManager need not be
always on top. There's a setting.
XP has a user configurable set of "panels" for common tasks, but you have
to use the new menu (which morons like this seem to always turn off right
away, then bitch because functionality they want isn't there when they
deliberately turned it off).
Windows List: Task manager provides this, just right click on the taskbar
and choose TaskManager or Ctrl-alt-del.
He complains about the behavior of the control panel, but he's using it in
HTML mode, which works like HTML links (single click) if he wants double
clicks, go to classic view.
Windows can't be resized? Lots of windows in X can't be resized either,
the apps deliberately disable it for a reason.
Locking the screen: Ctrl-alt-del, lock computer or in Vista there will be a
button for this in the Windows Menu (it's not a start menu anymore)
Screenshots: He claims you can't capture a single window but is wrong,
Alt-Prtscrn captures the currently selected window, or use any number of
free and inexpensive third party tools if you want a fancy gui.
Run As: Yes, it does work with control panel apps, you have to use
shift-right-click or you can use the Runas command from the command prompt.
Every desktop looking the same, not true at all. Plenty of free and cheap
tools to customize your desktop any way you like, moving buttons around or
removing them entirely.
and so on.. and so on...
Linonut
>>| Windows XP desktop is more of a "one size fits all" or "any color as long
>>| as it is black" desktop. One with limited features. Some people may not
>>| mind that; I do. Surprisingly, I have yet to find any feature in WinXP
>>| that made me say "Wow! I wish KDE could do that."
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
>>
>> Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
>> proof.
>
> Ok, but the reverse is also true. I've never seen a feature in KDE that
> made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature
> of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
You mean "a lot of add-ins".
This from the guy who till recently disliked tabbed browsing, and still
doesn't like virtual screens.
Sour grapes.
--
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists,
volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital
rights. -- http://www.eff.org/
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>| Windows XP desktop is more of a "one size fits all" or "any color as long
>>>| as it is black" desktop. One with limited features. Some people may not
>>>| mind that; I do. Surprisingly, I have yet to find any feature in WinXP
>>>| that made me say "Wow! I wish KDE could do that."
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
>>>
>>> Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
>>> proof.
>>
>> Ok, but the reverse is also true. I've never seen a feature in KDE that
>> made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature
>> of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
>
> You mean "a lot of add-ins".
This coming from the camp that can't stop talking about firefox extensions.
> This from the guy who till recently disliked tabbed browsing, and still
> doesn't like virtual screens.
I've found a middle ground with tabbed browsing. I still have 5 or 6
browser windows open, but I tend to use tabs for ad-hoc browsing.
> Sour grapes.
hardly.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
So XP supports ssh in the filebrowser now? sftp too? cool. What add-on
do I need for that? it should do so with ssh-keys of course.
Pop an audio CD in the drive, fire up konqueror, select the audio cd
browser from the services tab. There's your CD, as expected. There also
are directories for the ogg files, the mp3 files, Flac, CDA. Any info on
the CD, the whole CD as an ogg, flac, mp3, etc. How do I do that with
windows explorer? what add ons do I need? I can drag an mp3 off the
disc, to my music dir, and it's ripped from the CD as easy as that. What
add-on offers that for Windows explorer?
just a couple that I find quite limiting on XP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFEgdjd90bcYOAWPYRAjGWAKDevB4ziyo1RCc2fgXPUiriYOqHXwCgmlIW
P7f8Kayro09V1EBTZjBjnRY=
=WXZm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you
--Benjamin Franklin
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I've never seen a feature in KDE that
> made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a
> feature of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
Yes, but can your typical clueless Dimdows user actually figure out where
and how to find, download, install and configure such add-ins? With a
KDE-based Linux distro, it all comes in the box.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
>>>
>>> Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
>>> proof.
>>
>> Ok, but the reverse is also true. I've never seen a feature in KDE that
>> made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature
>> of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
>
> So XP supports ssh in the filebrowser now? sftp too? cool. What add-on
> do I need for that? it should do so with ssh-keys of course.
There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used to use
this on the Amiga years ago)
> Pop an audio CD in the drive, fire up konqueror, select the audio cd
> browser from the services tab. There's your CD, as expected. There also
> are directories for the ogg files, the mp3 files, Flac, CDA. Any info on
> the CD, the whole CD as an ogg, flac, mp3, etc. How do I do that with
> windows explorer? what add ons do I need? I can drag an mp3 off the
> disc, to my music dir, and it's ripped from the CD as easy as that. What
> add-on offers that for Windows explorer?
Uhhh.. ok. Apart from the fact that I have no desire to have access to
CD's in a dozen formats, i have real media mangers to manage my music and
rip songs to my library. Why would i want to use my file manager to do it?
Still, there's a point for you, though it's filed under the "why would you
want to do that" category.
The last time I ripped my CD collection, i decided it was going to be the
last time, so I now have redundant storage both internal and external for
my lossless audio files. I never want to look at a CD ever again.
Linonut
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> You mean "a lot of add-ins".
>
> This coming from the camp that can't stop talking about firefox extensions.
I'm not in that camp, champ.
Haven't installed a single Firefox extension.
>> This from the guy who till recently disliked tabbed browsing, and still
>> doesn't like virtual screens.
>
> I've found a middle ground with tabbed browsing. I still have 5 or 6
> browser windows open, but I tend to use tabs for ad-hoc browsing.
I used to have a bunch of xterms open. Now I find myself with only a
few mrxvt's open, each with a few tabs.
>> Sour grapes.
>
> hardly.
Sure it is. You've had to either wait for add-ons and "power toys", or
navigate a thicket of malware and nagware to find add-ons that Microsoft
then breaks with the next service pack.
--
"It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly,
so you should look into that." -- Bill Gates, FOCUS interview
http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
Linonut
> Uhhh.. ok. Apart from the fact that I have no desire to have access to
> CD's in a dozen formats, i have real media mangers to manage my music and
> rip songs to my library. Why would i want to use my file manager to do it?
Why would I want to use a file manager to manage my music files?
--
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:33:01 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:30:44 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.osugisakae.com/writings/lin2winxp/linux2winxp_1.html
>>>>
>>>> Very detailed, well-reasoned, and filled with screenshots to serve as backing
>>>> proof.
>>>
>>> Ok, but the reverse is also true. I've never seen a feature in KDE that
>>> made me say "I wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature
>>> of KDE that XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in.
>>
>> So XP supports ssh in the filebrowser now? sftp too? cool. What add-on
>> do I need for that? it should do so with ssh-keys of course.
>
> There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used to use
> this on the Amiga years ago)
>
> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>
so no, windows explorer doesn't do this, you have to add something else,
and deal with multiple apps for file browsing. Ick, no thanks.
>> Pop an audio CD in the drive, fire up konqueror, select the audio cd
>> browser from the services tab. There's your CD, as expected. There also
>> are directories for the ogg files, the mp3 files, Flac, CDA. Any info on
>> the CD, the whole CD as an ogg, flac, mp3, etc. How do I do that with
>> windows explorer? what add ons do I need? I can drag an mp3 off the
>> disc, to my music dir, and it's ripped from the CD as easy as that. What
>> add-on offers that for Windows explorer?
>
> Uhhh.. ok. Apart from the fact that I have no desire to have access to
> CD's in a dozen formats, i have real media mangers to manage my music and
> rip songs to my library. Why would i want to use my file manager to do it?
>
> Still, there's a point for you, though it's filed under the "why would you
> want to do that" category.
>
doesn't matter why I want to do that, I do, XP doesn't do it, score one
for KDE. As mentioned. (So now, you can't honestly claim that you don't
know of sucha feature)
> The last time I ripped my CD collection, i decided it was going to be the
> last time, so I now have redundant storage both internal and external for
> my lossless audio files. I never want to look at a CD ever again.
ho-hum, sounds like the "I don't need that, so it's okay that XP doesn't
do it..." defense, something you've chided others for in the reverse.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFE2JYd90bcYOAWPYRAt7xAKCYENU+i4c1uk/zIg0i532/vir1zgCfUWkK
00T2Y1VU0x+blZOExX6Ffxg=
=BCEc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Just because I'm moody doesn't mean you're not irritating
Erik Funkenbusch
>> There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used to use
>> this on the Amiga years ago)
>>
>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>
> so no, windows explorer doesn't do this, you have to add something else,
> and deal with multiple apps for file browsing. Ick, no thanks.
Lol, what happened to crowing about "choice"?
Peter Köhlmann
What happened to "I've never seen a feature in KDE that made me say "I wish
XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature of KDE that XP can't
do, either natively or with an add-in." ?
Don't you think that your claim is already now debunked as bullshit?
You /may/ be able to add /most/ features of KDE to XP. But not all of them,
and they are still clumsy to use then.
Apart from having to deal with lots of downloads, installing and testing
(and naturally uninstalling most of it, since most will be pure garbage)
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:11:04 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>> There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used to
>>>> use this on the Amiga years ago)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>>>
>>> so no, windows explorer doesn't do this, you have to add something else,
>>> and deal with multiple apps for file browsing. Ick, no thanks.
>>
>> Lol, what happened to crowing about "choice"?
>
> What happened to "I've never seen a feature in KDE that made me say "I wish
> XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature of KDE that XP can't
> do, either natively or with an add-in." ?
>
> Don't you think that your claim is already now debunked as bullshit?
Fine, there may be a few virtually pointless features of KDE that there
aren't readily available apps or plug-ins to do the same thing. The thing
is, if a feature were really that useful, someone would have created
something for Windows that did the same. That tells me this feature isn't
just pointless to me, it's pointless to most people.
> You /may/ be able to add /most/ features of KDE to XP. But not all of them,
> and they are still clumsy to use then.
I don't find them clusy at all.
> Apart from having to deal with lots of downloads, installing and testing
> (and naturally uninstalling most of it, since most will be pure garbage)
Sounds like the typical experience of installing and uninstalling and
testing the thousands of apps in a Linux distro.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:46:26 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:11:04 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used
>>>>> to use this on the Amiga years ago)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>>>>
>>>> so no, windows explorer doesn't do this, you have to add something
>>>> else, and deal with multiple apps for file browsing. Ick, no thanks.
>>>
>>> Lol, what happened to crowing about "choice"?
>>
>> What happened to "I've never seen a feature in KDE that made me say "I
>> wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature of KDE that
>> XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in." ?
>>
>> Don't you think that your claim is already now debunked as bullshit?
>
> Fine, there may be a few virtually pointless features of KDE that there
> aren't readily available apps or plug-ins to do the same thing.
Well, they are certainly as "pointless" as, for example, tabbed browsing.
You found that also to be pointless, useless and god knows what else. When
MS "innovated" tabbed browsing, you changed your mind at once
> The thing
> is, if a feature were really that useful, someone would have created
> something for Windows that did the same. That tells me this feature isn't
> just pointless to me, it's pointless to most people.
>
It has nothing to do with that. You claimed that KDE has nothing which you
can't do with XP also. You are wrong, as usual. And now you move the
goalposts around
>> You /may/ be able to add /most/ features of KDE to XP. But not all of
>> them, and they are still clumsy to use then.
>
> I don't find them clusy at all.
>
You don't. You also find XP is a good OS
There are people out there who think you are full of it, on both counts. And
with reason
>> Apart from having to deal with lots of downloads, installing and testing
>> (and naturally uninstalling most of it, since most will be pure garbage)
>
> Sounds like the typical experience of installing and uninstalling and
> testing the thousands of apps in a Linux distro.
Except that, even *if* it were true, there is no clobbered registry to clean
afterwards and cruft all over the harddisks
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Fine, there may be a few virtually pointless features of KDE that there
>> aren't readily available apps or plug-ins to do the same thing.
>
> Well, they are certainly as "pointless" as, for example, tabbed browsing.
> You found that also to be pointless, useless and god knows what else. When
> MS "innovated" tabbed browsing, you changed your mind at once
Hardly. This is a feature that is as useful as a bicycle for fish. There
are any number of very good media manager programs out there, and all of
them provide ripping songs in various formats in addition ot managing your
library. Doing this in your file manager is just inane and gratuitious.
As for tabbed browsing, once again you can't even get simple shit right
Peter. First, Microsoft has had tabs for IE for about 2 years with their
MSN toolbar addin. That blows your "changed your mind at once" argument
out of the water. Second, the only reason i find tabbed browsing
marginally useful is the way MS implemented it. Even then, I still believe
it violates style guidelines, and i've backed off from using it for most
things because of that.
>> The thing
>> is, if a feature were really that useful, someone would have created
>> something for Windows that did the same. That tells me this feature isn't
>> just pointless to me, it's pointless to most people.
>
> It has nothing to do with that. You claimed that KDE has nothing which you
> can't do with XP also. You are wrong, as usual. And now you move the
> goalposts around
Gee, what part of "Fine, there may be a few virtually pointless features of
KDE that there aren't readily available apps or plug-ins to do the same
thing" didn't you understand? I'm not moving the goalpost because I
conceded the point, but like the moron you are, you can't figure that out.
Of course you're perfect, that's why you bungled your point about tabbed
browsing.
>>> You /may/ be able to add /most/ features of KDE to XP. But not all of
>>> them, and they are still clumsy to use then.
>>
>> I don't find them clusy at all.
>
> You don't. You also find XP is a good OS
> There are people out there who think you are full of it, on both counts. And
> with reason
It's certainly no more trouble than finding extensions for Firefox, which
so many people like to glow on about.
>>> Apart from having to deal with lots of downloads, installing and testing
>>> (and naturally uninstalling most of it, since most will be pure garbage)
>>
>> Sounds like the typical experience of installing and uninstalling and
>> testing the thousands of apps in a Linux distro.
>
> Except that, even *if* it were true, there is no clobbered registry to clean
> afterwards and cruft all over the harddisks
I haven't had a corrupted registry since XP SP1, that's like 5 years ago,
nor do I clean my registry either. And, it's not like Linux apps don't
have a similar problem, leaving behind config files and settings after you
uninstall them with your package manager.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:46:26 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:11:04 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of add-ons to do this. I use DirectoryOpus (I used
>>>>> to use this on the Amiga years ago)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>>>>
>>>> so no, windows explorer doesn't do this, you have to add something
>>>> else, and deal with multiple apps for file browsing. Ick, no thanks.
>>>
>>> Lol, what happened to crowing about "choice"?
>>
>> What happened to "I've never seen a feature in KDE that made me say "I
>> wish XP could do that". In fact, I can't think of a feature of KDE that
>> XP can't do, either natively or with an add-in." ?
>>
>> Don't you think that your claim is already now debunked as bullshit?
>
> Fine, there may be a few virtually pointless features of KDE that there
> aren't readily available apps or plug-ins to do the same thing. The thing
> is, if a feature were really that useful, someone would have created
> something for Windows that did the same.
But you're assuming that Windows is _worth_ adding such functionality to, as
your justification for why the functionality is not useful. That's circular
reasoning.
Erik Funkenbusch
People have added nearly every other feature one can think of, including
those available on other systems to Windows. Obviously those people think
it's worth doing so. 800 Million users means it's worth doing anything
that someone would actually find useful. It's not worth doing it if users
won't find it useful.
chrisv
>First, Microsoft has had tabs for IE for about 2 years with their
>MSN toolbar addin. That blows your "changed your mind at once" argument
>out of the water.
Guffaw. What an idiot.
>Second, the only reason i find tabbed browsing
>marginally useful is the way MS implemented it.
What a surprise.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:09:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
< snip Erik garbage >
>>>> Apart from having to deal with lots of downloads, installing and
>>>> testing (and naturally uninstalling most of it, since most will be pure
>>>> garbage)
>>>
>>> Sounds like the typical experience of installing and uninstalling and
>>> testing the thousands of apps in a Linux distro.
>>
>> Except that, even *if* it were true, there is no clobbered registry to
>> clean afterwards and cruft all over the harddisks
>
> I haven't had a corrupted registry since XP SP1, that's like 5 years ago,
> nor do I clean my registry either. And, it's not like Linux apps don't
> have a similar problem, leaving behind config files and settings after you
> uninstall them with your package manager.
Except for the small, very insignificant difference that those config files
are no longer accessed when the apps are uninstalled.
In the registry they are. This pile of stinking horse manure is growing all
the time
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:28:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Apart from the stuff that you can get as a free download or inexpensive
> add-in (such as virtual desktops), here's everything that's wrong:
So it's not built in the way it is with KDE? Why not? Pretty lame.
> Klipper: Office XP and 2003 include a clipboard manager tool.
Oh, good, spend a couple hundred bucks on an Office suite in order to get
clipboard management that works. Funny, KDE has it built in.
> There's also any number of free ones like ClipDiary
Built-in, right? Whoops, nope.
> XP has a user configurable set of "panels" for common tasks, but you
> have to use the new menu (which morons like this seem to always turn off
> right away, then bitch because functionality they want isn't there when
> they deliberately turned it off).
So you have to choose between functionality and a layout or look you don't
want, or a layout and look you do want, but lose the functionality?
Pretty lame. Why can't it just be customizable as it should?
> He complains about the behavior of the control panel, but he's using it
> in HTML mode, which works like HTML links (single click) if he wants
> double clicks, go to classic view.
He's complaining, apparently, that other items require double-clicks and
the like, while control panel doesn't. If the UI uses single-clicks, it
should use single-clicks. Not double in some places, single in others.
Don't know that KDE is perfect in this regard, but Windows is horribly
inconsistent in its UI.
> Screenshots: He claims you can't capture a single window but is wrong,
> Alt-Prtscrn captures the currently selected window
And what captures the desktop in its entirety? Where's the delay button?
The interface for selecting which window to capture? How many formats
does alt-printscreen support saving the capture in?
> Run As: Yes, it does work with control panel apps, you have to use
> shift-right-click
I've noticed this one myself, several times; run-as, even with
shift-right-click not appearing in many places. IIRC, going to the menu
and, say, running Word, you can shift-right and get the RunAs option, but
not if you try the same with running the control panel that way. Why is
running X that way supported, but not running Y?
> Every desktop looking the same, not true at all. Plenty of free and
> cheap tools to customize your desktop any way you like, moving buttons
> around or removing them entirely.
And of course, like KDE, they're bundled.
So, all in all what you're saying is that the functionality we get built
in *may* be possible to find in XP... if you're willing to dick around
hunting for and possibly buying, then installing an endless collection of
additional tools. All to get what we get without any additional effort.
Yup. Very flexible system you're using. All that work to do what we can
accomplish with zero. Must be a massive productivity enhancer.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:33:01 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Pop an audio CD in the drive, fire up konqueror, select the audio cd
>> browser from the services tab. There's your CD, as expected. There also
>> are directories for the ogg files, the mp3 files, Flac, CDA. Any info on
>> the CD, the whole CD as an ogg, flac, mp3, etc. How do I do that with
>> windows explorer? what add ons do I need? I can drag an mp3 off the
>> disc, to my music dir, and it's ripped from the CD as easy as that. What
>> add-on offers that for Windows explorer?
>
> Uhhh.. ok. Apart from the fact that I have no desire to have access to
> CD's in a dozen formats, i have real media mangers to manage my music and
> rip songs to my library. Why would i want to use my file manager to do
> it?
"*File* manager". "Media *files*." You figure it out.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
what happened to your claims about "confusion" ?
It's good you have the choice, fortunately, I have a filebrowser that
allows me to add plugins to it to do these things, maintaining a level
of consistancy *and* flexibility that MS-Windows doesn't seem able to match.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFFI6nd90bcYOAWPYRAtffAJ9BIi01VJWTSZllyAzj0opD6oVx/ACcCVEl
YAErIJee6acx4PVSXpdO6YE=
=l3oF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
-- Fremen Saying
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
According to that reasoning, then, Vista cannot possibly be adding anything
new, because 600 million existing Dimdows users must already have every
feature worth having. N'est çe pas?