Which OS is more User Friendly and Intuitive?
The widely accepted majority opinion about operating systems is that for some unspeakable reason Windows is the pinnacle and a shining beacon of usability. Every single time someone brings up making Linux available for the masses (for example when discussing the Wallmart Linux laptops, or Dell’s Ubuntu line) some munchkin .NET developer and self proclaimed usability expert invariable pops up and starts counting the ways in which the discussed OS is different than windows. Not that I have anything against, .NET developers themselves - most are good people but you can hardly expect people who are professionally tied to windows platform to have an objective and well researched position on Linux. And trust me, it’s always some .NET developer, or someone who works exclusively on Windows and has only a second hand Linux experience. By second hand I of course mean that he reads Linux related threads on Digg and Slashdot but never actually used it himself.
Most of the time this attack is not done on objective analysis, usability experiments or statistical data but on “gut hunches” people have about what is accessible to the general public. And the bad part is that most of us share these hunches, and will at least in part agree with them. One such point that is usually touted around is that GUI is better than CLI. I can throw that one in the open, and most people will nod in agreement and say “yeah, for a novice user a GUI is way better”. How do you know though?
I guess part of the problem is our origins. A lot of Linux people my age and younger came from certain background - they are ex-Windows users who learned to do their first steps on the Microsoft platform. Perhaps they vaguely remember DOS, but most of their formative years they were kicking it MSWIN style. A lot of them probably remember feeling uneasy about CLI when they first started experimenting with Linux.
I can’t say this is my experience. The very first computer I used was a Commodore 64. The first computer I owned was Amiga 600 which had a full blown GUI OS, but also a functional shell that I used to hack various scripts and display ASCII art on bootup. The first “Computer Class” I took at school was done exclusively MS-DOS based. We didn’t even have Windows installed on these systems - and hell, no one was using it anyway. We considered Norton Commander to be a luxury. And you know what? We were getting along just fine. No one really complained it was to hard, or unreasonable - this is what we had to work with at the time, and we were fine with it.
I never feared getting my hands dirty writing scripts or dropping down to DOS when I got my first Windows machine. But even I for a while got trapped in that “GUI is Easier for Normal People” mentality. I forgot where I came from, and followed the wisdom widely accepted by the masses. Then few years ago I read a wonderful, heart warming story written by a guy who taught an introductory Unix/Linux class to adult learners. I wish I could link to it but I don’t have it anymore. At the time I might have bookmarked it, but that was 2 computers and several catastrophic hard drive failures ago. I have been searching for it ever since, but it vanished somewhere in the depths of iterwebs. Thanks to the magic and infinite wisdom of the internet, I have recovered the link! Thanks for finding it Newt!
I think the author made a really, really interesting point that at the time shook me out of the “Newbs must have GUI” trans. Many of his students admitted that they never really used a computer on their own. Others have been trying to “learn computers” many times and they always failed. This class was different than what they tried before - instead of working with the latest Windows platform, he taught them the very basics of command line unix using simple tools like bash, pico and pine.
And the astonishing part was that it worked. Few weeks into the course these people who had no technology background, and were throughly confused by Windows were already proficient bash users. Many were researching new commands by using appropos and reading man pages, and exchanged simple .bashrc tricks. Some of them actually remarked that this is the first computer class that actually made sense to them, and that the command line was much easier to understand than the multiple windows, panels and tabs of a GUI. It was like “talking to the computer” they said - you issue a command, and then it either does something or responds that it did not understood.
The common wisdom that CLI is hard and GUI is easy is obviously a fallacy, or at best a half truth. If you can’t use a computer at all, then a single task oriented, modal, command-response model of a CLI interface might actually be more intuitive to you than the multi-tasking, multi-window confusing interface. Let’s face it - staring at a dialog with 6 tabs, each of which has 2 or 3 buttons that open another dialog with 5-6 tabs can be intimidating for a novice user. This is one of the areas where GUI designers really can’t beat the plain old well documented configuration text file. They either emulate it by creating a web page like config screen where each option is accompanied by a paragraph of text, or do some bizarre, counter intuitive nested abomination with no explanations like the one I mentioned above.
I read that story, and it struck me - all these pretentious, self proclaimed usability experts don’t know shit. If you sit down a former Windows user at a Linux machine, then naturally they will be confused. But if you decide to one day teach your grandmother about computers do you really think it will matter to her what OS she will be using? I can guarantee you that she will be equally confused by both. There is no OS out on the market that requires zero training or getting used to. Unless we develop a full fledged, voice activated AI that will converse with the user (like computers usually do in Scifi movies) there will always be a steep learning curve, and many idiosyncrasies to be dealt with.
Is it really that much easier to edit Windows registry than to edit textual config files? I bet your grandma will do neither. Is it really that much easier installing software on windows than it is on Linux? I mean, hell - if you are using Ubuntu you pretty much have a one-click install mechanic. Choose software from the synaptic list, click install and you are done. But guess what - your grandma probably won’t be installing software anyway.
The OS that is user friendly and intuitive is the one you have learned to use proficiently. If you have learned to use Windows first, then you compare everything to windows. Whenever things are done differently you usually decide it’s hard, or counter intuitive. But really it is not. We are all conditioned by our previous experiences, but someone with no prior bias may experience things very differently.
So next time someone starts yelling that Linux is not ready for the desktop, just consider whether or not his arguments are objective, or is he simply following of these gut feelings we all tend to have about usability without actually testing it in practice.
Related Posts:
January 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm (7721) [Quote]
I have irrational prejudices against the command line… these would most likely go away if I knew how to use it better though.
Stupid lifetime of using Windows… it’s like a scar in my brain that runs straight through the “brain-scars are bad” centre, thus making me not care about the scar.
That said, if I took the plunge and just switched to linux (I keep intending to do so at least partially but never get round to it..) I like to think I’d figure things out. Maybe when the support from the wonderful world of hardware manufacturers and software writers gets close to Windows-like….
That’s the thing I like most about Windows, even when I can see it sucks, it’s got everyone backing it…
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm (7722) [Quote]
I understand that you are primarily talking here about Linux on the desktop. Having run Linux as my sole desktop for over a year and being thoroughly versed in every version of windows there is, I feel very confident in my evaluation when I say that Mac OS is superior to both Linux and Windows desktops from every meaningful metric. As far as CLI, it is basically the same as Linux (a few differences, but they are trivial), and has all of the rich scripting abilities of that environment (and then some). With some compatibility libraries, nearly every Linux App can run under OS X - PLUS all of the programs which are written specifically for the Mac.
The GUI is uniquely scriptable with AppleScript and all of the programs which support this kind of scripting by publishing an API for this purpose. In OS 10.4 Apple introduced Automator, a GUI for easily accessing scripting capabilities.
From a programmer’s perspective, the tools and languages available for natively programming OS X (Objective-C) and its development tools are superior to those available on a Mac - but that is subjective… They also provide clean access to some VERY powerful OS level tools: CoreData for native data structures, CoreAnimation for making very cool visual effects, as well as “Core” libraries to graphics and audio. And if you don’t like Objective-C, you can code to one of the best integrated Java VMs available. Still don’t like it? How about scripting the interface with Ruby or one of the other languages that can interface to their interface builder tool.
From the user’s standpoint the OS is simply more polished and easier to use than any version of Windows. Some of the best features of Vista are clearly OS X rip-offs - but they took a minimum 1GB ram to make it work. What is an OS DOING that needs 1GB RAM???
Last, but not least, for those applications which one absolutely MUST have that ONLY run under windows, run Parallels in Coherence mode and everything just blends together VERY gracefully. I can even drag and drop files from my Mac desktop into a Windows app or explorer window and it works.
Of course, I’m not alone on this evaluation. Your post points out the uninformed opinions of Windows developers regarding Linux. I would encourage you to look into the opinions of any respectable techie or programmer who has given OS X half a shake since OS 10.4 (Tiger). I have found (and many agree) that OS X is indisputably the most powerful, advanced and easy to use OS for both power-users AND novices.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm (7723) [Quote]
I think the primary advantage of a GUI is the way that interaction can be done. For instance, it’s a lot easier to “play with a slider” to adjust gamma than to narrow it down with xgamma on the command line. Of course, in general, I hate the mouse. It’s slow and inefficient and damned annoying at times. I’ve maxed out the speed settings of the one at work on OSX and it is still frustrating. When I want to select a specific point, I slow down to do so, but then it slows down the mouse too so I’m not even inching toward the point I want; I’m pixeling toward it! Then I switch to Vim, hit a couple of keys, and everything is done.
As far as overall which OS is more intuitive/user friendly… it’s honestly hard to say. I think gnome is intuitive, for the most part. The problem comes when you can’t do something you want to (for instance, setting a resolution to 1680×1050). The same is true of windows though. How many people know how to force a resolution that does not show up?
OSX is somewhat friendly, but without QuickSilver, opening an app that isn’t on the dock is just annoying. Plus, try changing the desktop background to a regular flat black… you can’t. You have to select from the colors Apple has chosen rather than just dragging around in a color wheel or something similar. Or you can create an image file of a black pixel and use that….
Usability is mostly not very good for a lot of computer programs (and operating systems in certain cases). The funny thing is, people expect computers to be so intuitive that they don’t have to put in any effort to learning how to use them effectively. Funny that the same people were so willing to put in time to learn how to drive a car, which is far from easy or intuitive.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm (7724) [Quote]
I too first started computing on a Commodore 64 and the ever infamous TRS-80. I learned how to operate the computer by command-line programming. When Windows 3.1 came out, I couldn’t believe I could do by clicking what I did by typing. It wasn’t until they took DOS away that I had problems with Windows. I could tweak it and make it work the way I wanted it because I knew HOW/WHY IT WORKED. I feel the same way about linux now. I just installed my first Linux distro the other day and I have to say that it works extremely well. It took some time to understand some of the new screens, but it is most definitely ready for the general public. BRING ON THE LINUX.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm (7727) [Quote]
Let’s face it, for sheer idiot usability, OSX is the best. It’s intuitive, it’s designed to be self explanatory, and it just WORKS. Everytime I use windows, I run into a pile of incomprehensible and unexplainable errors for the simplest of tasks, or have too bitch my way through a wizard. Let’s have an example:
I wanted too print some pics. Ok, fair enough. Windows has a neat little idiot feature that shows various default configurations you can use for your photos, which is pretty cool and useful.
Hit print, selected printer which was all plugged in and turn on and installed..
Nothing happens.
Do it again, nothing happens.
Computer tells me that it’s finished printing. The printer is idling and bored.
Check control panel, nothing out of the ordinary there. the printer is there, configured and installed, with plenty of ink and such.
Turns out the printer only works on the User who installed in- Even though it appears to be accessible and workable for everyone. So when my mom logged in, suddenly it starts spewing paper everywhere. Like I said, incomprehensible and absurd.
As for linux: Fuck that. I do NOT want too learn ANY code WHATSOEVER. Can’t abide by it. The idea of writing code too do a task which could be done on a GUI with a few clicks is just, Backward.
I tried installing Ubuntu on a Windows x86 machine, didn’t work. Kept installing forever.
Tried installing OpenSuse on the same machine, also didn’t work. Had too repartition everything rah rah rah rah rah after learning some command line.
Will Joe Bloggs want too spend hours trying too wipe a HD too install linux because it gives him an obscure error during installation? I think not. I had too sit down and figure out what the problem actaully was because I don’t know tech-speak.
4 hours later, Opensuse installs itself, then crashes.
Repeat installation process x5 for Ubuntu, OpenSuse distros
The only one that worked was DSL. Which is, ugly. Not exactly a home PC setup there. And incomprehensible. Had some obscure program for moving files around, and copy/paste and drag and drop didn’t exist.
I have Never, ever, ever had a problem or glitch with my OSX that wasn’t solved by turning the modem Off and On again, or that wasn’t caused by third party underdeveloped freeware
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm (7728) [Quote]
You might be interested in a (now defunct) project spearheaded by the (now defunct) Jef Raskin (of Macintosh fame) - Archy http://rchi.raskincenter.org/index.php?title=Home
Although I don’t agree with all of Archy’s aims and premises I do think that it is fundamentally on the right track. Programs such as launchy and quicksilver show that the CLI is not defunct, it just needs to be updated and integrated with the GUI. Launchy is the incredibly powerful tool, especially when integrated with a service such as YubNub.
There is an awful lot further to go with this new generation of CLI, the possibilities are only just beginning to be tapped. - beit the firefox address bar (especially in firefox 3), google, google’s appointment parser (dentist at 3pm wednesday), twitter, yubnub, launchy or even kuake - there is allot of innovative work going on, all we need now is to stop, think, and readdress the WIMP paradigm.
(humanized.com are continuing elements of Jef Raskin’s work, and are comign up with some innovative ideas, but yet to have a really coherant program)
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm (7729) [Quote]
@Kiyu - wow, that is a very good endorsement for OSX. I can’t really speak from experience because I never used it but I do believe that they have put a lot of research and resources into usability. You can’t really go wrong with a unix backbone, wrapped around in a top-notch GUI, no? I have already decided some time ago that my next laptop will be a MacBook. I just keep procrastinating buying one while my old lappy is still ticking.
Please note that, these uninformed opinions I mentioned do not only apply to Linux but also to Mac. Yes, there are people out there who are hating on Apple and applying the same “not like windows” yardstick to measure Apple’s usability.
@Mackenzie - Oh wow! Wow… Sorry to hear about your poor experience with Ubuntu. To tell you the truth, I have never experienced anything even remotely similar to that. In fact my experience was the polar opposite:
Install windows:
1. Wait an hour while the thing installs itself
2. reboot
3. boot into bare-bones windows
4. following devices are not working:
- Ethernet card
- Sound card
- Wifi Card
- Video Card (I’m running 640×486 and 16 bit color)
- modem
- sd card reader
5. now I need to somehow connect this machine to the internet and download drivers.. But how? Neither card is working?
6. Use another computer to download Ethernet driver and install it
7. reboot
8. Download video card driver
9. reboot
10. install sound card driver
11. reboot
12 install wifi card driver
13. reboot
14. install modem driver
15. reboot
16. install Norton/Mcafee/Kaspersky
17. oh… Wait, my machine got infected - I should have installed AV first
18. format C:
19. goto 1
You get the pattern, right? Same machine, install Ubuntu:
1. wait 20-30 minutes as it installs
2. log into machine and everything sans wifi and modem works
3. install ndiswrapper
4. download and extract windows driver
5. setup ndiswrapper
6. modem is winmodem - can’t do anything about that
7. ???
8. profit
I seriously never had “major” issues with Ubuntu installations. But these things happen.
OSX does seem to have the “everything just works” thing covered.
@All - Interesting discussion. I think I have some more comments to what some other people said, but I need to get out of work and head home, so I will respond later.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 6:18 pm (7730) [Quote]
I agree with the author. It is as easy as you want it to be. I too learned MSWIN from DOS without any “Windows” installed. I remember making batch files to create a sudo-menu system. It was all fascinating at the time.
A GUI isn’t easier, it’s just different. You still have to understand what the purpose for that GUI is… if not then it is infinitely more complicated than something you do understand the purpose behind.
BTW: I’m a .Net developer, but I use Linux as my primary desktop (and my favorite desktop). I do .Net for the money. And for the record… all the MS talk about .Net being easier to upgrade and manage is all BULL. I can manage a PHP app about 100x easier than ANY .Net app. Have you tried to upgrade from .Net 1.1 to .Net 2.0? It works, but the question is “Is it easier than upgrading from PHP 4.x to 5.x? If you write you code correctly then your 4.x app will work in 5.x without a single code change (most of the time).
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm (7731) [Quote]
An end user confused by a couple of windows on the screen?! I hope those people can multi-task to keep hands on the steering wheel, a foot on the brake and eyes on the road, all at the same time when the traffic light turns red. Hopefully it does not start raining at the moment, because turning on the wipers would be waaaaaay toooo much.
When do we stop using a half brain dead, 3rd removed cousin on grand-mother’s side as measuring yard stick? If you teach a monkey to click a couple of buttons in GUI, then GUI is 100% better then CLI? There are cases when GUI is better, then there are cases when CLI is better tool for the task. Just use the right tool and end of discussion.
When your so called “user friendly OS” does not perform certain functionality at all? Is it still friendly?
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm (7732) [Quote]
I decided to put in my two cents even though I’m a new user to linux. I’ve been using different distros for the last year or so.I learned a lot. It’s been mostly fun (not all). I’ve jumped to different distros trying to find one to use that done everything I do. I want something pretty PNP. I must say it’s getting lots better and more fun and exciting. At 63 yrs old, it takes quite a bit to get me excited. I really like being free from Windows and I am very glad I took the steps I did.I have two systems that I built myself. Fairly up to date not cutting edge. As a matter of fact right now I am using one system and Taking windows off my “main” system and will end up with three distros on it able to multi boot to which ever one I choose on start up. I’ve had it with windows and the blue screens and the errors. I’ve only had that (error) a couple of times with linux and I probably induced it myself. I won’t keep rambling. I think the quickest and easiest for beginners would be PCLinuxOS. I know they say Ubuntu, but PCLinuxOS is better to start with.
Posted usingEnjoy,
Jess
January 14th, 2008 at 7:33 pm (7733) [Quote]
@ratchet - as I said, nothing wrong with using .NET in itself. I have nothing against the platform, an I did use C# on several projects I did in the past. I’m just poking fun at the few career .NET people that I who consider themselves to be experts on everything (especially linux) despite the fact that they have to ask me, a filthy linux enthusiast fix their Windows XP box after infecting it with 50,000 trojans .
I don’t use .NET to know the pain of 1.1 to 2.0 upgrade but I can imagine the fun it entails just from the way you describe it.
@Josh - you missed my point. I used the example of a “brain dead” (as you say) person to illustrate the point that CLI is not inherently more difficult.
My point is that while most people think that novice users need big shiny buttons, it is not always the case. You can teach them CLI just as easily.
I used the technologically-inept people as an example, because as opposed to us they do not have built in preference. They are a blank slate onto which we can imprint knowledge. They were not taught that GUI is easier, and so they are not afraid of the scary CLI but embrace it.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm (7734) [Quote]
@jess PCLinuxOS is definitely a more user friendly OS that Ubuntu based on the fact that is a lot more stable and won’t break as easily.
But in my opinion Sabayon is probably one of the best OS’s to start a linux User on, as it comes with 10+ gigs of software and every time there is a new release (not sure exactly how often that is), they just need to run the update wizard which will update their entire OS and all of their software from binary packages. They don’t need to manage it in any other way as it already comes with compiz, media codecs, and proprietary drivers (if wanted) installed.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm (7735) [Quote]
Is it really that much easier to edit Windows registry than to edit textual config files?
Yes, because at least the registry is all in one place. No need to play ‘guess where the .conf file is’. <3
I’m slowly moving to linux from windows because I loathe the licensing, but it’s been a bumpy ride so far (especially when X dies). Moving to OSX isn’t on the table for me at the moment because of the licensing and the hardware lockdown.
The biggest problem I find with the CLI interface is that, while more powerful than the gui, it’s difficult to ‘explore’. It gets even worse when the man page or –help was written by someone who can’t write help files.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm (7736) [Quote]
@vacri - I actually find Linux config a bit more intuitive. There is actually just a few places where config files live.
Your personal config files live in your home directory usually in the form of .appname or .appnamerc.
The systemwide config files usually live in /etc/ or /etc/appname/. There might be few apps that put them in different places (like X server for example) but it’s rare and usually well documented.
Windows may have it all in one place, but it doesn’t make things easy to find. Sure it’s easy to get into it, but once you run regedit you are faced with a huge tree with few dozen branches each of which conceals a hierarchy 6 or 7 levels deep. It is really hard to find anything in registry unless you know what you are looking for. The paths to correct registry keys are just about as convoluted as paths to config files.
I agree with your second point though - GUI’s are easy to explore. This is especially true for exploring the file system. However, looking GUI panels is not always helpful. I will give you an example:
regedit.exe
msconfig.exe
Both are GUI applications, and you can explore at will but it won’t help you if you are new to windows and don’t know much about registry, or the way services are launched on startup.
In fact we are slowly moving away from this model and more into the “search” paradigm - instead of browsing through the Start menu we now use Launchy. Instead of browsing the filesystem we search it.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pm (7737) [Quote]
My personal take on OS usability is that it is all about user preference. No OS is truly superior over the other.
I use Vista at work. My gaming rig at home is on XP. I took my fiancee’s old P4 rig (when she got a new PC) and turned it into a game server primarily running a MySQL database with Ubuntu Gutsy. The only OS I haven’t experienced at all is Mac OSX, mainly because it is not a publicly available OS.
To me, all OSes have the same degree of complexity and usability. In all 3, XP seems the easiest as it is the OS I am most familiar with. But having used Vista for almost 6 months, and used Ubuntu Gutsy for almost 2 months, I can say for certain that if one took the time to learn and use an OS (and google a lot), everything becomes easy and intuitive.
I really don’t understand the bashing some can say about other OSes, just because they run them once, don’t know how to do certain stuff, and instantly assume that that OS is poor. I have “gaming” friends who swear that XP is the best OS ever made, “linux-guru” friends who hate all Microsoft products, “haven’t-touched-Vista-before” friends who hate Vista, and “slight-air-of-superiority” friends who run Mac exclusively. And on this note, some of my colleagues also said that “MS Office 2007 sucks!” just because they are comfortable with the old Office 2003 toolbars and didn’t know how to use the new ribbon interface.
I think it’s all just a user problem. Whether you can accomodate and learn to use a new OS, it’s all up to you. My advice to all of my friends is simple: if you’re comfortable with using your computer and getting things to work, just stick with it.
Quoting from X-Men, people just fear that they don’t understand.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 10:56 pm (7738) [Quote]
Muhammad said:
“that” should have been “what”. Sorry about this! We need an edit button here!
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 11:45 pm (7740) [Quote]
TI:
This…
“Then few years ago I read a wonderful, heart warming story written by a guy who taught an introductory Unix/Linux class to adult learners. I wish I could link to it but I don’t have it anymore.”
rang a bell.
Could this be it?:
“http://www.osnews.com/story/6282/The-Command-Line–The-Best-Newbie-Int erface//advertise.php”
Cheers. N.
Posted usingJanuary 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm (7741) [Quote]
@Vacri The “hardware lockdown” to which you refer is one of the strengths of using Apple computers. How hard would it be to write a piece of software that is supposed to interface gracefully (read: stable and predictable) with thousands of pieces of hardware tied directly into the depths of your program? That is the Operating System developer’s task.
Both Windows and OS X have to interface with thousands of peripherals but Apple has to interface with a dramatically more limited number of motherboards, bus controllers, PCI controllers, video cards, etc. - that is, all the really core stuff. The people who work on those drivers for OS X can focus all their attention on many fewer variables and instead put their efforts into making their drivers REALLY stable, reliable and FAST.
So here I’m going to do a little Windows bashing AND a little Linux bashing: the people who develop drivers for hardware on these platforms or the interfaces to which those drivers connect are frequently cursed on one or more of several fronts: bad interfaces (OS side - mainly Windows), poor hardware documentation or not-so-cooperative hardware manufacturers (open-source driver developers), “little-brother syndrome” (every hardware manufacturer who puts any resources into Linux driver development - Windows is their primary market so most time and talent is focused on Windows).
Linux is a superior server platform: ALL of my Internet servers are Linux. It is THE MOST FUN and MOST EDUCATIONAL operating system to play with as a tinkerer - anyone can get as deep into it as they feel comfortable and learn, change or add; Linux is (IMHO) THE BEST OS for embedded or highly customized systems (routers, TiVo & other DVRs, smart appliances, etc.). I’m never going to say that Linux as a Desktop should not exist - that would be like saying people should only play with the command line. The GUI offerings in Linux are varied and innovative. GNOME and KDE both have “traditional” (read: Windows & OS X) feels, but when I saw Enlightenment and Blackbox I thought “hey, there ARE different ways to do this stuff… I don’t like it, but it is good to know some people are thinking in different directions and I’M glad that I’ve been exposed to those thoughts.”
HOWEVER, if you are interested in getting something DONE and you want as little impedance between you and that goal, OS X is the desktop environment for you. I feel that a common path for many power users is this: mainstream (Windows), non-mainstream on the hardware you have available (Linux), and then power-productivity (OS X).
If you don’t believe me, think of the MOST innovative power-user you can think of, people who really shape the technology world or people who just PRODUCE - and ask them (or research them) how they feel about Apple and OS X. Check out the brainiacs at Google or Yahoo, what are they running? Why? You will see that among the “computer elite” (not that I am one of them, just that I’ve observed this) there is an inordinately high preference for Apple. The reasons are many but the “It just works ‘phenomenon’” is a big one, but the accessible power-user features available in OS X far exceed those available even in Linux. (I say “accessible” because if you have forever to tailor your OS to your preferences, yes, Linux could certainly have more) - even without QuickSilver.
For those that read Ian’s post and don’t know, QuickSilver is a keyboard shortcut third-party app for OS X; Ian, I think that your statement is rather elitist-sounding and inaccurate. The Dock has always supported folders which work similarly to the Windows Start menu or the menu systems available in GNOME or KDE; they are better in fact, because you can have several of them, rather than just one. The new Stacks feature just makes these even prettier; but if you must have a keyboard shortcut, Command-Shift-A brings up the applications folder where most, if not all of your applications reside.
I also take issue with your comment that pokes fun at people’s expectations of usability and unwillingness to invest themselves into their computer; first, MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT LIKE YOU AND ME; they are forced to use this thing they fundamentally do not understand to do their job to pay their bills. They just want to do their job. Second, poor usability is a programmer’s failure. The attitude that users should just figure it out or that the user is the problem is what I see reflected in the interfaces and workflows of plenty of software on Windows and surprisingly little of on Mac OS. I think there’s just a philosophical difference there. The bottom line is that the POINT of using a computer is to make a job EASIER, FASTER, MORE EFFICIENT, etc., therefore it is the JOB of a programmer to make software that makes the computer do just that - and “frustration” and “easier” don’t coexist.
On the flip side, I was surprised that I could not, in fact, simply set the background to black. Good point. Of course, that would make all of the window shadows that make it more obvious which window is in front useless. So the designers at Apple made a decision on my behalf that prevented me from readily decreasing usability. THAT is an example of being a good programmer.
-Kiyu
Posted usingJanuary 15th, 2008 at 2:07 am (7743) [Quote]
@Kiyu
I’m not sure how that is either “elitist-sounding” or “inaccurate,” particularly since it is an opinion and I didn’t express superiority (as far as I know). My guess is that you are a heavy OSX user and don’t like people pointing out imperfections in that OS.
To me, that is far more elitist than my statement not to mention inaccurate. You can add more than one menu in Gnome and you can fully customize it. Either way, my point was about a blank system, not one that is customized to the user.
And Alt+F2 brings up the run application dialog box in Gnome, but those aren’t intuitive controls, which is what this whole post was about. It should never be difficult to get to a simple program (like a text editor).
Personally, I use all major operating systems (though limited experience on the latest versions from Apple and Microsoft), and often the systems are in labs that do not have my settings. If the dock has the app, a user can just click it. If it isn’t there, the user has to go into the apps folder (assuming the shortcut exists) and find the particular app among dozens (or hundreds on some systems) of others. Sure, you can use spotlight, but I don’t think that is intuitive (and can be slow when you have to go to a “fresh” system each time). On some of the systems, there isn’t a direct link to the app folder, so users have to go to “finder” and then hopefully notice the applications folder and go from there.
Windows is not better, because the idea of categorization failed at some point (notice the accessories folder and sometimes a gaming folder and yet 99% of shortcuts don’t go in there). That’s speaking from a 3.1 to XP experience (have barely touched Vista). Gnome uses categories. Applications -> Internet -> Firefox; Applications -> Graphics -> GIMP. To me, categorization is much more user friendly than the typical “all in one folder” approach. This isn’t to say that you can’t set up any of these systems differently, as you obviously can, but a system has to be reasonably friendly and intuitive before you are able to customize it.
User friendly is about being easy to access and understand from the layperson’s perspective. Obviously, each person sets up a system how s/he wants (maybe using Launchy, QuickSilver, Gnome-Do, Katapult, etc.) after understanding the basics. You say that being unable to easily customize a desktop BG to black is an example of a good programmer and I totally disagree. Pick another color arbitrarily and try it. Suddenly the “black wouldn’t make the shadows as useful” excuse dies. Give the user a color wheel! This isn’t the only example is OSX. Try taking a screenshot! Let the readers here know what they have to do to get a screenshot saved in OSX and I’ll do the same for Gnome.
Press “Prt Scr” and click save. That’s it! That’s how it should be. Don’t get me wrong; there are plenty of things that are difficult in Gnome that are easier in OSX, but I don’t think OSX is the pinnacle of usability.
I am curious to hear more about what power-user features are available for OSX, though, so please do enlighten me (seriously). I don’t get the chance to play around with OSX as much as Gnome, so I know far less about some of the features available for OSX. I’m not sure that it necessarily takes any large amount of time to get the tools for Linux, but perhaps some time to take full advantage of them, though I think that’s likely true for the tools in OSX too (but as I said I’m curious to learn more about them so that I can make a fair comparison).
Posted usingJanuary 15th, 2008 at 3:12 am (7744) [Quote]
“My point is that while most people think that novice users need big shiny buttons, it is not always the case. You can teach them CLI just as easily.”
It is like saying that when you throw a coin up, is is not always the case that it would land heads up or tails up. Because once in a blue moon it can stuck edge down into the ground. How many consumer electronic devices are out there that are controlled by a terminal with a full keyboard VS big shiny buttons???
Just because you can teach something easily does not mean it is better. Some bad examples of GUI do not translate that CLI is better for novice users. GUI was designed to make it easier and friendlier to interface with a PC. The large number of commands your PC can perform is always ahead of limited GUI options, this makes the case for CLI. But do novice users get to that point right away? Most likely they get there because the provided GUI failed.
Posted usingJanuary 15th, 2008 at 4:34 am (7746) [Quote]
A great example of users of CLI / GUI are professional secretaries. People who use computers an awful lot of the time, know some deep intracacies of their office applications, but have no interest or understanding of the underlaying system or OS.
You can generally tell how old a secretary is (or atleast how long they have been a secretary) based on their opinion of the GUI vs using the keyboard. Many of these people grew up using wordperfect and other dos based systems, and those that did swear by them.
On the other hand, the younger ones who have only used win/office much prefer that.
The other aspect in the GUI/CLI debate is that GUI will sell better becuase it is *shinier*. Allot of users, both normal people and geeks, like shiny things.
I don’t know why - it could be magpie syndrome, the shinier it is the more like HAL/tron it is, the fact that it looks like a newer version, whatever. But the fact is we like to buy into shiny, even if we don’t like using it.
This isn’t an argument against eye candy, I love eye candy, and think its wonderful. Its just that shiny has an advantage commercially.
Posted usingJanuary 15th, 2008 at 4:42 am (7747) [Quote]
I’ve been exclusively a Windows user basically until freshman year in college, when I learned about Linux. I use Linux as my secondary OS now (after a spell as my primary one). For general background, I’m hardly a CLI expert, but I can find my way around. Likewise, some GUI’s make life easier, while others I have to navigate around for ages to get what I want.
Linux GUI’s by and large piss me off because there are many redundant interfaces and only some of which work. After trying a slew of distros, I settled on Centos 5 as I was looking for something that wouldn’t have to be updated every six-nine months (I refuse to upgrade a distro between x.0 releases even if utilities are offered because something always isn’t upgraded properly).
Recently on Centos 5, i was upgrading the fglrx driver to the next release (Red Hat is one of two OS that AMD’s drivers officially support) and ran into a problem where my screen resolution was capped one notch below native res, none of the GUI’s could help me, so I turned to the CLI, but xorg.conf revealed nothing either, while ati’s CLI utility wouldn’t allow me to set native res, so I gave up and decided to revert back to the previous driver. This was a chore as I had to hunt down a slew of files to delete which the install package did not. I successfully reverted to the old driver, but what should have been a five minute upgrade became an hour long fiasco, with the most problem-free distribution I’ve worked with to date. Had I run into this problem 18 months ago I would have reinstalled Centos.
In this case, the command line saved me as I simply couldn’t perform the tasks I needed to from a GUI (there are three ways to set my screen res from within GNOME).
Were this Windows, I certainly would have been going through the GUI and the driver uninstall would have been fairly painless (assuming Windows didn’t revert to driver cache and reinstall the driver I just removed, which can be easily averted) because the GUI for the Graphics Driver in Windows has no duplicate and is relatively robust.
GUI’s are much less flexible because every option has to be displayed and thus reason has to be employed as to what is shown, but they should be able to solve most of the simple problems. CLI’s are extremely useful for tracking down lots of random and obscure problems as well as performing some search tasks (I love grep), but they are overkill for simply changing your resolution because you must know a few things: 1 What executable do I call 2 What are its options? Now, its not hard to figure out 2, but I actually have no idea what I’d call for 1 and would have to do some hunting to find the command (xorg.conf is not the right answer in this case), whereas with a GUI, I can simply pick through the control panel, which has much fewer options. Were I to drop my grandfather in that same situation, he could probably find the option in the control panel for changing the resolution, but for him to find that in the command line would require a much better memory (if he knew what it was called at one point), or some fairly sophisticated searching through *bin/ directories (or google).
I must echo what has been said above, CLI is great for some tasks, but is overly complicated for others. The GUI can take some getting used to, but its scope is much more limited, so I can learn where everything is much faster and for most one step tasks it seems quicker. No matter how long you’ve used a computer, you’ll always learn something new from using the command line as its simply too powerful and too complicated to know all the ins and outs of every command with every option, but I can say with confidence that I’ve found most if not all of the control panel-esque GUIs in Windows XP (and I’m getting there with Vista) because they are relatively finite.
I would like to reinforce the point that we generally go with what works and for me the Linux CLI rarely fails me (in fact its never failed me, but there are times when I simply had no idea what to do, what command to call, so I sort of fail it) while the GUIs fail all too frequently. In Windows the GUIs rarely fail me, so I generally don’t have to turn to the command line to solve anything save a couple tasks where I get more, clearer information from the CLI approach.
Hope you survived this absurdly long response
.
Posted usingJanuary 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am (7751)