Not even remotely. The second you log into the KDE desktop, you feel immediately at home. And then you click the Application Launcher and the "special" really kicks in.
This is hands down, the best desktop menu on the market. It really is that good. And, yes, part of that reason is because KDE feels like the modernized version of the Windows 7 Start Menu, only if it were designed to function with a level of efficiency and user-friendliness the Microsoft designers and developers couldn't touch Figure A.
Even better, if you don't like the default Application Launcher you will , you can always change it out for either an Application Dashboard or a standard Application Menu. For my money, the Application Launcher is the best of the bunch, because it gives you the best of both worlds.
Once upon a time, the biggest issue with KDE was that it had way too many features. The bells and whistles list had become a point of pride for the developers as if to say, "We have more features than any desktop available. This is especially so when the developers themselves couldn't explain a feature well enough that made sense to the users. There was one particular feature which I cannot recall the name of that allowed you to group widgets and windows into categories, like a supped-up version of Workspaces.
But the way KDE deployed and managed the feature was about as confusing as one could make it. Granted, most average users aren't going to hop on board the Activity train. They should. Workspaces has been a feature I've made use of in Linux since the early days, and it makes it incredibly easy to efficiently handle desktop organization. One thing KDE did retain was Widgets.
For those who aren't in the know, these widgets are exactly what they sound like. No, the reason tech people say non-computer people are clueless about computers is because the ones that stick out in our memory are so willfully clueless. They are the ones who would get in any car and find the buttons they need, but change the color of an icon on the computer and they are lost. The blender breaks and they buy what ever one is on sale, but when they need to check their email they "Only know how to use OutLook Express.
What is this 'webmail thing' you are talking about? But the volume icon in KDE is right next to the clock, same as windows normally, and most of these 'clueless' users wouldn't want to find it.
They would rather just complain that 'it doesn't look the way I remember it. I settled the issue with my parents. I told them that unless they could name an application they wanted to use that I could not get them under Linux, then the next time they wanted their computer fixed it was getting Linux installed.
A nice windows-like theme and KDE, sure, I'd go ahead and do that for them, but I was not supporting windows. My mother actually asked me to pirate her a windows CD, just because she didn't want to 'learn a whole new computer'.
I handed her my laptop and asked her what she thought, and she thought it was a "nice windows theme, but that wasn't linux. I've seen linux, that's where you type away in that little text box with no pictures. Next time they ask about it, they get moved from LTS to stable, which frightens them.
I can't wait till they ask again and get moved to bleeding edge nightly builds. I'll admit I fell for it. But in my defense, they showed it to me in the morning and I was really tired that morning for some reason. It's like someone switched out my usual high quality Columbian coffee with Folgers or something that day. I mean; even the editors themselves state that there isn't any conclusion to be drawn here; " we've learned nothing " because there simply are too many factors to consider.
People don't know Windows 7 or people don't know KDE. Or people don't really care at all. So; fun movie, move along. Any OS can look impressive when you find a demo that shows off all the eye candy to its full extent. Vista got good visual reviews too.
The problem is when you start working with it, things change. The same with windows no matter what you do to the UI it is still windows and need to work with it. The Mac actually has a lot less eye candy, yet perception has it as having more.
Totally agree with you - although at the end the ZDnet video they said 'they learnt nothing', that's not quite correct. They learnt that nobody in their presumably not very scientific sample has any idea of what KDE4 looks like I think I learned quite a bit. I learned that when you get people in front of a camera talking about your product, they don't really pay very much attention to what they are seeing. If you look like a representative of the company, most people are going to say kind things.
Which to me, says an awful lot about the Mojave Experiment. It doesn't really matter what people say they think in that setting. It matters what they think when they install the OS on their own computer, and for Vista that hasn't been very good. It also makes me question the effectiveness of usability labs I've sat through in the process of developing software for corporations.
It's a painful process, and now I wonder if it is very accurate at all. It's very misleading, people could have pretended any OS or GUI, including MacOS-X - because the min demonstration saying "look how easy it is" could have been a Vista desktop with a different background image, and people would be alike fooled.
So the laugh was good, but it just shows how misleading suggestive presentations are, and what people truly value: easy to use, and they believe it first when you tell them, and get pissed later when it's not so as told like in case of Vista. This isn't a troll - I installed it with Suse I had to install 3. Since then I haven't bothered to check what state 4 is in now as I felt the KDE team and Suse had, to be polite, been rather dishonest about it. Is it worthwhile looking at it yet or should I just stick to 3.
I've found that 4. Although I found that I could alleviate most of the slow screen painting using desktop effects with KWin's composition manager. However, like all the other broken composition managers out there, you get a nice desktop that can't run 3D applications. Lure them in with spinning cubes and wobbly windows and then break their hearts by te.
I run X-plane all the time under Gnome and compiz-fusion. It's almost as fast as without compiz running indirect rendering does take a hit , and it still gets a very reasonable frame rate. Maybe Kwin's compositor prevents D apps, but in general composite managers should not and do not.
Now I do prefer to turn off the effects when I do run a game. But yes, 3D apps certainly do work u.
I blame the distro. I felt the KDE team and Suse had, to be polite, been rather dishonest about it. By now KDE4. If you don't depend on highly specific KDE3. On the other hand if you absolutely require the same level of ultra smooth-polished user experience that KDE3. Ditto for KDE5. It seems to me that the solution to that would have been to call "4. Which is what everyone screams at Microsoft for doing all the time. So why release it? Release the alpha as an alpha and release what is now 4.
Not being either a developer or a significant user of the project I don't really have a horse in the race, but it sure seems like if a commercial product had done this kind of thing it would have been held up by the community as an example of why FOSS is better.
It shows that the supposed problem, "People just can't understand how to use Linux" is bunk. If they can't even tell it from the latest and greatest Windows, how can it be any more confusing for them than Windows is? Put another way, if the users are going to be confused anyway when upgrading from XP, you might as well upgrade to Linux and get off the treadmill. This is the problems with computers today. The perception of "usability" is not actual "usability.
We all know, at the end of the day, "usability" is how easy it is to accomplish one or more tasks, to a certain degree the ease at which you learn how to do these tasks, and lastly the predictability and reliability of accomplishing your tasks.
So, if something is easy to do, easy to learn, and rewards careful execution with consistent outcome, the thing is easy to use.
Now, where does flashy eye candy come in to that picture? It doesn't. That's why military vehicles are all drab colors. The criteria is utility not beauty. Point in fact, they don't. They have different action menus, options, etc.
Dragging an icon from konqueror or dolphin creates something "different" and behaves differently than something from within dolphin or konqueror. Coming to a system it is difficult to grasp multiple contexts. Even as a regular user, "contexts" are a pain in the ass. Yes, you've said basically that same thing previously and my response is the same, it is a bad idea.
You have to have a plasmoid to display a folder's contents if you want data on your desktop, which is completely in keeping with the concept. The "plasmoid" is a cop-out for a well typed system. Why do you need plasmoids for the desktop but not in dolphin or konqueror?
The desktop, conceptually, represents a physical space as does file cabinets. Just like your real 3D desk, why would a piece of paper be something different on your desk than in a file cabinet? And that is something I dislike as well. Up until Kubuntu 8. Why not? I keep things like my ipod on my desk, a couple USB drives, etc. By making the desktop artificially restricted -- "different" -- from the rest of the system you make it less easy to use. A "file browser" corresponds to a real world entity.
A file cabinet. What does a "plasmoid" represent? What is the perpose of introducing a new concept? What does it answer? How does it make the system more usable?
I've read a lot of the KDE discussions about plasmoids and they are all about an aesthetic preference from a few people, but not one discussion about how they are better or easier for end users. Both Mac and GNU desktops are plenty mature enough to deal with what most normal users would want.
The main thing is now the sheer force of inertia that the Windows platform has in terms of what it runs natively. Oddly enough the same group of people who want more Applications for Linux, are also so dead against Web Applications and Cloud Computing, which in essence gives apps to these platforms. As most applications are based on Text Input some calculations Text or simple graphic output, Web Based apps are a good choice.
And sad thing is Linux doesn't innovate, it just rips off Windows! I started the video, and it stuttered, and started over I had to reload the page to get the KDE4 prank video. Explaining tabs in the browser is harder, the vast majority will still shut down the browser instead of just the tab they were in.
Although KDE4. But I sure like the way they are moving, it's nice to look at and the way they are splitting configurations like through widgets is in my view nice if only because it's optional. But even in this demo we can see one of the issues, while rolling through the windows you notice how a video window is momentarily loosing like what seems sinc.
Linux desktops aren't marketed, they are judged by their users based on useful metrics: configuration options, stability, tools, etc.
In Windows world, 95, XP, and Vista were all marketed to the public primarily by showing static screens illustrating how pretty they were. Windows' classic interface looks bland today, but it was hip in the 90's. XP's fisher price interface was a hackish step further.
Aero is a half-hearted catchup maneuver to Linux and OSX, delivered in a business-minded blandness that only Microsoft thinks is "innovative". Each of those versions were marketed the same, but received differently based on almost everything except their appearance. No one has ever said UAC prompts are pretty, they're too busy being annoyed by them. Which desktop is more visually attractive has little to do with how much can be done with it, and how efficiently. Every effect has a reason for it, and is used to help people grasp rather abstract concepts better.
Say Wobbly windows in Ubuntu Linux which only hinders usage in order to look fancier aka Window stuttering when it gets close to an other window. Mod parent up. Almost all attacks against eye candy are based on a false dicothomy between beauty and functionality.
Wobbly windows are not useful? Well, probably neither is your wallpaper. Or the painting on your house. Or good-looking clothes. And as much as it may sound surprising, woobly windows do not get in my way, I like them and nowadays I feel unconfortable when I have to use another system that does not have them.
Different people, different tastes. Going all "eh, I prefer functionality" is like ignoring a incredibly hot girl because "since she's beautiful, she's probably dumb". It's when the eye candy gets in the way of the functionality that it becomes a problem. To stretch your analogy, you can never go out with your beautiful girlfriend, because she takes all night to put her make-up and clothes on.
My argument against moving the windows to be wobbly is the fact in real life we have more experience with solid objects Then Rubbery ones. Moving a windows should stay as a solid feel. Actually if you want to get a more realistic effect you should probably have the window rotate based on the torque that you place on the window when moving it.
As for the "slurp" it effect is because the window is doing something that in real life we don't experience Objects shrinking without distortion it also forms an arro. Which isn't a problem except that you use "slurp is good because it helps the metaphor" in your defense of it.
You're quoting me? I never said that. It comes included with most Free operating systems. The KDE Frameworks are a set of libraries built on the Qt framework, providing everything from simple utility classes to integrated solutions for common requirements of desktop applications.
For Apple macOS systems, some applications have been made available by their developers. A list of these can be found on the Community Wiki.
0コメント