Windows is actually quite crap isn't it...

[Bagboy23]

I'm a pragmatic person and I often go with a solution which will tackle the task with efficiency. If this means using Microsoft Word to write up a report because of it's streamline integration with other applications that make project management easier - I'll go with that. I've also assumed the position over the years that Linux isn't the best solution for all problems and other operating systems can maximise where Linux fails. I've also prescribed Windows to people on this forum after realising some Linux shortfalls.

The truth is though, in reality, Windows is quite crap and I'm sure I don't need to explain why.

I don't want to go into functionality shortfalls or comparisons between operating systems, but my main grip with Linux applications is the aesthetic experience. Linux applications are often bland and have a slate design. I'm not sure whether the primary concern for developers is functionality over 'Look and Feel', but other competitive application developers seem to be improving their aesthetic experience over time (mainly Microsoft). Also being a former contract web designer, like most web designers, I have an eye for detail. If an object in the GUI is slightly off, even by a pixel, it can quite easily render thoughts of that application being archaic in design or produce thoughts of the developers being lazy and Linux has an unbelievable amount of inconsistencies in design. I think this is where office products like Microsoft Office 2007 shine. They have great aesthetics and literally make it pleasant to work in. Regardless of what people say, aesthetics is also equally important especially if you intend to use the application for a long time, and since nobody really wants to spend time looking at a bland interface (similar to working in a dungeon cell) these things are important and do hinder productivity.

To finish off, I hope Linux application developers do throw in some design initiatives in their applications. For now Open Office is still quite reminiscent of Office 95, and is no way sleek or refined as Office 2007. I think that's the last thing to focus on and then Linux will look and feel like a superior product.

[EdThaSlayer]

I have to say that GNOME apps look much better than anything that Windows can offer. I still wonder why you want OpenOffice to look like M$ Windows 2007 platinum(or whatever they call it). Linux is different, accept that, and is mostly done by volunteers. You try to code a GUI and see what happens.

[Quillz]

I'm a pragmatic person and I often go with a solution which will tackle the task with efficiency. If this means using Microsoft Word to write up a report because of it's streamline integration with other applications that make project management easier - I'll go with that. I've also assumed the position over the years that Linux isn't the best solution for all problems and other operating systems can maximise where Linux fails. I've also prescribed Windows to people on this forum after realising some Linux shortfalls.

The truth is though, in reality, Windows is quite crap and I'm sure I don't need to explain why.

I don't want to go into functionality shortfalls or comparisons between operating systems, but my main grip with Linux applications is the aesthetic experience. Linux applications are often bland and have a slate design. I'm not sure whether the primary concern for developers is functionality over 'Look and Feel', but other competitive application developers seem to be improving their aesthetic experience over time (mainly Microsoft). Also being a former contract web designer, like most web designers, I have an eye for detail. If an object in the GUI is slightly off, even by a pixel, it can quite easily render thoughts of that application being archaic in design or produce thoughts of the developers being lazy and Linux has an unbelievable amount of inconsistencies in design. I think this is where office products like Microsoft Office 2007 shine. They have great aesthetics and literally make it pleasant to work in. Regardless of what people say, aesthetics is also equally important especially if you intend to use the application for a long time, and since nobody really wants to spend time looking at a bland interface (similar to working in a dungeon cell) these things are important and do hinder productivity.

To finish off, I hope Linux application developers do throw in some design initiatives in their applications. For now Open Office is still quite reminiscent of Office 95, and is no way sleek or refined as Office 2007. I think that's the last thing to focus on and then Linux will look and feel like a superior product.
I didn't read your whole article, but I don't agree that Windows is crap. It's a very good OS in its own right, but I think it's biggest pitfall is the registry. It's just a terrible idea in many different ways. It's strange how it's the only OS I know of that uses such an archaic, terrible idea.

[Bagboy23]

To be honest I didn't really want to go into a debate about why I think Linux might be better, it was a post on aesthetics.

Has anyone heard of Microsoft Max? It's a free application that lets you read RSS, view pictures and other documents. It's just very nicely presented as better looking than any similar Linux application. Which kind of negates the fact about Open Office being free and not having to deal with the prospect ofupgrading its visual experience.

[floke]

As I sit here looking at my perfect Beryl-enhanced desktop, replete with transparency, 3-d cube, wobbly-windows, reams of themes (both beryl and GTK), special effects, tabbing, scale, window thumbnails and so on, which completely s***'s over anything Vista has to offer, I wonder two things.

(1) How could anybody say that Linux doesn't look good?

(2) I'm always puzzled when people say that Windows is a good OS in its own right. I've heard this a few times on thie forum, and find it very stange. In what way? Put the two things side by side - for instance, security, stability, ease-of-use (includes installing, finding your way around the file system etc.), configurability, aesthetics (see above), cost of ownership, freedom etc. (I could really go on here.....), then it's hard to find a single thing that Windows is anything like half-way decent at. This is, of course, comparative to Linux. The only thing Windows has over Linux is the games - but that's nothing to do with Windows, and everything to do with developers.

So, in short, I agree. Windows is complete pants.

[Bagboy23]

^ Please at least bother to read the original post before typing things up. It saves people having to repeat the original premise, i.e. that 'applications' are at question here and not the operating platform.

[Coelocanth]

^ Please at least bother to read the original post before typing things up. It saves people having to repeat the original premise, i.e. that 'applications' are at question here and not the operating platform.

It's hardly fair to chastise people when your thread, ostensibly about the poor aesthetics of Linux apps, is titled "Windows is actually quite crap isn't it..." and it's posted in the Windows Discussion forum.

And for what it's worth, I think Steve is right about the looks of Linux. Sure, Windows may have some apps that appear nicer, but overall I think Linux has a better look (and it's far more customizable). But aesthetics is subjective, so what you may find unappealing about Linux, others may find they like very much.

[floke]

Of course I read the original thread - you were talking about applications not integrating very well in Linux and about the poor impression created by designs being 'even a single pixel out'. You also said - as I repeated in my post - that Windows was a good OS in its own right, which was a point I questioned. You also titled the thread 'Windows is a bit crap...', so I would guess that posts about 'Windows' are entitled to be made.

Anyways - one thing here (Linux) that does need work on, is the integration of apps from different DE's - i.e. Gnome and KDE don't mix very well. I read today that there is a project underway to rectify some of this, and this should help, so hopefully even this minor irritation will soon be gone. It's just a shame that WIndows won't be.

[greymongrey]

I agree, apps in Linux aren't as polish and in some cases aren't as advanced. But they are free apps vs. in some cases (Office, Adobe) very expensive apps. You should expect that difference.

[3rdalbum]

What is better: Having a program that's aesthetically beautiful, yet requires staff to be retrained to use it (Office 2007); or having a program that looks a little unpolished yet works in a comfortable, familiar way (OOo)?

If those two programs have the same essential functionality, then the one that requires less retraining is much much better.

[Maximos]

In general, things look a lot better on my computer now than they did on Windows (including applications)... But what's more important is that I wouldn't really be phased if they didn't. Aesthetically pleasing design is important, yes, but at least for me it ranks much lower on the totem pole than things like functionality, customizability, privacy, security, freedom, stability, and not having to restart every day or so because the operating system cannot manage memory (I had to throw that last one in; perhaps you can tell I'm a little bit bitter). :) Ubuntu (and Linux in general) brings me all of those things. Windows could not deliver. The nice look I've got now is just icing on the cake.

Incidentally, part of the reason that my system "looks better" now is precisely because it can function properly and manage memory. I often couldn't run the more aesthetically pleasing (eye candy) software on Windows because my memory would be gone in a second. For me, this serves to once again emphasize the importance of getting the crucial stuff right, and then building from there.

[Henry Rayker]

I think Office 2007 looks horrendous...To be honest, I like the minimal feel (in fact, that's where I work the best) and I can't stand the fact that a lot of apps on the MS platform tend to have different appearences (some are regular app windows, some use different styles and so on). I like my OS to have one fluid look to it and, as far as I've seen, Linux provides that.

[Trebuchet]

I really like Word 2007's look and feel; it's the first time any word processor ever got more than an "Eh, whatever" reaction from me. I've got a legal copy of the Home & Student version en route at this very moment. It's nice to see some innovation from the publisher of the leading office suite; usually I expect innovation from the small fry trying to make their mark.

[Rodneyck]

I think you have a valid point, although you are generalizing when you speak of Linux in total. I think most here probably use Gnome, what with it being an Ubuntu forum. Gnome is very limited visually, not a whole lot you can do to customize, except switch a complete theme.

KDE seems to be a bit better on this front because you can customize just about everything. Users who like things simple and pretty much handed to them, go running back to Gnome and usually state that KDE has too many options.

Linux is growing and with it comes this need for the bling. The look of Linux graphically has only started to change within the last few years. Before that it was very, what I like to call, Microsoft 95-ish in appearance, square windows, square option boxes, nasty colors, just horrid. With the influx of more people, the need to catch up visually has started, ie enter Beryl/Compiz and a more refined artwork. It is now the norm for distributions to provide screenshots showcasing their sleek design *cough* PCLinuxOS, Sabayon, even the buntus (although still boring to me.)

You will find there are many old schoolers who still care nothing about aesthetics and grasp the old Windows 95 look. I have come across many. This new wave of Beryl-ers are viewed as intrusive to Linux for them. The old adage about people not liking change applies heavily here.

Even though visual styles are subjective, I am glad it is all changing because it only means Linux is growing and can compete with the bigger bullies like OSX and Vista.