Are computers getting harder to use?

[Learning Linux 2011]

I've been involved with the computer field since about 1994 or so. Is it just me or do computers seem to be getting harder to use?
It seems like every time they "upgrade" an operating system it seems harder for me to use. I've been trying Windows 8 preview and it seems like the hardest Windows ever to figure out. So I went back to Ubuntu 12.04, but because of the new user interface, I am finding that difficult to use as well. Maybe it is just because I am getting older, I don't know. Do other people feel this way?

[Lucradia]

For MMO gamers (and FPS gamers), Windows 8 is annoying as heck. They removed code in Windows 8 that allowed you to boot to desktop, as well as code to bring back the start menu. Also, they removed the ability to go to classic. Some games will not do certain things correctly without forcing classic on the system.

If anything, Windows is getting harder to develop for.

[codingman]

Somewhat. I can adjust. But if I can't, I don't upgrade, as simple as that.

[Lucradia]

Somewhat. I can adjust. But if I can't, I don't upgrade, as simple as that.

This, I don't plan to upgrade to Windows 8. I plan to buy a new Windows 7 Pro OEM after I get a few upgrades. Microsoft has also rumored that the retail full versions of Windows (from 8 onward) will no longer be sold in stores (in-person and via shipment to your door via sites like Newegg), but DIY / OEM versions will be.

[kelvin spratt]

No they are not people are getting lazy. At 63 I find the latest offerings very refreshing, And able to do things in a much more civilised way.

[codingman]

For MMO gamers (and FPS gamers), Windows 8 is annoying as heck. They removed code in Windows 8 that allowed you to boot to desktop, as well as code to bring back the start menu. Also, they removed the ability to go to classic. Some games will not do certain things correctly without forcing classic on the system.

If anything, Windows is getting harder to develop for.

:o you're not serious, are you?

[Lucradia]

:o you're not serious, are you?

Yes, I am serious. They patched it so you can't boot to desktop anymore, and I've heard people saying that some (see: SOME) methods of getting the start menu back DO work, while most don't. As for the other points, dead serious. If you disable composition and visual styles, Windows 8 still uses the vista/7-esque style for everything. There will no longer be Windows Classic at all.

Even if you did boot to desktop, the explorer window will pop open each time, as that's how boot to desktop works. (Though I believe they patched the explorer method in RP.)

[Learning Linux 2011]

Somewhat. I can adjust. But if I can't, I don't upgrade, as simple as that.

That is part of my point. You won't be able to "not upgrade" pretty soon.

[Learning Linux 2011]

I can back up what Lucradia (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1094376) said. Windows 8 boots up to basically a "full screen start menu". There is no traditional start menu anymore, which takes alot of getting used to, and frankly I can't get used to it.
You can get a desktop, but it is almost hidden now. The start menu is full screen and has things called "tiles" now. So basically you boot the computer and select what program you want to run, or if you want to go to a desktop or not. Very confusing in my opinion. Flies in the face of 17 years of Microsoft Windows.

[Lucradia]

I can back up what Lucradia (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1094376) said. Windows 8 boots up to basically a "full screen start menu". There is no traditional start menu anymore, which takes alot of getting used to, and frankly I can't get used to it.
You can get a desktop, but it is almost hidden now. The start menu is full screen and has things called "tiles" now. So basically you boot the computer and select what program you want to run, or if you want to go to a desktop or not. Very confusing in my opinion. Flies in the face of 17 years of Microsoft Windows.

Before RP, you could get the desktop to display on login, it takes a minute or so, and you get explorer to open as soon as it does =/ Reminds me of the old progman/appman days of 3.1. Basically, Microsoft wants people to be forced into touch-screen usage. I'm not going for that.

[Learning Linux 2011]

No they are not people are getting lazy. At 63 I find the latest offerings very refreshing, And able to do things in a much more civilised way.

Can I ask what your background with computers is?
If at 63 you claim you aren't having trouble, I say good for you.
I don't think I am lazy.

[foxmulder881]

I don't think it's getting harder. It's just changing at a rapid pace which makes it harder to keep up. Probably more for the older folk.

[Learning Linux 2011]

Before RP, you could get the desktop to display on login, it takes a minute or so, and you get explorer to open as soon as it does =/ Reminds me of the old progman/appman days of 3.1. Basically, Microsoft wants people to be forced into touch-screen usage. I'm not going for that.

I am/was using Release Preview and there is a "tile" on the "start? screen" that if you click it you get a desktop without a start button.
If Windows is actually headed in that direction, I am with you. My desktop computer is not and never will be a tablet. I can't believe MS is going in that direction. Microsoft tablet sales are abysmal as it is. I can't see what they are thinking there. I've been using Microsoft Windows since the 1980's an this is just counter-intuitive to me.

[Learning Linux 2011]

I don't think it's getting harder. It's just changing at a rapid pace which makes it harder to keep up. Probably more for the older folk.


Is it just change for the sake of change do you think? If you are one of the "younger folk" do you think it is logical change or just, as I said, change for the sake of change? Like as a younger person do you see changes and think, "Oh yeah, that makes sense, that is better" or do you think, "Man, why did they change that?"

I like change like just about everyone else, but the change doesn't seem logical to me. The change doesn't seem like it is making products better. If there was gradual improvement, I would say heck yeah, but what I am seeing now, in my opinion, isn't change in the right direction, but again maybe I am wrong.

[Linuxratty]

Is it just change for the sake of change do you think?
I like change like just about everyone else, but the change doesn't seem logical to me. The change doesn't seem like it is making products better.

I agree with you...Some of the "improvements" in the Gimp,as an example,have made it far less intuitive...I also resent the use of the word "lazy" to describe people who don't like things being done differently...I see it like driving a car...Suddenly the steering wheel is gone and you get a joystick,brake and gas get stuck on a stick,etc...

[codingman]

yes, i am serious. They patched it so you can't boot to desktop anymore, and i've heard people saying that some (see: Some) methods of getting the start menu back do work, while most don't. As for the other points, dead serious. If you disable composition and visual styles, windows 8 still uses the vista/7-esque style for everything. There will no longer be windows classic at all.

Even if you did boot to desktop, the explorer window will pop open each time, as that's how boot to desktop works. (though i believe they patched the explorer method in rp.)

wow!!!

[codingman]

I agree with you...Some of the "improvements" in the Gimp,as an example,have made it far less intuitive...I also resent the use of the word "lazy" to describe people who don't like things being done differently...I see it like driving a car...Suddenly the steering wheel is gone and you get a joystick,brake and gas get stuck on a stick,etc...

hack...cough... sputter,gasp oh wow, that last line is hilarious, thanks for the laughs...

[The Linuxist]

Computers are just evolving to meet the needs of a changing market. I find with any new operating system, it is a good little exercise to set aside a few hours a week with a list of shortcut keys and features and just practice using it until it is no longer daunting.

Windows 8 is ok, it's just built with the fact that the PC form factor is evolving in mind.

[robtygart]

No they are not people are getting lazy. At 63 I find the latest offerings very refreshing, And able to do things in a much more civilized way.

Who are you calling lazy? I have been using computers for a long time, I know my way around and always fix my own problems,. Microsoft 8 really is making things harder, I don't know how you can't see that, it has nothing to do with not wanting to learn something new, it has to do with ALLOWING things to be user friendly, sure add your touch to it, but let the user have the option to use the product that best suits him.

BS like what microsoft and Unity did (In My Opinion), is a very weird way of thinking, they are working backwards. I am using Ubuntu with Gnome classic also I run Kubuntu, all I need to do I click Applications and I am there, no typing no hunting. That is why I like Linux so much, I can make it how want it to be.

[QIII]

No. Compared to 1976, I can get a lot more done in less time with less effort.

[Mikeb85]

Computers are getting much easier to use, Windows 8 and Ubuntu Unity are huge steps forward. Drop down menus are organized, but searching through them is a waste of time. Clicking around the OS is a waste of time, and annoying. Being able to simply search for what you want, or execute it with a quick command is a much more efficient way of working.

For instance, with Unity and lenses, I can check a stock quote, look up news, open up any file or launch any program in seconds (Metro offers similar functionality, minus the convenient lenses). No wading through menus, and offers much more help and is more intuitive than the command line...

I certainly don't miss the days of Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, endless menus and Windows, having to install a million drivers from disks, etc... I tried KDE 4.8 recently, it just feels so archaic compared to Unity and Metro (although the apprunner feature is nice).

I certainly don't know how anyone could think computers are getting harder to use, yes the paradigm is changing and you might have to learn something, but it's most definitely for the better, and it's definitely easier. And at the rate Unity is evolving, Ubuntu is most definitely going to be leading the way (the new web app integration into Unity, lenses, the HUD, Dash).

[kevinmchapman]

No, they are getting easier to use. Trouble is, everyone has different tolerances to changes (especially with technology). Some adapt continuously (as you need to in a fast-moving field), some learn once and think the learning is done. The latter will always struggle.


I see it like driving a car...Suddenly the steering wheel is gone and you get a joystick,brake and gas get stuck on a stick,etc...

An oft-quoted, but poor analogy. Look at it with less emotion, and you will see, like cars, the new user interfaces do the same job as they have always done. You can still launch applications, switch between them, arrange windows, connect to the internet, watch videos, etc. A better car analogy would be getting a new car. The light switch is somewhere different from your old car, the air-conditioning controls differ, the brake pedal is more sensitive, but all the basics still work. Takes a little adjusting, but it doesn't make you take the train.

[jockyburns]

I watched a video on Youtube, where a computer geek was trying Win8 preview and let his father loose on it. His father had been using WinXP for years, so was quite used to using computers. Within a few minutes the guy was totally lost. His son asked him to shutdown the computer. The old guy didn't have a clue.

[Jay MC]

I watched a video on Youtube, where a computer geek was trying Win8 preview and let his father loose on it. His father had been using WinXP for years, so was quite used to using computers. Within a few minutes the guy was totally lost. His son asked him to shutdown the computer. The old guy didn't have a clue.

Don't 'spose you've got the link, have you? That sounds really interesting.

I think the general trend is that computers are definitely getting easier. When we got our Commodore +4, Dad had to spend a while working it out, then wrote down instructions for us to run a game from cassette.

When we had our first PC, I had to learn how to go into DOS and navigate to a folder using layman-incomprensible text strings, just to run a game.

Compare and contrast to today, when toddlers are picking up tablets and getting stuck in (I even saw a youtube video of an infant trying to move things around on the cover of a glossy magazine).

Starting with newer versions of Windows, I personally found it harder. But that was because I'd got used to a certain way of thinking in my DOS and Windows 3.1 days. The increasing layer of abstraction (Desktop, My Documents, etc.) took some getting used to, but only because I'd programmed myself to think in terms of drives and folders. My first thought was, how do I get to C? Are these things on C? They don't look like it... but they must be?!

Now, I'm sure Desktop and My Documents was easier for newbies to computers in general. It's just that I'd encountered a certain way of doing things at a key stage in my own computing development. The fact that I found NG Windows harder didn't necessarily mean that it wasn't easier.

When we talk about how difficult a computer is to use, I think it's important to distinguish between "actually difficult in real terms" versus "difficult because you're used to something else, which isn't necessarily easier in real terms, but is just what you've grown accustomed to."

Look at newbies to Linux. A common hurdle is the idea of repositories. They're used to downloading stuff off the internet so sometimes struggle with a different way of doing things. But a package manager (pointing at the right repositories) is actually a really easy way to get the programs you need, all from the same place (it's basically a free app store without the lush interface). That initial confusion is more to do with they're used to.

Even with Ubuntu, they might not realise that they have to go to the Software Centre rather than the web for new apps. But once they overcome that hump, they may prefer the simplicity of the Ubuntu approach.

Possibly a frivolous analogy, but think of languages. German is probably easier to learn than English, because it's had less diverse influences. But if you grew up speaking English, it might feel like it's very hard to speak German! That just reflects your personal history - not the relative difficulty of the two languages.

[SeijiSensei]

It sounds like the principal concern here is the replacement of traditional desktop interfaces with ones designed to work well on phones and tablets. I'm not happy about this trend since I use neither of those devices for computing. I'll just stick with KDE which does everything I need from a GUI.

Or is there another deeper issue about usability that I've missed? Are computers easier to use than when DOS first arrived? Yes, of course. Are they easier to use now than they were five years ago? I think that probably depends more on how committed you are to a particular paradigm like the "desktop."

[jockyburns]

Link to the video for Jay MC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU&feature=player_embedded

[Lucradia]

I am/was using Release Preview and there is a "tile" on the "start? screen" that if you click it you get a desktop without a start button.
If Windows is actually headed in that direction, I am with you. My desktop computer is not and never will be a tablet. I can't believe MS is going in that direction. Microsoft tablet sales are abysmal as it is. I can't see what they are thinking there. I've been using Microsoft Windows since the 1980's an this is just counter-intuitive to me.

You didn't read my bit about booting to desktop rather than metro. Sure, you can click on the desktop tile or press Windows Key + D, and get the desktop from metro. But I'd rather boot to it, and force Windows to not open links in the metro version of Internet Explorer. I'd also like the normal version of Windows Live Messenger when the full version of Windows 8 comes out. But that's wishful thinking, as Microsoft hasn't updated WLM 2011 at all since it released. I still get serious issues like history not saving half the time.

[3rdalbum]

I'm disappointed. Computers are getting harder to use, but this thread isn't about it; it seems to be about "Waaaaahhhhhh, they changed things!".

Windows gets more difficult because Microsoft keeps piling on more features and abstractions. Take this as an example: An SD card in a card reader gets treated the same as a flash drive; you need to unmount it. However, put that SD card into a camera and plug the camera in, and it's now something completely different that doesn't need ejecting. Result: You spend ten minutes trying to figure out how to safely unmount the camera, before realising that you don't. Another result: In order to use Windows successfully, a user must know the difference between a USB Mass Storage device and something that can use MTP.

Disaster.

Then there is the constant addition of features such as Libraries. Yeah, it's useful, but Windows 7 "forces" the user to use libraries. Once again it's another level of abstraction and if you don't know that your My Documents is now a collection of folders in different places, you could get pretty confused about exactly where each document is at any given time. Result: The user has to learn about how something works, in order to be able to use their computer. To use an oft-overused car analogy, it's like needing to know how an automatic gearbox works in order to use one - a device to make life simpler has actually made life harder.

Computers were much simpler in the early days of the Macintosh. Not much could go wrong, the few error messages that existed were at least readable, most of the time. To take an example of how things have regressed, I remember the procedure for connecting to a network printer on the classic Mac OS: Plug printer into network, open Chooser, click Appletalk, click on the printer when it appears in the list, done. These days you can't just do it yourself; you have to call the IT department to install a driver on the network server, then install another driver on your client computer, then change the network settings on the printer... why is it so difficult today when it used to be so easy?!

At least Ubuntu makes things easier sometimes. Network printers Just Work like in the Mac days, thank god. But then there's a lot of things in Ubuntu that are still not exactly easy on the whole.

[morgan141]

I'm disappointed. Computers are getting harder to use, but this thread isn't about it; it seems to be about "Waaaaahhhhhh, they changed things!".

Windows gets more difficult because Microsoft keeps piling on more features and abstractions. Take this as an example: An SD card in a card reader gets treated the same as a flash drive; you need to unmount it. However, put that SD card into a camera and plug the camera in, and it's now something completely different that doesn't need ejecting. Result: You spend ten minutes trying to figure out how to safely unmount the camera, before realising that you don't. Another result: In order to use Windows successfully, a user must know the difference between a USB Mass Storage device and something that can use MTP.

Disaster.

Try plugging a usb stick into a computer with windows 98, now that was a disaster :p.


Then there is the constant addition of features such as Libraries. Yeah, it's useful, but Windows 7 "forces" the user to use libraries. Once again it's another level of abstraction and if you don't know that your My Documents is now a collection of folders in different places, you could get pretty confused about exactly where each document is at any given time. Result: The user has to learn about how something works, in order to be able to use their computer. To use an oft-overused car analogy, it's like needing to know how an automatic gearbox works in order to use one - a device to make life simpler has actually made life harder.

Nothing is forcing you to use libraries, or even understanding what they are. My parents use windows 7 exclusively and I'm pretty sure neither of them know or care about the library system.

I don't think it's a particularly useful feature personally, but many operating systems have features you don't use. Ignoring it isn't really an issue.

[Jay MC]

Link to the video for Jay MC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU&feature=player_embedded

Cheers jockyburns. That looks pretty bad. I've watched a few other videos and don't feel optimistic.

I'm not opposed to building a desktop OS based on Metro. In fact I applaud it for being daring. But taking the start button off the old desktop and making it a sort of "app", to be launched from Metro, feels like a big mistake. I might be wrong, but it feels like a compromise to appease old Windows users that makes the whole thing a bit murky.

As the video shows, I think it will actually make Windows 8 more than less bewildering. Users will immediately latch on to that, thinking, "Ah! That's where I'm meant to go" - because it resembles Windows 95 through 7 - but it's a red herring. It seems rather that you're meant to use the Metro interface as your main environment, rather than as a fancy way of launching into an old-style desktop.

The videos I've seen look like two desktops uneasily cohabiting, neither of them able to do everything, rather than one unified product. Charms further complicate matters. What are we using to do task X? Tiles? Explorer? Charms? I feel like they should have the courage of their convictions and do everything with tiles. They've decided to take a gamble, so they should throw the dice hard, rather than flinching from the full implications.

Also, some of the choices are beyond baffling. Power down button in charms -> settings -> power?!

Lastly, it doesn't look like they've done a good job translating touch screen to mouse. Swiping up the screen to reveal something is a flick of the finger on a tablet. I just watched a video where some guy slowly dragged the splash screen (like you would drag an icon) from the very bottom to the very top of his monitor to reveal the login prompt. That will get very old very fast.

Also, horizontal scrollbars for Metro feels like a big fail. Why can't you just move the mouse off the edge of the screen?

Anyway, that's my two-penn'orth...

[Jay MC]

Then there is the constant addition of features such as Libraries. Yeah, it's useful, but Windows 7 "forces" the user to use libraries. Once again it's another level of abstraction and if you don't know that your My Documents is now a collection of folders in different places, you could get pretty confused about exactly where each document is at any given time.

Playing devil's advocate (because I'm a bit cynical about abstraction too)... if the layer of abstraction does its job properly, then will the average user even need to know where each document is?

To use an analogy, I personally need to know what household papers I've got (bills, letters, receipts, etc.) and where the important ones are (living room drawer, kitchen drawer, on top of the microwave).

But say I get a live-in secretary. If she can always tell me what I've got, and fetch it for me when I need it, then does it matter where it is? Wherever I stuff my letters and bills, she's on top of it and keeping track.

Having said which, in practice - because of my formative hard drive experiences - I suspect I'll always be the sort of person who doesn't really trust the secretary, and won't relax unless he knows exactly where everything is himself!

[robtygart]

Computers are getting much easier to use, Windows 8 and Ubuntu Unity are huge steps forward. Drop down menus are organized, but searching through them is a waste of time. Clicking around the OS is a waste of time, and annoying. Being able to simply search for what you want, or execute it with a quick command is a much more efficient way of working.

Much more efficient way for YOU, and yes me, If I can remember what programs I have installed and how to spell the name. Its a waste of time for YOU, because YOU know what programs YOU have.

Don't forget about the two fingered hunt and pick half blind dyslexic typist. Ubuntu and Microsoft is not a programmer computer geek operating systems, they should be easy for everyone to use and access, I should not need to download Xubuntu, Lubuntu or upgrade to Windows XP or know how to install gnome-classic to run a computer the way I need to use it. Accessing programs with Vista and win 7 was very straight forward.

In Unity to get to my programs I need to click about 5 times, Using Unity is like flying the star ship Enterprise, but I guess thats why so many of you like it lol... Kubuntu I click 2-3 times, you can also search like in Unity.

One change to Unity would make a huge difference, and that change would be adding an extra tab for quick access to the applications already filtered, keeping the search box and moving favorites to the second tab. I don't know what to say about Win 8 I have not messed with it and I don't intend to, I have read enough reviews and seen enough screen shots to know I do not like it.

This is not about any of you, its about all of you, if everyone can't just sit down and be able to do basic functions like use Word, email and Internet then I think we have really screwd up, worrying more about flashy bells and whistles, then user accessibility.

[Jay MC]

Much more efficient way for YOU, and yes me, If I can remember what programs I have installed and how to spell the name.

I think you're overestimating the importance of typing programs by name.

Remember that the Software Centre has a nice view to show you what you've already got installed, organised by category (e.g., games, graphics, internet).

It would be better, sure, if that view were integrated more obviously with the OS - rather than being part of an app. But in Unity, it's certainly not the case that you can only run a program if you remember that you installed it and know what it's called.


This is not about any of you, its about all of you, if everyone can't just sit down and be able to do basic functions like use Word, email and Internet then I think we have really screwd up, worrying more about flashy bells and whistles, then user accessibility.

Precisely the reason why I like Unity is because it makes it ultra-easy to load and use apps like Writer and a web browser.

The ones I used 99% of the time are right there on the launcher.

Because I haven't got many others installed, there are few enough of them for me to remember their names. However, if I ever forget, I just use Software Centre to see what apps I have installed.

[Linuxratty]

hack...cough... sputter,gasp oh wow, that last line is hilarious, thanks for the laughs...

Why thank you...I do have my moments,few and far between as they may be.

[PhilGil]

Cheers jockyburns. That looks pretty bad. I've watched a few other videos and don't feel optimistic.
Don't know if you noticed, but the same fellow also tried out Ubuntu with Unity and his experience, while not trouble free, was much better: http://youtu.be/ltE_ekc8kE8

In my opinion, Unity is a more incremental departure from the standard desktop paradigm than either Gnome Shell or Win 8. Maybe the take-away is that some change is good, but changes have to be well though out.

[robtygart]

Remember that the Software Centre has a nice view to show you what you've already got installed, organised by category (e.g., games, graphics, internet).

Your just kidding right???? Are you saying I should check the software center to see what I need to type in? THAT'S MORE WORK....


It would be better, sure, if that view were integrated more obviously with the OS - rather than being part of an app. But in Unity, it's certainly not the case that you can only run a program if you remember that you installed it and know what it's called.

No its not the case, what is the case, is how much extra clicks and clicks=Time it takes to find that program, and in Unity on some programs you can find the same program in more then one place. I should not need to know the name of the program to use it.

Its just too messy.

Put it this way, "If grandma can't figuer it out then its not right!"

Ubuntu should be out of the box user friendly.

[Jay MC]

Your just kidding right???? Are you saying I should check the software center to see what I need to type in? THAT'S MORE WORK....

You must have an incredibly nice job if clicking around the software centre is work :)

Yes, it's more "work", but only for the miniscule number of occasions when you'll want to run a program but a) can't remember what it's called and b) didn't add it to your launcher. I'm not saying that this is a perfect situation (and I'd like to see it improved - e.g., by letting you launch the program from the software centre), but it's hardly fatal.

Doing software centre -> installed -> type it in isn't any more clicks than (for instance) firing up Windows Explorer to find something you installed, never made a shortcut for, and forgot the name of (yes, I've had to do that in Windows - it's especially a bummer when the program is in a directory named after the developers, rather than the app).


"If grandma can't figuer it out then its not right!"

:)

Don't forget - Grandma generally just uses the programs that are already on the launcher, and doesn't install so many apps that she can't remember the name of them.


Ubuntu should be out of the box user friendly.

I wouldn't use it if I didn't think it was.

Although I agree that improvements could be made in this area, I think it affects a minority of user cases, mostly applying to the kind of people who install a load of apps on a regular basis.

Which doesn't really match what Grandma does. She just wants to get at the web and a few other bits, and won't have any problem finding them. It's not like she's going to be trying to remember the name of that retro FPS she installed three weeks ago, along with half a dozen other games.

There are a few (I would argue more pressing) things that Ubuntu could do to make things easier for Grandma. I had to install VLC to make DVDs work. I'm sure something that basic should work "out of the box"...

[robtygart]

You must have an incredibly nice job if clicking around the software centre is work :)

Yes, it's more "work", but only for the miniscule number of occasions when you'll want to run a program but a) can't remember what it's called and b) didn't add it to your launcher. I'm not saying that this is a perfect situation (and I'd like to see it improved - e.g., by letting you launch the program from the software centre), but it's hardly fatal.

Doing software centre -> installed -> type it in isn't any more clicks than (for instance) firing up Windows Explorer to find something you installed, never made a shortcut for, and forgot the name of (yes, I've had to do that in Windows - it's especially a bummer when the program is in a directory named after the developers, rather than the app).



:)

Don't forget - Grandma generally just uses the programs that are already on the launcher, and doesn't install so many apps that she can't remember the name of them.



I wouldn't use it if I didn't think it was.

Although I agree that improvements could be made in this area, I think it affects a minority of user cases, mostly applying to the kind of people who install a load of apps on a regular basis.

Which doesn't really match what Grandma does. She just wants to get at the web and a few other bits, and won't have any problem finding them. It's not like she's going to be trying to remember the name of that retro FPS she installed three weeks ago, along with half a dozen other games.

There are a few (I would argue more pressing) things that Ubuntu could do to make things easier for Grandma. I had to install VLC to make DVDs work. I'm sure something that basic should work "out of the box"...

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


I use a lot of the programs in Ubuntu but not evey day.

No she does not want to get just to what is installed to the computer. I have known some grandmas who play computer games, maybe not a FPS. Why would she be limited to the launcher. If she was able to get to other parts of the computer she would, just because she is old does not mean she does not want or need to use the computer in a more advanced way. There are a number of programs that can help out Old and young alike.

[jockyburns]

We have to remember that not all users are computer savvy. My dad (for instance) is 82 and has a computer running Win XP. The amount of times he rings me up asking how to do, what I consider , simple things, is unbelievable. I ended up installing an app so I could remotely control his computer. Found it much easier than trying to remember how to use Win XP, or trying to explain over the phone. ( I just wish he'd leave the mouse alone whilst I'm connected to his computer:) )
I'm pushing 56 yrs old now and consider myself to understand a bit about computers. I've used every version of Windows since 3.1. Have used Mac OS and started off with a Sinclair ZX81. I'm still learning though, so what chance for people older in years than me?

[Lyfang]

Does this mean GUI design must improve overall? Why would one want to stop new technologies from being introduced? Designers could work hard to make advanced technologies very simple to use. I use Lubuntu 12.04 & find LXDE quite easy to use, just my personal opinion.

[angry_johnnie]

i don't think so. if anything, user interfaces seem to be getting harder to use, or maybe just too different to what we were used to.

i don't like grub 2, plymouth, lightdm, unity, gnome-shell, or even gnome-fallback, but i've been patient enough, and stubborn enough to tinker with the things i don't like so i don't have to put up with them.

i ended up installing 12.04 from a minimal cd and then installed vanilla kde on top of that, with no display manager.

if we get to the point where i don't like kde any more, the way we got the point where i don't like gnome any more, i'll just use something else. there's plenty of choice.

as for windows, i really don't know. i've moved on to a linux only environment. i guess people will stick to windows 7 the way they stuck to windows xp, until microsoft can come up with something that's both pretty, and useful, again.

the bad thing is that, while there are choices, not many users are aware of them, or interested in them, and although it'll always remain an option to either build linux from scratch, or to configure any given distribution to do whatever, most users won't want to do that, and will be stuck, instead, with whatever is default, whether it's easy or not.

[foxmulder881]

Is it just change for the sake of change do you think? If you are one of the "younger folk" do you think it is logical change or just, as I said, change for the sake of change? Like as a younger person do you see changes and think, "Oh yeah, that makes sense, that is better" or do you think, "Man, why did they change that?"

I like change like just about everyone else, but the change doesn't seem logical to me. The change doesn't seem like it is making products better. If there was gradual improvement, I would say heck yeah, but what I am seeing now, in my opinion, isn't change in the right direction, but again maybe I am wrong.

I think in general the changes are for the better, even though I may not roll with all the changes myself. I don't use Unity and I don't use GNOME Shell. I use IceWM+Terminator. And for me, that's how everything is done and how I much prefer it to be. But it's all a matter of opinion and preference really.

[jockyburns]

I do think if changes were introduced gradually, people might , at least , get used to them. As it is at the moment, we seem to be at the mercy of whoever thinks the next innovation in home computing is going to be.
After all, the people who design these systems, have a lot more practice at using them than Joe Public. What they might view as something very intuitive and time saving, may be the exact opposite to other users.

[thatguruguy]

I've been involved with the computer field since about 1994 or so. Is it just me or do computers seem to be getting harder to use?
It seems like every time they "upgrade" an operating system it seems harder for me to use. I've been trying Windows 8 preview and it seems like the hardest Windows ever to figure out. So I went back to Ubuntu 12.04, but because of the new user interface, I am finding that difficult to use as well. Maybe it is just because I am getting older, I don't know. Do other people feel this way?

I got my first computer back in 1980. Back then, you could run just about any program you wanted on your computer. All you had to do was write if first.

No, computers are not getting harder to use.

[robtygart]

Just to add to my last post.
@Jay MC

I went out to luch, on my way back home I made my stops at the sunday yard sales, I seen an older Win98 book "Computers For Seniors" and it looks pretty indepth.

Seniros want to use computers too, not just click on easy access panel bar, if you make it easy enogh for them they will use it.

"If you build it they will come :P"

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I got my first computer back in 1980. Back then, you could run just about any program you wanted on your computer. All you had to do was write if first.

No, computers are not getting harder to use.

:lolflag:

I remember those days. You had to write your own word processing program or copy one that someone else wrote and modify it so that it would compile on your computer.

We didn't need a "General Public" copyright license in order to share programs back in those days. :)

I don't think GPL existed until 5 years later.

[Lyfang]

GUI usability depends on ease of use, how users can perform specific tasks on a number of clicks, I guess. Another thing is that users may already be used to a system. This is why grandpa may prefer to use e.g. Windows XP while GUI designers may have found a more "easy GUI" to use, grandpa may still prefer XP.


I got my first computer back in 1980. Back then, you could run just about any program you wanted on your computer. All you had to do was write if first.

No, computers are not getting harder to use.

thatguruguy, could perhaps be related or similar to reinventing the wheel. I.e. some people back then could have possibly written software almost completely from scratch.


:lolflag:

I remember those days. You had to write your own word processing program or copy one that someone else wrote and modify it so that it would compile on your computer.

We didn't need a "General Public" copyright license in order to share programs back in those days. :)

I don't think GPL existed until 5 years later.

To cooperate in a community should be considered a good thing for society.

[ikt]

Computers are getting harder for me to use because I'm launching into the difficult side of server system admining, but in terms of using the desktop? Not a chance!


So I went back to Ubuntu 12.04, but because of the new user interface, I am finding that difficult to use as well.

Which part of Unity are you having trouble with? To me it's the same thing I've been doing since 1998, click icon to open program, click x to close program.

[kevinmchapman]

I don't know how it can get easier than hitting the Windows key, typing in something vaguely relevant to what you want, and picking the correct option from the list presented.

It is quick, simple and intuitive. Even better, it is consistent. It works for settings, files, directories and applications. It works on Win7/Win8/Unity/Gnome Shell/(probably KDE ALT F2).

For those who get hung up on application names, try typing "browse", "edit", "video", "webcam", "virtua", or whatever. If you cannot remember that much about an application, you clearly do not need it. The search picks up anything relevant and you just pick from the short list. How easy can it get?

For those that think the Windows menu was better. Now, was that useful USB partitioning tool made by GA Corp or Infotech...? You will need to know to find it.

I think too many are carrying years of baggage around. Stop trying to convert everything to traditional ways and it all just works

[lisati]

I wonder how well the people who think computers are getting harder to use would be able to cope with punched cards - there are one or two of us here on the forum who have used them. If you drop the deck, you have to make sure you put it back in the right order, otherwise you're likely to have a problem. And what if the card jams in the card reader?

[IntraSpeaks]

Computers are getting better, newer software. We must adjust to new software.

[Jay MC]

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


I use a lot of the programs in Ubuntu but not evey day.

No she does not want to get just to what is installed to the computer. I have known some grandmas who play computer games, maybe not a FPS. Why would she be limited to the launcher. If she was able to get to other parts of the computer she would

So, I'll be honest - I didn't really have a feel for how easy it was to find apps when you couldn't remember the name, simply because it's not really something I do very often. 99.9% of the time I'm either running one of my key apps from the launcher, or running something I've just installed and which is fresh in my mind (I have few enough apps that I'll usually either uninstall it or add it to the launcher after that - but I appreciate not everyone is the same).

So, I figured I'd try an experiment, and I pretend to have forgotten the names of all my apps.

Obviously, whenever I type something in, I'm offered a selection of files as well as apps. For the sake of this experiment, I'm ignoring files and just looking at the apps that are suggested.

First, I pretend I've forgotten what web browsers I have installed. Not unthinkable because only two are on the launcher, and I have three. Typing "web" or "browser" instantly finds Firefox, Chromium and Netsurf.

Next, I try "player". Five media players are suggested, including Movie Player, Adobe Flash Player, VLC, Rhythmbox and Banshee. "Video" and "DVD" both find VLC. mp3 is more disappointing - it only find files without a player - but "music" brings back Spotify and Rhythmbox.

"Internet" offers me Firefox, Chromium, or Empathy Instant Messaging.

"Chat" or "messag..." offers me Empathy Instant Messaging, plus something called "messaging and VOIP accounts".

"Write" offers LibreOffice Writer and Text Editor. Sadly, "word" doesn't do the same (I imagine many Windows users will look for Word!).

"Document" or "documents" both find LibreOffice Writer and Document Viewer (and a load of documents, natch).

Then say I want to play XMoto, but can't remember what it's called. Sadly, "bike" and "motorcross" let me down.

Last of all, I try "game". Unity suggests Freedoom, Gbrainy (like Brain Training), and two different types of Solitaire - but not XMoto.

So, I think this is promising. Unity is suggesting relevant programs that are based on category rather than name - but it could be improved a bit to save people the effort of going into the Software Centre to check what they have installed when a) they can't remember what it's called, b) it isn't on the launcher and c) trying to call the app with a generic term hasn't worked (which I still think is an edge case). For instance, "music" should also suggest Banshee, and "game" should suggest "XMoto".

I think everything that gets added to the Software Centre should be thoroughly tagged to facilitate this. If typing "game" worked as well as typing "browser", then this would be a good way of running apps that aren't on the launcher. Ubuntu seem to be quite committed to this approach (hence the experimental HUD feature) so I can only imagine it'll improve.

In either case, I think you should still be able to launch installed apps directly from the Software Centre (instead of just checking the name there). That would make the Software Centre function as a replacement for the Gnome Menu and an app store in one. It's good that you can find lesser-used apps using the keyboard, but there should be a good efficient way to do it with the mouse as well.

Also worth noting - very semi-relatedly - that usability for new users consists of two different things.

- Intuitiveness of the interface
- Selection of default apps and how well they work "out of the box"

I definitely agree that Ubuntu has some improvements to make in the second category, but think it's doing exceptionally well in the first theme - which is what we seem to be talking about here.

Obviously, the first theme is very subjective. I didn't like Gnome much, but I prefer Unity to Windows 7.

[Petro Dawg]

I don't think they are getting harder to use, does anyone remember booting from floppy disks to start your computer? I think we just expect our computers to do more and more. In the 90's we expected our computers to run an office suite and maybe browse the web, and that's about it. Today, we watch and record streaming video, play MMORGs, live chat, edit photos & music files, and expect the computer to do it all with just the click of a mouse (which is blue tooth wireless btw). And we expect it all to run perfectly with any POS hardware we buy at wal-mart. And we expect it to be able to run all this stuff simultaneously. I think we've come a long way to make things easier as programs no longer come with 300 page manuals. Desktop environments change and the only way to get used to them is to use them for awhile. I think the only thing getting harder is customization, which is expected as the computer has to do more and more without conflicts. If you are wiling to change how you use your computer, getting used to it isn't that hard.

[kevinmchapman]

^ A (possibly) useful tip. I believe the search facility looks at the .desktop items for applications in ~/.local/share/applications (first) and (then) /usr/share/applications. You can insert your own custom keywords by copying an item from /usr/share/applications to ~/.local/share/applications and then amending the description or title. Do the changes in the .local versions because the /usr/share versions get overwritten every time the application gets an update. Undo the change by deleting the .local version.

I have no idea how such changes could be made in Windows, but the search seems to work better there, anyway.

[prettysum]

I don't think so. It's just hard to keep up with the system but once we get to know how it works, you'd definitely notice how it's much easier computers now.
:)

[Welly Wu]

I purchased my System76 Lemur Ultra (lemu4) on June 26th, 2012. It shipped with Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit Long Term Service. I find that this is the easiest computer that I have ever owned or used. The Unity 3D desktop environment is very easy and simple to use for me. I just finished downloading and installing all of my software applications including Microsoft Windows 7 64 bit Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1 and Microsoft Office 2010 32 bit Professional Plus Service Pack 1. It was very simple and easy to do.

I think that you are referring to the fact that most of us find new changes to be difficult to learn and master. There are a lot of people that decided that they did not like the Unity desktop environment. Several years ago, there were a lot of people that did not like Microsoft Windows Vista because it represented a big change from Windows XP.

Microsoft Windows 8 especially Pro 64 bit version will get a lot of people riled up when it is released on October 26th, 2012.

I look forward to changes in my life. Change, for the most part, is good and positive. I look forward to Ubuntu 12.10 64 bit especially regarding Linux kernel 3.5, desktop web apps, security features, secure boot and UEFI, etc. I also look forward to Microsoft Windows 8 64 bit Pro with the new Metro user interface and Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 10 along with UEFI and secure boot plus the 4 digit PIN and picture password features.

Then again, I am a technologist at heart so I love this stuff. This is a major source of fun and pleasure in my life and I welcome new features and enhanced capabilities.

I think that computers are getting easier to use and they are certainly getting cheaper to buy and own. They are also getting to be much faster and they have better energy efficiency especially longer battery life.

[jockyburns]

It's not computers that are getting harder to use, it's the software. Remember a lot of people are very resistant to change. Even with something we take for granted these days,, the Motor Car. Until Cadillac produced the type 53 in 1916 and created the standard pedal layout we know in modern cars. different manufacturers had completely differing pedal layouts. I wonder back then what motorists thought of the pedal layout in the Cadillac ?

[KiwiNZ]

It's not computers that are getting harder to use, it's the software. Remember a lot of people are very resistant to change. Even with something we take for granted these days,, the Motor Car. Until Cadillac produced the type 53 in 1916 and created the standard pedal layout we know in modern cars. different manufacturers had completely differing pedal layouts. I wonder back then what motorists thought of the pedal layout in the Cadillac ?

A computer is the software, the hardware is a device not a computer, so your answer is computers are harder to use.

[Jay MC]

A computer is the software, the hardware is a device not a computer, so your answer is computers are harder to use.

Well, I would say that the computer is the hardware, but the software is your interface to "use" the hardware. So I do agree that harder software = harder computer.

I'm not sure that software is getting harder though. It seems that people are able to use computers (including tablets and smartphones) younger and younger nowadays.

I feel that this is something you could approach scientifically.

You could get a bunch of six year olds (or eighty year olds) trying to use a Commodore 64, an Amiga, PCs with various versions of Windows (past and present), various Linux desktops, various Mac OSes, Android, iOS, etc., etc..

I think the graph would have wobbles, but sincerely believe it would go up over time. I think it's self-evident that an iPad is easier to use than a laptop from the year 2002, for instance. And I know for a fact that the laptop would be easier to use than Amiga Workbench, which is easier to use than a Commodore 64.

[KiwiNZ]

Well, I would say that the computer is the hardware, but the software is your interface to "use" the hardware. So I do agree that harder software = harder computer.

I'm not sure that software is getting harder though. It seems that people are able to use computers (including tablets and smartphones) younger and younger nowadays.

I feel that this is something you could approach scientifically.

You could get a bunch of six year olds (or eighty year olds) trying to use a Commodore 64, an Amiga, PCs with various versions of Windows (past and present), various Linux desktops, various Mac OSes, Android, iOS, etc., etc..

I think the graph would have wobbles, but sincerely believe it would go up over time. I think it's self-evident that an iPad is easier to use than a laptop from the year 2002, for instance. And I know for a fact that the laptop would be easier to use than Amiga Workbench, which is easier to use than a Commodore 64.

The OS and Software do the computations, take them out and you are left with IC's etc that do nothing.

[jockyburns]

The OS and Software do the computations, take them out and you are left with IC's etc that do nothing.

So you'd agree then , that it is the software that's getting harder to use? (what's the OS if it isn't software?)
At the end of the day, a computer is just a machine. It does all it's computations in a slave like fashion. Without software it's essentially useless.

[KiwiNZ]

So you'd agree then , that it is the software that's getting harder to use? (what's the OS if it isn't software?)
At the end of the day, a computer is just a machine. It does all it's computations in a slave like fashion. Without software it's essentially useless.

Some software can become problematic even unusable, but harder to use, that is very subjective and dependent on many factors.

As for Computer devices getting harder to use.......No.

[Jimmyfj]

Some how, some where even Canonical found out that Unity was to huge a step to make in one move. Otherwise there will be no meaning in bringing "the old ways" back into Unity, where you can find some of the good stuff in just one drop-down-menu. A nice feature if you ask me.

Their choice of making a GNObuntu available does seem to reflect the users opinions and needs in a strong way. But where Canonical is far more reactive toward user feedback MS is the same old battle tank with to loud an engine and no wheels to turn - Win8 will be the downfall of MS as we know/knew it - Very much thanks to the old chair-throwing dope-hippie Steve Ballmer (mentioned as the worst CEO in the history of man kind).:guitar:

[cariboo]

Some how, some where even Canonical found out that Unity was to huge a step to make in one move. Otherwise there will be no meaning in bringing "the old ways" back into Unity, where you can find some of the good stuff in just one drop-down-menu. A nice feature if you ask me.

Their choice of making a GNObuntu available does seem to reflect the users opinions and needs in a strong way. But where Canonical is far more reactive toward user feedback MS is the same old battle tank with to loud an engine and no wheels to turn - Win8 will be the downfall of MS as we know/knew it - Very much thanks to the old chair-throwing dope-hippie Steve Ballmer (mentioned as the worst CEO in the history of man kind).:guitar:

I think you are a bit confused, Canonical, isn't creating a Gnome only version, one of the developers asked if he could create a derivative, just like Xubuntu, Lubuntu and Kubuntu, and got approval, but he is working on it in his own free time, and he isn't being paid to do it.

[deadflowr]

I think you are a bit confused, Canonical, isn't creating a Gnome only version, one of the developers asked if he could create a derivative, just like Xubuntu, Lubuntu and Kubuntu, and got approval, but he is working on it in his own free time, and he isn't being paid to do it.

Wow, that is very interesting. Hopefully, the community will give it our all and help him along the way.

And for the Original Post, No, computers aren't getting harder to use. The end user experience is easier now than ever. It's just that the hardware, and programming languages are getting more and more complex.

[hughh]

Yes, they're getting harder and harder to use, but not because "upgrades" are harder. Because there's so much friggin' security associated with everything I try to do online. Every little thing requires me to verify my identity somehow.

I use PasswordSafe—BTW, a wonderful and simple tool available on many platforms, including Android—to keep passwords and such. I keep five different databases: one for my personal use, one for professional use, one for my parents (for whom I have Power of Attorney/Estate Executor responsibilites), one for my wife (who has trouble remembering her passwords) and one that's particular to one of my clients. In the first two alone, I keep 1,015 different entries, a number of them continually changing. Sure, some are outdated and I don't use them anymore, but a very large number I do use.

FYI I've been working in the software development field since long before 1994 (and I'm sure part of my difficulties are because change continues at an accelerating rate, as do both my mental deterioration and my unwillingness to tolerate crap).

[jockyburns]

hughh, I don't think the original question was asked in relation to anything online. I'm sure we all know how security conscious websites are becoming (been discussed in several threads now about passwords etc)
I would disagree that sites are becoming harder to use, because of the security (it's there for a bloody good reason)Rather they are becoming awkward. I was on one site I regularly use tonight and after entering my login details, was asked to update my details for better security (so took me a few more minutes to navigate to the page I wanted)
A few online shopping sites I go on will actually phone my mobile number and ask some pre-determined security questions, before finishing an online transaction. I personally don't mind this extra hassle and don't feel it's making computers more difficult to use (just a bit more time consuming, (which is different)
I tend to think that OS's are becoming harder to use though, but there are many great online video's/sites which show you how to use these OS's

[jedispork]

I didn't like unity or windows 8 although I think I would prefer unity. Something about windows 8 gave me a headache and felt weird when going from metro to desktop. I would hope ubuntu tablets do well but I doubt there will be a lot of interest in them. They gave up a lot of users out of a already small user base because of unity so they could move into tablets.

They are trying to fix whats not broken so they have something to sell. I wonder what they will try next? Some things don't need to change.

[hughh]

hughh, I don't think the original question was asked in relation to anything online.You're right; I was taking the opportunity to vent. I probably should have created a new thread...
I'm sure we all know how security conscious websites are becoming (been discussed in several threads now about passwords etc)... like one of these.

I would disagree that sites are becoming harder to use, because of the security (it's there for a bloody good reason)Rather they are becoming awkward. I was on one site I regularly use tonight and after entering my login details, was asked to update my details for better security (so took me a few more minutes to navigate to the page I wanted)
A few online shopping sites I go on will actually phone my mobile number and ask some pre-determined security questions, before finishing an online transaction. I personally don't mind this extra hassle and don't feel it's making computers more difficult to use (just a bit more time consuming, (which is different)
I tend to think that OS's are becoming harder to use though, but there are many great online video's/sites which show you how to use these OS's
I understand. Believe me, I don't blame the online sites. I blame the *(&#)^@+%!?{ spammers and black hat hackers. <exaggeration for effect>I am generally opposed to capital punishment, but I would make an exception for these kinds of jerks.</exaggeration for effect>

[Grenage]

I suspect that people who find modern OS' harder to use, are either stuck in their ways, or have a very short memory; I really do! The same goes for hardware.

[sffvba[e0rt]

Are computers getting harder to use? No, we are only getting older.


404

[vexorian]

What is happening is very simple and ominous at the same time.

Unity, Gnome3, Windows 8 are all reactions to the same disaster. The disaster is the "death" of the PC. There is a sizable tendency of users moving to Tablers. Tablets are easier to use for the simple things and much harder to use for the rest. But it seems most users don't care. So we have the PC world desperately to recapture these users. And failing spectacularly.

Computers are not getting harder to use. They are getting harder to use for useful things. You can easily maybe read your email and maybe watch a video. And that's the benefit, as the majority of users that were completely unable to do anything at all with computers can now at least use them for that. As for the rest of us, who were perfectly capable before, good luck trying anything else.

[Nixarter]

It's all about control, really. They say "just let us take care of the hard stuff" which translates to "we want you to be dependent on us, so we gain market share." The dumber the users, and more ridiculous the interface, the more loyal they are. (Differentiation) Power users dislike it (obviously) and the companies rely on "fanboyism" to try to guilt or shame people into compliance. It is just another iteration of a tried-and-true strategy for controlling people. They also try to attach marketing/propaganda terms to them- for example, Apple loves the word "intuitive." Read up on Harmonizing (with regard to the PRC), censorship in general, etc. How can the giant software companies kill the threat of openness? Make it taboo.

The rediculousness of this "simplicity" can be summed up in this video spoof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA).

[kevinmchapman]

"Tablets are easier to use for the simple things and much harder to use for the rest" and "Computers are not getting harder to use. They are getting harder to use for useful things". Interesting. No idea what you mean, though. Care to back this up with some relevant everyday examples?

[Gremlinzzz]

Think there easier,:popcorn:

[IncurableHam]

Unity, Gnome3, Windows 8 are all reactions to the same disaster. The disaster is the "death" of the PC. There is a sizable tendency of users moving to Tablers. Tablets are easier to use for the simple things and much harder to use for the rest. But it seems most users don't care. So we have the PC world desperately to recapture these users. And failing spectacularly.


I see a lot of people lumping Unity in the same category as Windows 8. I'm relatively new to Ubuntu, so I was just wondering what is so different and "Windows 8ish" about Unity now than the older Unitys or Gnomes?

[kevinmchapman]

I see a lot of people lumping Unity in the same category as Windows 8. I'm relatively new to Ubuntu, so I was just wondering what is so different and "Windows 8ish" about Unity now than the older Unitys or Gnomes?

Well, I am somewhat old and cynical, but it seems that both lack a taskbar, and are therefore difficult to use for real work :) Or maybe that is just my interpretation :D

[vexorian]

I see a lot of people lumping Unity in the same category as Windows 8. I'm relatively new to Ubuntu, so I was just wondering what is so different and "Windows 8ish" about Unity now than the older Unitys or Gnomes?
You spend far more time trying to find windows and seeing pretty animations than actually doing things.

I'd group the Gnome 3s, the KDE4s, the Unitys and the win8s with the same tag "Attempted to fix problems that didn't exist by breaking stuff that worked".

[Linuxratty]

Well, I am somewhat old and cynical, but it seems that both lack a taskbar, and are therefore difficult to use for real work :) Or maybe that is just my interpretation :D

Mine too,so you are not alone.

[Nixarter]

You spend far more time trying to find windows and seeing pretty animations than actually doing things.

I'd group the Gnome 3s, the KDE4s, the Unitys and the win8s with the same tag "Attempted to fix problems that didn't exist by breaking stuff that worked".

I approve!

kthxbye

[zombifier25]

You spend far more time trying to find windows and seeing pretty animations than actually doing things.

I do real stuffs on Unity.

(then again, I can also do real stuffs on twm, so dismiss this post)

[kevinmchapman]

Mine too,so you are not alone.

Let me state my opinion again, but with more clarity:

Well, I am somewhat old and cynical, but it seems that both lack a taskbar, and are therefore difficult to use for real work

Vexorian, any progress on finding some examples of how some tasks are getting harder?

[vexorian]

I do real stuffs on Unity. I said you spend more time watching silly animations and making more clicks than doing real things. You can do real things, but you will take far more time.




Vexorian, any progress on finding some examples of how some tasks are getting harder?


2 days before your question, I already made a question that went unanswered in a thread that was supposedly full of unity fans.



But I have to ask, to the people using Unity successful, how do you manage to do anything with it? I mean, can you describe a heavy work day in which you have to use multiple software, folders and devices at the same time and keep switching from them. Can you describe how does it work? What tweaks and customizations do you use?
No one answered.



Unity does not lack a taskbar. It just made a taskbar in a way that buttons wander around and get mixed with launchers. Windows from the same app get mixed in the same icon and at the end it is all a mess.



So, here is my story. The very day after I installed 12.04 I learned I had to finish a surprise programming project in less than two days. So I was forced to use unity for a while. I don't want details but it involves keeping a jEdit window, a terminal. Inkscape to make graphics while I also browse the web. Sometimes to read email and tweets, and forums like this and also to google searches related to the work I was doing.

This level of heavy multi-tasking, made me get used to multiple workspaces. In fact, workspaces is the feature that made me love ubuntu in the first place. I usually put FF in one workspace. I have like 4 or 5 windows with tens of tabs each. The tabs in each window are grouped. So right now I have a single tab full of ubuntu forums stuff and another tab that just has my usual stuff.

There's the first issue. In the past, switching to a FF window took one click. With unity, I first have to find the FF icon, which could have spawned anywhere in the launcher, then I need multiple clicks and reflection before I add the window I want. Unity's taskbar had to copy the worst windows XP feature and now groups icons in its taskbar. These extra clicks are not a big deal the first 10 minutes. But then it can get into quite a turn off.

So, maybe I should start spawning all tabs in the same window. it was awful and I ended using less tabs than before.

And I am talking about something as simple as web browsing. Already feeling all the impairment.

So workspace 2 I used for programming stuff and workspace 3 for inkscape and/or gimp and 4 for any other extra app I had to use. It works great in fallback, it worked EXCELLENTLY in gnome 2.

In unity, however, that whole desktop switching becomes much worse. The desktop switch icon does not even draw your windows on it. It is always the same 2x2 thing. If you click the icon, feel ready for 10 seconds of COOL ANIMATIONS. These cool animations are great to show off when other people are looking at you use your computer. But they get old fast and start to become [the 10 seconds you waste every time you want to switch workspace]. Worse, as you use more and more resources. (And compiz kind of has an expiration date), the animation starts getting worse and worse FPS, which is unsettling and makes you nervous and note how the whole thing is eating your system resources. The animations are not the end of it. You now have to travel all the way through the whole screen until you find the correct workspace... and, click twice. In the past, a desktop switch involved just moving the mouse to the switcher and clicking.

Surely I could just use a single desktop for everything. But then I would get lost at all the icons in the launcher. Effectiveness comes from organizaton, so I don't see why unity constantly gets in the way.

So, in fact, the most basic tasks take more time to be finished and need far more clicks and mouse movement. What do I earn in exchange? A taskbar that puts to the spotlight the fact that our application icons are not pretty. (Really, the reason OS/X's dock works so well is that their icons are all beautiful and visually consistent, so putting their icons in a spotlight makes the thing look impressive). I also trade horizontal space for vertical space. Which would be great... if I had a wide screen, but I do not. (Since so many people do not have a wide screen, it would be so nice if the Linux distribution whose installer brags about being customizable, at least allowed its default launcher to be placed horizontally without unofficial plugins). I also get OS decorations and animation that feels slower as time moves on.

The purpose of a desktop environment should be to allow you to run stuff and make switching between apps and desktops easy and fast. Because when you are doing real work, you'd like not to use time in such a menial thing. Instead, unity works like a kid that keeps insisting you buy him ice cream while you are supposed to be working on the computer. I don't want to play "Where's waldo" with my windows. I don't want to watch a dramatic enacment of my desktop's windows moving around as they are being switched. I don't want to use vital system resources on drawing the fuzzy transparency of the interface's main menu.

But this is just my opinion and my experience. At the end I switched to gnome fallback, and suddenly I felt like I was flying.

I like that I had to write this post. It helped me verbalize and assimilate my feelings towards unity and they also apply to GNOME-sheel. They are both DEs that insist of reminding you that they are there. They are like clippy the office assistant in that way. A good DE you shouldn't even notice it when you are working.

[JDShu]

I said you spend more time watching silly animations and making more clicks than doing real things. You can do real things, but you will take far more time.


So you know exactly how long it takes somebody else to do a task on his own computer? Have you ever consider that perhaps some people find Unity to be more usable than gnome 2?


A good DE you shouldn't even notice it when you are working.

And that is why I use Gnome Shell, because unlike gnome 2, I don't notice it when I'm working.

[jonesyp]

Hi,

When I started in IT I was using DOS 6.22 on an old Amstrad PC, before that I have the 8 Bit machines.

I do think things like development have become much more complicated especially in the Microsoft World. Gone are the days when you could type in a listing from a magazine. I have tried learning ASP.NET but it really is dreadful!

As for Windows 8! Don't get me started...

Linux is not perfect though. Take Fedora Linux for instance, I understand their wish to be completely open source, but the fact you can not even play and MP3 file must turn people off really quickly!

Peter Jones

[Mikeb85]

I said you spend more time watching silly animations and making more clicks than doing real things. You can do real things, but you will take far more time.




2 days before your question, I already made a question that went unanswered in a thread that was supposedly full of unity fans.



No one answered.



Unity does not lack a taskbar. It just made a taskbar in a way that buttons wander around and get mixed with launchers. Windows from the same app get mixed in the same icon and at the end it is all a mess.



So, here is my story. The very day after I installed 12.04 I learned I had to finish a surprise programming project in less than two days. So I was forced to use unity for a while. I don't want details but it involves keeping a jEdit window, a terminal. Inkscape to make graphics while I also browse the web. Sometimes to read email and tweets, and forums like this and also to google searches related to the work I was doing.

This level of heavy multi-tasking, made me get used to multiple workspaces. In fact, workspaces is the feature that made me love ubuntu in the first place. I usually put FF in one workspace. I have like 4 or 5 windows with tens of tabs each. The tabs in each window are grouped. So right now I have a single tab full of ubuntu forums stuff and another tab that just has my usual stuff.

There's the first issue. In the past, switching to a FF window took one click. With unity, I first have to find the FF icon, which could have spawned anywhere in the launcher, then I need multiple clicks and reflection before I add the window I want. Unity's taskbar had to copy the worst windows XP feature and now groups icons in its taskbar. These extra clicks are not a big deal the first 10 minutes. But then it can get into quite a turn off.

So, maybe I should start spawning all tabs in the same window. it was awful and I ended using less tabs than before.

And I am talking about something as simple as web browsing. Already feeling all the impairment.

So workspace 2 I used for programming stuff and workspace 3 for inkscape and/or gimp and 4 for any other extra app I had to use. It works great in fallback, it worked EXCELLENTLY in gnome 2.

In unity, however, that whole desktop switching becomes much worse. The desktop switch icon does not even draw your windows on it. It is always the same 2x2 thing. If you click the icon, feel ready for 10 seconds of COOL ANIMATIONS. These cool animations are great to show off when other people are looking at you use your computer. But they get old fast and start to become [the 10 seconds you waste every time you want to switch workspace]. Worse, as you use more and more resources. (And compiz kind of has an expiration date), the animation starts getting worse and worse FPS, which is unsettling and makes you nervous and note how the whole thing is eating your system resources. The animations are not the end of it. You now have to travel all the way through the whole screen until you find the correct workspace... and, click twice. In the past, a desktop switch involved just moving the mouse to the switcher and clicking.

Surely I could just use a single desktop for everything. But then I would get lost at all the icons in the launcher. Effectiveness comes from organizaton, so I don't see why unity constantly gets in the way.

So, in fact, the most basic tasks take more time to be finished and need far more clicks and mouse movement. What do I earn in exchange? A taskbar that puts to the spotlight the fact that our application icons are not pretty. (Really, the reason OS/X's dock works so well is that their icons are all beautiful and visually consistent, so putting their icons in a spotlight makes the thing look impressive). I also trade horizontal space for vertical space. Which would be great... if I had a wide screen, but I do not. (Since so many people do not have a wide screen, it would be so nice if the Linux distribution whose installer brags about being customizable, at least allowed its default launcher to be placed horizontally without unofficial plugins). I also get OS decorations and animation that feels slower as time moves on.

The purpose of a desktop environment should be to allow you to run stuff and make switching between apps and desktops easy and fast. Because when you are doing real work, you'd like not to use time in such a menial thing. Instead, unity works like a kid that keeps insisting you buy him ice cream while you are supposed to be working on the computer. I don't want to play "Where's waldo" with my windows. I don't want to watch a dramatic enacment of my desktop's windows moving around as they are being switched. I don't want to use vital system resources on drawing the fuzzy transparency of the interface's main menu.

But this is just my opinion and my experience. At the end I switched to gnome fallback, and suddenly I felt like I was flying.

I like that I had to write this post. It helped me verbalize and assimilate my feelings towards unity and they also apply to GNOME-sheel. They are both DEs that insist of reminding you that they are there. They are like clippy the office assistant in that way. A good DE you shouldn't even notice it when you are working.

First off, Ctrl+Alt+arrow keys navigate from one desktop to another. Very quick.

Second, you can LOCK icons to the launcher. So they're always in the same place.

Third, you can hide the launcher. Check out Compiz Config Settings Manager...

Instead of ranting why not take the 10 minutes it takes to simply learn how Unity works? The problem isn't Unity, it's merely that users are too accustomed to the old paradigm...

[robtygart]

From what I have been reading here, I am getting the feeling that some of you think that those of us who do not like Unity are a bunch of cry babies who don't like change and want to kill unity and go back to the classic Gnome. Not at all (for me anyway)

I think we are making some good arguments here, and I am sure some (New users) will have the same problem. This needs to be looked at and not just ignored. That is what I thought Ubuntu was all about, a community working together to come up with an operating system that is easy to use for ALL computer users.,

I think that some minor changes could improve unity in a big way that would make unity agreeable to all of us. The way Unity is set up, for me it is harder to use, and by the looks of Win8 that to will be harder to use.

My solution as would be make the applications be the first tab when you open launcher, not the favorites.

Sure you can always use Lubuntu or Xubuntu, but new users are going to only think Ubuntu or just Linux, most people I have talked to don't even know what Linux is, they also give be a “BS” look when I say its free. So I don't think its really safe to assume that people will just use Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

Just thinking..... I think you are the ones who do not like change lol.

[IncurableHam]

It appears that I stirred quite the debate...I apologize for this OP.

Anyways, on the topic of whether or not computers are getting harder to use, I think they are as we, as a computer-loving community, get better with computers. What I mean is that Windows (and I guess Ubuntu too, from what others have been saying) are "dumbing" down computing, making it so that you just need to touch-and-go, doing everything possible on the fly with the click of a button. I am relatively new to the computer field and I cringe seeing companies like Windows base their new OS on phones and tablets. Computers should be complex systems that reward those of us (especially you who have much more experience) who have worked hard discovering their nuances and stuff. When looking for a job, I don't want to just design a Metro app that a fifth grader can do on his laptop...

[Dawnbandit]

Not harder to use, but ALOT more distractions.

[kevinmchapman]

2 days before your question, I already made a question that went unanswered in a thread that was supposedly full of unity fans.



No one answered.

Never noticed, but then I've never used Unity, so wouldn't like to call myself a fan. I'm an E17 and Gnome-Shell man.


This level of heavy multi-tasking, made me get used to multiple workspaces. In fact, workspaces is the feature that made me love ubuntu in the first place. I usually put FF in one workspace. I have like 4 or 5 windows with tens of tabs each. The tabs in each window are grouped. So right now I have a single tab full of ubuntu forums stuff and another tab that just has my usual stuff.

There's the first issue. In the past, switching to a FF window took one click. With unity, I first have to find the FF icon, which could have spawned anywhere in the launcher, then I need multiple clicks and reflection before I add the window I want. Unity's taskbar had to copy the worst windows XP feature and now groups icons in its taskbar. These extra clicks are not a big deal the first 10 minutes. But then it can get into quite a turn off.

So, maybe I should start spawning all tabs in the same window. it was awful and I ended using less tabs than before.

And I am talking about something as simple as web browsing. Already feeling all the impairment.

Don't know how Unity does it, but Alt-Tab is well-ingrained for me. I'd agree that it does sound more complicated, but I would think the efficiency of the window manager would be of secondary concern compared to trying to remember your 40+ FF tabs.




A good DE you shouldn't even notice it when you are working.

That's how I feel with Gnome-Shell. Do work, press Windows key, then click on something to do something else. Simple. (Note: possible extra step of typing in a few letters if launching an app not in the dock, though little different to trying to find it in the menus for Gnome 2).

[kevinmchapman]

I think we are making some good arguments here, and I am sure some (New users) will have the same problem. This needs to be looked at and not just ignored. That is what I thought Ubuntu was all about, a community working together to come up with an operating system that is easy to use for ALL computer users.,


Sure you can always use Lubuntu or Xubuntu, but new users are going to only think Ubuntu or just Linux, most people I have talked to don't even know what Linux is, they also give be a “BS” look when I say its free. So I don't think its really safe to assume that people will just use Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

No, new users will use straight Ubuntu without any mental Gnome 2 baggage.



Just thinking..... I think you are the ones who do not like change lol.
Attack is the best form of defence, right? You'll need to expand on this thought as I have missed your point

[zealibib slaughter]

Honestly for me most of the DE/GUI arguments are moot. I usually <ctrl> <alt> F# to a tty and work from there but I do agree that unity tends to get in the way, but so does gnome 2, gnome-shell, KDE, xfce, ldxe and so on.

[Jay MC]

You can easily maybe read your email and maybe watch a video. And that's the benefit, as the majority of users that were completely unable to do anything at all with computers can now at least use them for that. As for the rest of us, who were perfectly capable before, good luck trying anything else.


But I have to ask, to the people using Unity successful, how do you manage to do anything with it? I mean, can you describe a heavy work day in which you have to use multiple software, folders and devices at the same time and keep switching from them. Can you describe how does it work? What tweaks and customizations do you use?

So, as a Unity fan, here are the things that I used to do in Windows 7, but now prefer doing in Ubuntu with Unity (without any tweaks).

I have a (not very successful) web comic, plus a few small graphics/design projects, so spend quite a bit of time moving between Inkscape/GIMP/the web browser I use to update the web comic (not being a techie I use webtools to administer my site).

I'm involved with a small press, so use LibreOffice Writer a lot (it's fine for creating an attractive text block, although you might have to pre-flight the pdf elsewhere - and obviously, it isn't a DTP package). Depending on the project, I might be simultaneously using the graphics tools and inserting illustrations.

I have a blog, so am often moving between multiple browser instances and text editor to draft posts.

While I do these hobbies, I'm generally either listening to a podcast, half-watching a DVD, or streaming something off the web, and responding to any IMs I get from MSN or Facebook contacts.

It's hardly the most demanding workflow, but it's a bit more involved than reading my e-mail and watching a video. I was quite happy doing these things in Windows 7, but find Ubuntu with Unity faster and more responsive.

I don't use any tweaks. I don't even use workspaces. I minimise windows I'm not using and maximise them from the launcher when I want them. All the programs I use regularly are locked to the launcher, and I like how the same button is used to a) open an app and b) navigate between existing instances of the app (I find this more simple than Windows, where you might use desktop shortcuts or the start menu to add new instances, which then appear on/are managed from the taskbar).

Prior to Ubuntu with Unity, I reckon I tried more operating systems than average. Windows 3.1, 98, Vista, 7; obscure ones like Haiku and AmigaOS 4.1; Linux with Gnome, Openbox, KDE. I'm now using Ubuntu 12.04 because it is (for me) the best blend of usability, eye candy, and apps, and I find myself very productive on it.