Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. #21  
    Of course! They're copying what Apple puts out!
    Don't forget that the original MacOS GUI concept was copied from XeroxPARC. And that Apple really didn't make any huge GUI innovations in until OSX.

    One problem that I have with KDE and GNOME is that they aren't much of a departure from windows. They are copying Windows conventions, I assume, for familiarity, but they are putting them in an OS that is nothing like Windows.

    I'd love to have a 'new' GUI for Linux. Something truly different and innovative. Eazel was attempting that...alas, they are no more. (though one of the lead Eazel guys is now back at Apple...could mean good things to come!)
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  2. #22  
    My next computer's going to be a Mac.
    Okay that's not right. Macs are stupid. IIRC OS X is based on inferior micro-kernels.
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by Techie2000
    Okay that's not right. Macs are stupid. IIRC OS X is based on inferior micro-kernels.
    LOL...well, at least that's what Linus would like folks to believe. Unfortunately, Linus only makes the kernel and lets everybody else worry about anything else. Actually, if there was a Quicken for Linux that synced with Pocket Quicken and could do online banking, I'd probably just upgrade my PC and run LinAMD (as opposed to Wintel). As it is, though, I'm pretty frustrated with 13+ years of fighting with MS stuff. I want something that just works. Sure my peripheral options will be more limited in the future, but at least I know the stuff I have currently will work with OS X.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4.    #24  
    Originally posted by homer
    That's a contradictory statement. A good user experience means that they DON'T have to work with the OS. It's just there.
    That's my point. I said people don't want to work with the OS. They also want ubiquity. Neither Linux nor Mac offer that. If it were one or the other, the respective market share would be higher. Damnit, I'm not explaining this well. Here, allow me to (try to) lay it out:

    Linux is a bear to work with.

    OSX is a great OS, but it's market share indicates that people want something else that it isn't providing.

    Windows, though not as easy to use nor as powerful, allows someone to use Wal-Mart software and runs on cheap hardware.

    If people cared about the OS, they wouldn't be using Windows.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by homer
    Don't forget that the original MacOS GUI concept was copied from XeroxPARC. And that Apple really didn't make any huge GUI innovations in until OSX.
    I wasn't forgetting. That was actually kind of my point, I just didn't make it very well.

    There really hasn't been any breakthroughs in GUI's since PARC. Everything has pretty much been "copy and tweak" from the other guy.


    One problem that I have with KDE and GNOME is that they aren't much of a departure from windows. They are copying Windows conventions, I assume, for familiarity, but they are putting them in an OS that is nothing like Windows.
    In some respects, this is actually good. People understand this interface, thus making the transition from Windows to Linux a bit easier. It still won't happen due to the level of maintenance that has to happen under the hood on a Linux system, but that's a seperate issue.


    I'd love to have a 'new' GUI for Linux. Something truly different and innovative. Eazel was attempting that...alas, they are no more. (though one of the lead Eazel guys is now back at Apple...could mean good things to come!)
    And here is the other edge of the sword.

    One of the problems with developing a new interface is that there is so much invested in the current paradigm. the current windowing idea has been around so long that its now invisible, a part of the common vocabulary, if you will. Changing that isn't going to be easy, and will probably take a decade or two to gain widespread acceptance, just like the current windowing paradigm.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  6. #26  
    If people cared about the OS, they wouldn't be using Windows.
    Valid point. I guess there is a threshold. People want cheap stuff, but not so cheap that they have to hack the kernel. I suppose Windows is that middle ground..'good enough and cheap enough' for the masses.

    There really hasn't been any breakthroughs in GUI's since PARC. Everything has pretty much been "copy and tweak" from the other guy.
    Yea...you'd think in 20 years we would have gone somewhere beyond the basic windows/folders concept. BeOS was a start at something new...but we all know what happened to Be.

    In some respects, this is actually good. People understand this interface, thus making the transition from Windows to Linux a bit easier. It still won't happen due to the level of maintenance that has to happen under the hood on a Linux system, but that's a seperate issue.
    Well, that was my point. If I have to learn a new OS anyways, why not give me something new/better with the GUI.

    Changing that isn't going to be easy, and will probably take a decade or two to gain widespread acceptance, just like the current windowing paradigm.
    Well, I haven't even SEEN anything new to even begin the procees of acceptance. Have you?

    Between the OS'es, here are few GUI enhancements that I've seen in the past few years that made me go 'wow...that's a good idea, why didn't they come up with that before?'

    MacOS Classic:

    - Spring loaded folders
    - Pop-up folders
    - Picture and Text clippings

    OSX:

    - The new finder window (a better version of the Windows explorer)

    Windows:

    - The task bar
    - Browser/OS integration (rather, I thought it was a good idea, just poorly implemented)

    Linux:

    - Multiple Desktops

    That seems to be a pretty short list for 20 years worth of work.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by homer

    Well, I haven't even SEEN anything new to even begin the procees of acceptance. Have you?
    I did see some work being done on a 3-D file manager on the net a while back which ran under Linux/X/OpenGL. I think it was for a doctorate thesis or something. You kind of "flew" from one directory to another, if memory serves. At the time I thought it would, by extension, make an interesting "window manager", but never thought about it much beyond that.

    Now you've got me thinking, though. Just what I need: another project.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    Windows, though not as easy to use nor as powerful, allows someone to use Wal-Mart software and runs on cheap hardware.
    Ok, I'm beginning to understand the market share concept you're getting at.
    There are so many variables involved with that, from the "cheap" hardware and easy software access you mention, to the natural human fear of the unknown vs. what everyone else is doing/has (hey, a billion people can't be wrong, right? ), to companies preying on that fear through FUD, to corporate mismanagement and poor consumer education that it's a hard topic to really discuss well. Unless, of course, you have a couple dozen cases of a good microbrew and don't plan on going anywhere for a few days.

    IMO, the whole discussion of market share is academic. As long as both sides can keep their respective companies running, attract developers, and keep users happy, it doesn't really matter.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  9.    #29  
    I got cd burning working. I think I got dvd working (it's downloaded and installed, but I have no idea where it's at - anyone know where LiViD gets installed?). Next, I tackle television.

    The reason for my post: I have that Zeos laptop. What linux can run on a system with 2MB's RAM and an 85MB hard drive? Would I be able to do word processing, spreadsheets, palm syncing, and even gasp! web browsing (ok, that last may be pushing it)?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  10. #30  
    2MB's RAM
    2 MBs?
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by homer
    2 MBs?
    You say that like you're surprised. Considering the brand (I remember when Zeos was whipping Dell and Gateway's asses in reviews) and the hard drive size mentioned, 2MBs sounds believable. It could probably run a small linux distro in command-line only mode. I'm not sure which office stuff is available for that, though. For browsing, you could use Lynx. No graphics, but it should run on that system. Have you tried searching on http://groups.google.com for linux and your notebook model?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    Yea, it's believable, but you certainly won't be running a Linux GUI on it...at least not KDE or GNOME. I have a P133 with 48mb of RAM and it is quite sluggish in KDE.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by homer
    Yea, it's believable, but you certainly won't be running a Linux GUI on it...at least not KDE or GNOME. I have a P133 with 48mb of RAM and it is quite sluggish in KDE.
    Yeah, but Linux is not the GUI. You can get Linux to run on all sorts of stuff if you're so inclined. I don't think Josh was asking exclusively about running a GUI on Linux. Although, upon further investigation, I'm not sure if you'll be able to find a distro that'll install in less than 4MB of RAM. Small Linux is the only one that I've ever heard of (no experience). There are others like pygmy linux and monkey linux, though, that'll support 4 or 8 MB if you can upgrade (highly doubtful considering the age of the laptop).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14.    #34  
    Originally posted by Toby


    Yeah, but Linux is not the GUI. You can get Linux to run on all sorts of stuff if you're so inclined. I don't think Josh was asking exclusively about running a GUI on Linux. Although, upon further investigation, I'm not sure if you'll be able to find a distro that'll install in less than 4MB of RAM. Small Linux is the only one that I've ever heard of (no experience). There are others like pygmy linux and monkey linux, though, that'll support 4 or 8 MB if you can upgrade (highly doubtful considering the age of the laptop).

    Was not intending to use a GUI. I need remedial command line instruction. When I'm at least as proficient at the [linux]command line as I am in DOS, I'll be appeased.





    Small LInux looks perfect. Danke, Mr [whimsical reference to Toby]
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions