On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Timothy Murphy <gayleard at eircom.net> wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > >>> I still find the KDE-3/4 changeover completely baffling. >>> It is as though the KDE-3 team had been lost in an earthquake >>> with all their archives, >>> and a new team developing KDE-4 had to work >>> from their recollection of how KDE-3 functioned. >>> >> It's only when you've used 4 for a while that you realise just how many >> things >> in 3.x were only half-functional. When I first tried 4.0 I thought I'd >> never >> live with it. Now there are so many things about it that I love and use >> constantly that I now find it quite frustrating to work with a 3.x >> machine. >> >> You can't get away from the fact that it is very different, and there is a >> learning curve, but I'm convinced that it is will worth it. > > I'm not criticizing KDE-4, which I find perfectly usable. > It is just that many of the changes from KDE-3 to KDE-4 struck me > as completely pointless; > the new was neither better nor worse than the old, just different. > I feel I had to waste a lot of time to no advantage, > which I suspect is how Linus Torvalds felt. Have you considered the rationale given by the devs and mentioned almost every time they are asked? That there were several changes that they needed to make to the platform for the purpose of future enhancements? > In fact, most of the time I'm using applications - kmail, knode, Firefox - > and I just want to get to them as simply and quickly as possible. > I realize this is sacrilege, but I actually think > Windows XP is much better organized from this point of view. > except for the multiple desktop idea, which I find great. How is Windows XP better in this regard? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com )
