>> Am I alone in finding the old (classic) Windows XP control panel >> greatly superior to the KDE analogue? >> >IMHO, it is never a good idea to compare what one has in GNOME or KDE to >what is provided in Windows. It doesn't bring about the best response >in many people. Just saying what you don't like about a feature is >better, IMHO. > >And, FWIW and IMHO, making a subject with "praise" and "Windows" is only >done by most people for effect or to garner attention and takes away >from what one really wants to address. It already places a negative >slant on things...IMHO. > >But, I feel, if one has a hard time expressing what they don't like and >really need to compare they should compare current to current. As in >the latest GNOME/KDE features with latest Windows 7 (or maybe Vista) >equivalent feature. >> I find Windows' My Computer much better >> than any Fedora counterpart, too. >> >> The network interface through the "Connect to" icon >> is also more intelligible than the NM interface, in my view. >> >Of course, all that you've said is you like milk chocolate instead of >semi-sweet. >> On the whole I find Fedora/KDE much pleasanter to use than Windows, >> which I suppose I use about 5% of the time. >> In particular I find if something goes wrong in Windows >> it is far more difficult to correct. >> >> But there are several features where Windows wins, as I have suggested. >> I hope the Fedora/KDE developers look carefully at Windows, >> to see what they can steal. >> >> >So, you think making GNOME/KDE look more like Windows (in some areas) is >a good idea? > >FWIW, I like that I can configure the KDE System Settings to look like >the old KDE Kontrol Center. And I prefer the Application Launcher >Classic Style over the Kickoff Style. In both cases I find the ones I >prefer to be more concise and easier to find things than the "Icon Style". > > Also...one of the primary issues with comparing *nix to NT is that most GUI interfaces in *nix are an afterthought to its primary focus. The whole idea is to be able to edit the config files much more quickly than opening a GUI & click-click-clickedy. I've networked 6-8 Fedora & Ubuntu systems together for LAN parties in the past & I setup half of the systems using the CLI in like 2 minutes whereas a friend of mine who goes for GUI's only takes at least twice as long...and he clicks through dialogs quickly. It's a matter of adding all of that up over time and I've spent half the time doing twice the work as someone who relies on a GUI to configure a system. Much can be said about the focus of Linux vs. Windows by what's happened with RHEL6 for example. They've done away with most of the system-config-* GUI's in favor of the "just edit the conf directly" approach. That being said, just like Ed points out...comparing the 2 at a usability level is pointless, especially if all involved have not mastered both approaches and can objectively compare the 2. Even then it'd be mostly subjective even w/ any objectvity. Otherwise it's just flame-bait. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
