Microsoft's Longhorn OS, now 'Vista', announced
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx
let the cliche MS bashing begin, meanwhile some of us are looking forward to a new OS (i mean, come on, if Apple guys get to install a new one every couple of months, why should we have to wait a few years?).
let the cliche MS bashing begin, meanwhile some of us are looking forward to a new OS (i mean, come on, if Apple guys get to install a new one every couple of months, why should we have to wait a few years?).
Replies
The new DRM stuff will likely be mega-lame & frustrating.
I'll wait my usual 1-2 years before adopting if I can.
Where can I see an outline of the new features?
[/ QUOTE ]
They had to drop them all to meet the deadline
(I'm gonna get this as soon as it hits the shelves)
It is about 500% better than XP and by the looks of this Vista, it is already ahead of it too, even though it is still at least a year until it hits the retail shelves.
Try Ubuntu when the new version comes out in october and I am am sure you will never look back.
www.ubuntu-linux.org
/rant
Yeah I know, you will say, but XP runs fine... everything works and I don't have to learn new stuff.
BUT actually you are just so used to it's faults that you don't even notice them. I know XP does not freeze or reboot as often as earlier Windows version, but try to recall how many times the entire explorer froze and resetted itself and minor stuff like that.
Now think of this, I am using Linux since 2 years now, and not a SINGLE time EVER (!) did I have hickups or any freezes or anything like that EVER (except for a few extreme cases where I desperatly tried to brake it
Sure some stuff is more difficult and games are sometimes not working (but the good ones do), and it certainly requires some learning and re-adjustment, but trust me you will be horrified to even think of using windows ever again.
/rant end
I'll probably stick to XP for a while, since, so far, i havent had any problems with it at all. I agree with oXYnary though, Linux might be cool if you're hosting servers and all that, but not for PS and Max etc.
Dunno what happend to that screenshot, but it certainly doesn't look that huge on my PC. Try setting your XP to 640x480 and it will look the same
@ oXYnary:
The games I like to play run just fine on Linux, but you are right, some do not run.
Concerning 'working' applications, well Maya, XSI, Lightwave (not 100% sure about the last) and a bunch of others run nativly on Linux, just Max doesn't (yet).
Photoshop runs fine with Wine or crossover-office as far as I know, and there is a Linux port in work (I think, but don't quote me on that).
So there isn't really a reason not to switch, exspecially as you can dual boot into windows if you want to play games that don't run natively or with wine/cedega.
The games I like to play run just fine on Linux, but you are right, some do not run.
Concerning 'working' applications, well Maya, XSI, Lightwave (not 100% sure about the last) and a bunch of others run nativly on Linux, just Max doesn't (yet).
Photoshop runs fine with Wine or crossover-office as far as I know, and there is a Linux port in work (I think, but don't quote me on that).
So there isn't really a reason not to switch, exspecially as you can dual boot into windows if you want to play games that don't run natively or with wine/cedega.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point exactly. No offence, but why go through all the trouble of installing Linux, then install Wine to run a Windows app when you had Windows installed already?
I got used to Windows and i like it. But this is a dead-end discussion, kinda like the Max/Maya thing. I have to say though, i did try Linux (Suse and Knoppix) but i always feel out of place and dont know what to do (as in, what program to fire up to do something). Had to work with Mac as well at work. It's hard to get used to the way things work in other OSes, imo...
If you could get max for the mac, and HL2 for the mac, I'd be using one.
JKMakowka you mention wine and port in the same sentance, which means you're obviously a raving drunk.
the whole reason for not moving to another operating system is that all the software and games work on windows.
If you could get max for the mac, and HL2 for the mac, I'd be using one.
JKMakowka you mention wine and port in the same sentance, which means you're obviously a raving drunk.
[/ QUOTE ]
Errmm, I said it works on Wine NOW, and a naive port is beeing worked on (as far as I know), so what is wrong with that?
HL2 runs on Linux with Cedega quite well, but you are right that isn't really a reason to switch to Linux, since it runs better on Windows. But there are a lot of other games (for example Doom3 or UT2004 and much more) that run nativly and some say even better on Linux.
3DSMax is a problem I agree, but since Maya is better anyways
Photoshop runs fine with Wine or crossover-office as far as I know, and there is a Linux port in work (I think, but don't quote me on that).
So there isn't really a reason not to switch, exspecially as you can dual boot into windows if you want to play games that don't run natively or with wine/cedega.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cant jump ship on a 3d platform just to got to Linux. That and pay for a new license (or admitedly other). Wine is still going to run slower. Lets not lie. When Im dealing with a 2048 texture with another 20 levels. Windows still gets slow!
As it is, I did a dualboot before. Do you realize what a pain that is to switch back and forth everytime? I dont have a "x" or "y" mode that I can reserve a OS for. I need a Z mode where I can do what I need to to right then. ASAP!
I tried those Windows emulators for Mac. They only had limited functionality at best for running office software. So unless the newer versions of linux version of this same idea have a vastly improved hardware layer to boot windows inside linux. Again. Very limited usefulness. These are meant for general audiences, not people working with CG.
I am just saying that in my experience Linux is vastly superior to XP and also very usable as a CG-work machine (if you arn't forced to use Max).
@Marine and Weiser_Cain:
That is exactly what I ment, long time Windows user 'excuse' the faults windows has, because they got used to them, and know how to work around them (to quote: "but that's easily solvable without a reboot") . But the reality is that a modern OS should not behave like that EVER, seriously.
Oh and Marine, you DON'T have to run an emulator (besides that fact that wine isn't an emulator) to run Maya and you DON'T have to reboot for almost all good games I know.
reminds me of fuckin jahovas witnesses.
Show me something Linux can do, that I'd actually use everyday that windows cannot do, as well as show me linux that can run every single app out there natively out of the box, and I might be interested. Till then I'll stick with my extremely stable and luverly copy of windows XP sp2.
Either way, MS archieved total lock-in, noone can change to the competition because everyone has some piece of software that won't run on other systems natively.
The main thing that annoys me about Win2k is that it's so hard to find the right config opions when you want to chagnge something. Linux doesn't fix that, in fact it makes it worse. Now, Windows XP, that's a completely different story. That UI is AWFUL.
Oh and this thread lacks the obligatory "Hasta La Vista, Windows!" comment.
I've never had a problem with windows that has made me go "man I wish max ran on linux". I've never had a crash that restarted my system in the past two years on two different computers, as well as my work computer. I've had a few incidents separated by months [...]
[/ QUOTE ]
That is exactly what I am talking about, because you are so used to windows, those flaws do not annoy you... exscpecially because it surly has gotten a bit better with XP (as you said less resets etc).
But if you have used Linux for some time, you (me at least) will realize that those 'small' flaws can annoy the hell out of you if you arn't used to crap like that at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Show me something Linux can do, that I'd actually use everyday that windows cannot do, as well as show me linux that can run every single app out there natively out of the box, and I might be interested. Till then I'll stick with my extremely stable and luverly copy of windows XP sp2.
[/ QUOTE ]
Duh, how should I know what features Linux has would you use everyday, but there is a huge amount of free programms and tool designed by users out there that basicly do everything you will ever need. And you can also choose between different GUIs for Linux, that are all feature wise superiour to WinXP.
So in other word there is surely a lot of features you would love to use, but you have to try it yourself to find out
Of course I would be lieing if I said you can run "every single app out there" on Linux, and it is actually a stupid demand anyways, since you don't get that on Windows either (there are plenty of great programms that only run on Linux/Mac/Solaris etc).
But I am sure that there is a equal or better application available for Linux (most the time free) for almost every application you can think of.
P.S.: Photoshop is obviously running well enought on Linux with those so called emulators (which don't cause much of a performance hit), that Disney is using it in a production enviroment since 2003.
But actually that is what the different distributions (Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake RedHead ect) are for, they preselect a nice set of programms, that work well, and unless you really need another feature you don't have to look through the "aproximately 800 billion different versions" at all.
But the point is that you CAN if you want to.
@Marine and Weiser_Cain:
That is exactly what I ment, long time Windows user 'excuse' the faults windows has, because they got used to them, and know how to work around them (to quote: "but that's easily solvable without a reboot") . But the reality is that a modern OS should not behave like that EVER, seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
one program. one. blizzard have admitted it's a problem on their end. windows is running fine, maybe your ms hate is blinding you.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and Marine, you DON'T have to run an emulator (besides that fact that wine isn't an emulator) to run Maya and you DON'T have to reboot for almost all good games I know.
[/ QUOTE ]
i use this definition of an emulator
[ QUOTE ]
To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
[/ QUOTE ]
now, wine does what again? imitates a windows system in order to run programs designed for windows?
and i'm pretty sure you have to reboot your computer in order to get to windows if you're running a dual-boot system.
And there are plenty of games that do too, so that you don't have to reboot into windows, which is what I was saying.
P.S.: I do not hate MS, what I hate are quasi monopolys which are bad for the users, the economy and basicly bad for everything.
Besides the fact that Linux is simple better than Windows.
But as soon as MS looses it's market dominating position, I am sure their products will improve significantly and quickly... so that it might come to a point where choosing between Linux and Windows is like choosing between a Mercedes and a BMW: Both are good, so it is a matter of preference.
But there is still a long way to go before this is going to happen
As to the old adage about available software, thats the reason that we didn't buy a mac about 2 years ago. But when I did buy a mac, I found the ONLY bit of software that I used that was only for my PC was 3ds max. But Silo runs perfectly on my mac, so I'm happy enough.
I understand exactly what JKM is saying about Linux, even though I don't use it. I feel the exact same way about OS X, but I know that theres no point in trying to convince peoel to make the switch, they'll jsut have to decide for themselves. It's partly a stigma things - Macs are seen to be for pretentious people like me, and Linux users are seen to be command line geeks.
Anyway, as for Win XP, I love it too (not as much as OS X of course). People sometimes bitch about it's petty interface and the way it hide most of the techy bits from the users, but for crying out loud, thats the point! MOST people don't need to know about those. Most people use their PC to send email and use the interwebby. MS did a good job in presenting them with a shiny UI and hiding most of the stuff that could break the computer.
I don't understand why people say "I HATE MACS! I HATE XP!" I just can't see a reason for either.
I do like the shots I've seen of the new Aero interface in Longhorn.
P.S.: I do not hate MS, what I hate are quasi monopolys which are bad for the users, the economy and basicly bad for everything.
[/ QUOTE ]
By this standard, you hate Apple.
Now watch as all the Apple lovers try to deny the plain and simple fact that Apple holds a monopoly for hardware and software that runs on their machines.
OTOH, Apple has no competition in thehardware arena, anyone who wants MacOS has to get Apple hardware. As a result, they're slacking off and producing weaker hardware at higher prices.
My main concern with Apple is that they a basicly parasites to the Open-source community (OSX is based on FreeBSD, and the Safari Browser uses the KHTML core, and it goes on and on like this), and that their approach to GUI-design is basicly trying to dumb-down the user (which has reached already a point which is pretty frightening --- see all those virus email attachments
Last but not least, Apple also has a quasi monopol with their online music store iTunes, and they arn't behaving a single bit better than MS would.
So to put it in a nutshell, Apple isn't that bad (because of its tinyness), but should they ever become big, they would be probably as bad as MS
BTW, MS is already in trouble.
you are so used to windows, those flaws do not annoy you...
[/ QUOTE ]
but you have to reboot to play some games (sure not all) and you have to find 3rd part software to run things you want to run.. are you sure YOU are not the one that has gotten used to the flaws in your OS?
@Rhinokey:
Smart thinking, but I never reboot to play games since the ones I like to play run perfectly fine on Linux. It is just an option to do it, pretty much like getting to your console and playing games there, which takes about as much time as a reboot.
And concerning that 3rd party software, I guess you misunderstood me, you don't have to. Almost everything you need come either preinstalled, or is part of the Linux-DVD, or the internet repository, which makes finding software you want to use as easy as searching for a file on your harddrive, and installing is just the same, one click.
Finding 3rd party software for Windows is much more work, and amost nothing comes with the WindowsCD, and for most the stuff you have to pay.
EDIT: or are you refering to Wine as the 3rd party software? In that case it comes preinstalled also, and works pretty well. But to be honest in most cases a native port or alternative programm is the much better option.
But this isn't exactly a flaw of the OS itself, you could even say that Windows can't run Mac or Linux programms with a programme like Wine is a flaw
EDIT2: Of course Linux also has it's own flaws, and I am well aware (and sometimes annoyed) of them, but compared to the flaws Windows has they are not that big.
OTOH, Apple has no competition in thehardware arena, ... As a result, they're slacking off and producing weaker hardware at higher prices.
[/ QUOTE ]
Apple has plenty of competition in the hardware arena. They just choose to try and lead here, and I think they do awesome as far as design. My Powerbook has shown me what a real laptop should be. From major things like near instant resume from sleep, to minor things like the integrated cord wrap on the power brick. Apple provides the much needed competition to the rest of the PC industry in design. Apple went integrated wireless in 1998, it took the rest of the industry a while to do the same, but now I bet most of us can't imagine a laptop without wireless. They also were out the door first with a widescreen laptop and now most other laptops do the same.
Processor wise, Apple is doing what they need to so they can avoid being in a situation where they can't speed up at the same rate as everyone else. The switch to Intel should be really interesting.
Price wise, Apple has never wanted to compete in the uber cheep arena of PCs, though the Mac Mini is an interesting first step. Workstation wise, their prices are right in line (if not cheeper) then most of their competitors. Honestly though, I'm willing to pay slightly more for a laptop system if it means it gets built well, and also helps to pay for R&D on even better designs. My Dell Inspiron just feels cheep next to my Powerbook with all the creeking plastic it has.
The thing I am excited about is the move to Intel for Apple. DarWINE already exists, but has been hampered by the PowerPC to x86 translation issues. With that gone, I can expect to run the Windows games I enjoy now right in OS X, with little to no slowdown. Basicially, I'll be able to have a single machine that does everything I want it to do.
[ QUOTE ]
My main concern with Apple is that they a basicly parasites to the Open-source community (OSX is based on FreeBSD
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as Linux goes, I like it for my server in the basement. But as a desktop? No thanks. I don't want to have to work on my machines at home much, I'd rather just use it and get things done. With Linux, I have to worry about too many things. Should I use KDE or Gnome? Do I have the right libc library to run this program? Is that program available in a package, if so what one? If not, I get to stare at a compile screen rushing by, spewing thousands of lines of stuff that I as a user shouldn't need to see. I also have to worry about compatibility with my hardware much more. Does my kernel have a driver for my 802.11g card? No? Great, now I get to do some weird NDIS wrapper thing that uses a windows driver? I could keep going, but in summary, Linux is not ready for the desktop beyond a few uses. The big first step it could take would be to standardize on at least a few things. Choice is ok, but it just complicates things with 100 choices.
As far as Apple being a parasite to OSS, that I don't understand. KHTML is used in Safari, and due to that, Konquer on Linux is also now much better because of what Apple gave back. Initially the KHTML folks had some issues in how Apple was returning the code to the OSS area, but that has been corrected in a quick fashion. Do you dislike Apple because they sell a product with OSS in it making money? Well, Apple isn't the only one, IBM, HP, Sun, Red Hat, Novell and many others also make money off OSS, but they also all contribute a lot back to the community. Linux, and other OSS projects wouldn't be where they are today without that help.
Darwin is also not "just FreeBSD", but instead a Mach kernel that came from the NeXT days, much of the framework also from the NeXT days (they started with BSD 4.x) and a compatibility layer to keep things compatible with FreeBSD. This is more so that OS X can run nearly any Unix program that gets ported to BSD, and nearly all BSD apps can run on FreeBSD. A good article is here. Also, with newer things like launchd (a replacement for cron/init/xinetd), Apple is giving plenty of things back in this area, and more are there for the taking since all of Darwin is OSS software.
I'd be interested to hear why you think the OS X interface is "dumbed down". I've been using it as my main OS at work, and find I can get things done without having to worry about things like window managment. If I need a file off my desktop to attach to an e-mail, I simply hit the mouse button I mapped to that expose function and grab the file. When I'm done, all my windows are back to the way they were. Much different then in Windows where Win-D hides everything, but rarley restores it properly. Or in Linux when, well, drag and drop is still problamatic. Expose has been my favorite feature added to OS X thus far, though Spotlight is quickly growing on me.
[ QUOTE ]
Apple also has a quasi monopol with their online music store iTunes
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose the term near monopoly is true in a very narrow minded view of an industry. I can still go to the store to buy music, and the iTMS only accounts for about 5% of all music sales. As far as their lead in the online space, ist eems to be because they have done a good job of implementing online music buying. Apple wasn't the first music store, and they have new competition from all kinds of places, from Napster to WalMart. People just have stuck with what works. While I personally dislike the DRM, it was a necessary evil for Apple to be able to make the store in the first place. And it doesn't stop me from burnign the music to CD and ripping it to whatever I want. I personally don't do this due to the reduction in quality, but many other people don't mind.
I think I'm done with my OS rant for now. To put perspective on things, I'm typing this on a Powerbook while a Windows XP running Dell notebook sits next to me running WoW. On my network sits a Linux server for sile storage and other functions, and even a Linux powered car stereo. I prefer to have some good choices, and really don't hold much against any OS. I just don't think that any OS is a 100% solution to 100% of users needs. While I love OS X quite a bit for desktop use, I know many people are stopped from leaving Windows due to dependancy on some software. And I'm personally stopped from being an OS X only desktop user because of my love of games.
And it shows. What did they demand for a Mac Mini again? 500$ for the cheapest version and not even with peripherials? Hell, for that money I could build an upper-range PC (not top but building a top-of-the-line PC is stupid, too expensive without much gain) with at least double the spec in every single area.
I simply hit the mouse button I mapped to that expose function and grab the file.
Can't be hard, how many buttons are there? Oh, you're using an extra mouse? Good, now how do I add more buttons to those laptops?
As far as Linux goes, I like it for my server in the basement. But as a desktop? No thanks. I don't want to have to work on my machines at home much, I'd rather just use it and get things done. With Linux, I have to worry about too many things. Should I use KDE or Gnome? Do I have the right libc library to run this program? Is that program available in a package, if so what one? If not, I get to stare at a compile screen rushing by, spewing thousands of lines of stuff that I as a user shouldn't need to see. I also have to worry about compatibility with my hardware much more. Does my kernel have a driver for my 802.11g card? No? Great, now I get to do some weird NDIS wrapper thing that uses a windows driver? I could keep going, but in summary, Linux is not ready for the desktop beyond a few uses. The big first step it could take would be to standardize on at least a few things. Choice is ok, but it just complicates things with 100 choices.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I agree this was the situation about one or two years ago (and still is on certain distributions). But newer desktop centric distributions (mainly Ubuntu) have eliminated almost all these flaws.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as Apple being a parasite to OSS, that I don't understand. KHTML is used in Safari, and due to that, Konquer on Linux is also now much better because of what Apple gave back. Initially the KHTML folks had some issues in how Apple was returning the code to the OSS area, but that has been corrected in a quick fashion. Do you dislike Apple because they sell a product with OSS in it making money? Well, Apple isn't the only one, IBM, HP, Sun, Red Hat, Novell and many others also make money off OSS, but they also all contribute a lot back to the community. Linux, and other OSS projects wouldn't be where they are today without that help.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I read different things, exspecially concerning KHTML, but you are right there are also other companys parasiting (wouldn't count Redhead or Novell/SuSE to them though, since they really give back a lot... IBM is sort of in between).
One of the main reasons of concern with KHTML was that the only code Apple was giving back, was so Mac/OsX specific that it couldn't be used for Konquer at all.
But maybe you are right and this changed significantly during the last few months, but I doubt it.
[ QUOTE ]
Darwin is also not "just FreeBSD", but instead a Mach kernel that came from the NeXT days, much of the framework also from the NeXT days (they started with BSD 4.x) and a compatibility layer to keep things compatible with FreeBSD. This is more so that OS X can run nearly any Unix program that gets ported to BSD, and nearly all BSD apps can run on FreeBSD. A good article is here. Also, with newer things like launchd (a replacement for cron/init/xinetd), Apple is giving plenty of things back in this area, and more are there for the taking since all of Darwin is OSS software.
[/ QUOTE ]
The original 'opensource' licence it was released under was not really open-source at all (but maybe this has changed a bit since the 2.0 version of the apple licence was released).
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to hear why you think the OS X interface is "dumbed down".
[/ QUOTE ]
Things like you don't have to install programms a proper places, but they just run everywhere, and stuff like the plans to more or less stop using a file browser, and replace it with a fast search system, and the list goes on and on like that.
I think most of these 'improvments' are really ment to help people who know next to nothing about computers, but by simple 'improving' the interface to a point where they can stay knowing next to nothing about computers isn't the right solution to this problem (and it is pretty frustrating for computer literate people to use this interface).
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose the term near monopoly is true in a very narrow minded view of an industry. I can still go to the store to buy music, and the iTMS only accounts for about 5% of all music sales.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is a strongly growing market, and their user lock in system (including but not limited to the DRM crap) is really a lot worse than it should be.
Think a few year into the future, and you get a pretty big problem at your hands.
But this is a pretty un-necessary discussion, since the real problem in the IT world is surly not Apple (yet).
Keeping a program as one object and placable whereever you like is a HUGE improvement over having to split them into ten different folders in all Unix systems. Sure, it keeps the individual folders on purpose but it's a nightmare to manually remove stuff.
Personally I'd like a system that kills the directory structure completely, just one huge database that keeps data on every file (user, permissions, program it belongs to, program that created it*, perhaps a set of keywords and a category to keep stuff organized). I'd also like a checklist with program permissions ("write to own program data", "write to other program data", "connect to internet", "modify Kernel", etc) that pops up the first time (or, if I don't set it to remember, every time) the program is run and tells the user what permissions the program requests and the user deciding what it wants to grant (any unreasonable request, e.g. screensaver writing to other program's files or connecting to the internet) with the option to lie about it (to prevent programs from refusing to work unless the user grants them ridiculous permissions). And then I'd like a message stack, errors, informations, etc would just be thrown on a stack to the side of the screen so they don't interrupt you and don't block the system.
I have a feeling those ideas would be hard to implement given they change the way the system works fundamentally. The message stack not so much but requesting permissions or a database filesystem would require every single app to adjust. Well, you could create a virtual directory tree to present to legacy programs but removing the request-grant permission system for those apps would undermine the whole point, viri would just run as legacy apps.
*= Separate and unchangeable to prevent Spyware or viri from installing themselves without you being able to spot them later.
Things like you don't have to install programms a proper places, but they just run everywhere, and stuff like the plans to more or less stop using a file browser, and replace it with a fast search system, and the list goes on and on like that.
I think most of these 'improvments' are really ment to help people who know next to nothing about computers, but by simple 'improving' the interface to a point where they can stay knowing next to nothing about computers isn't the right solution to this problem (and it is pretty frustrating for computer literate people to use this interface).
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? These are all GOOD things.A computer is a computer, it shoudl track of where things are, and what they are fort. The end user should NEVER have to care where things go,t he should just go int he correct place. As I've mentioned before, some people get precious about the knowledge they have and look down on people who don't know the tech stuff. I know the tech stuff but have come to the realisation that not only do most end users not need to know, but neither do I.
Why should I have to file everything correctly, since a computer is an excellent tool for filing, searching and retrieving.
they should just go into he correct place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly my point, as opposed to 'runs everywhere'.
In Linux you have a nice packaging system, where you double click on a programm to install, and it automaticly installes itself to the proper place and creates a symlink in the menu etc.
Having a program as a 'object' that runs everywhere, leads to users simply plugging all their programms into one big 'personal files' folder (in the best case, in the worst case they are everywhere, probably with a lot of duplicates and older versions simple forgotten or 'lost'), which is a pretty bad idea.
[ QUOTE ]
As I've mentioned before, some people get precious about the knowledge they have and look down on people who don't know the tech stuff. I know the tech stuff but have come to the realisation that not only do most end users not need to know, but neither do I.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again I agree, there is a lot of stuff the user does not need to know.
But there should be a certain level of knowlege required to operate a computer (as compared to a drivers licence for cars). This isn't really much, but it will help the user a lot in the long run.
[ QUOTE ]
Why should I have to file everything correctly, since a computer is an excellent tool for filing, searching and retrieving.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not as excellent as you think, because the computer can't guess what you are searching for.
Files need to be catogirized correctly, and you need to type in the matching search terms according to the categorization, otherwise a computer can't find what you are looking for.
Exspecially when using a multi-user system this becomes extremely important, and it also helps yourself finding files that might have been created years ago.
So as long as Computers arn't connected directly to your brain and can know exactly what you are looking for, a good file system will be alsways superior and quicker than a search tool.
That said I have to add that Apple surely also does/did quite a lot of nice GUI improvments. For example the new 'smart folders' which display files according to certain set of features (though I have to admid this is somewhat related to searching) is a really nice idea.
If it leads to people doing stupid things, well, that happens. People will always do stupid things and the nanny mentality of Linux ends in a nightmare for the user should the automation ever fail because he has no idea just how the process works. I install everything that doesn't come in a self-instaling package into my home directory because I have no idea where else I should put it. And let's not talk about trying to configure the system. To this day I have no idea what boot scripts Linux runs through or even how to reconfigure my network card.
Requiring a certain amount of knowledge is stupid. There are no controls and all that insufficient knowledge can do is cause more tech support calls or annoyed sons that always have to fix their parents' computers.
I don't see how searching and databases make files any harder to find than a folder structure. A stupid user will just give his files inane names and throw them in completely unrelated directories scattered all over the dirtree. A search function at least tries to help you, the file system doesn't.
And configuration isn't really needed, everything is configurated automaticly more or less (concerning the hardware), and where it isn't there are graphical configuration utilities like Yast.
[ QUOTE ]
Requiring a certain amount of knowledge is stupid. There are no controls and all that insufficient knowledge can do is cause more tech support calls or annoyed sons that always have to fix their parents' computers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah those with 'half knowledge' but who think of themselves as 'know it all's are a real pest, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I am talking about real basic knowlegde like that there is a file system and aproximatly how it works (remember all those, yeah I clicked on 'save' in in Word, but where is that file now???), or that files are assiositated with certain users and rights, and basic stuff like that which actually saves a 'son' lots of work
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how searching and databases make files any harder to find than a folder structure. A stupid user will just give his files inane names and throw them in completely unrelated directories scattered all over the dirtree. A search function at least tries to help you, the file system doesn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I disagree. If the user gives his files completly supid and unrelated names, how is a search algorithm going to help finding it? The only option is to search very broadly and then looking through tons of files.
While a smart directory structure will guide users to put files into certain locations, and thus makies it easy to find stuff later on.
But my real concern isn't about search algorithms (they are perfectly fine, and an improved search function would be a nice thing to have in certain cases), but about the enviroment a system creates that doesn't encurage the user to keep a certain directory structure in his system.
In such a system, basic user will really start to scatter files all over the place, and probably will never learn the concept that a file has a certain location ("Ok, where did you put that file?" -- "Huh?...But I, uhhmm, I always just search for it"
And that is precisely the reason why a user interface shouldn't dumb down the user more that necessary.