__/ [ Bitrot ] on Monday 31 July 2006 07:44 \__
> First, I apologize for posting from google. That said, there's a
> reason for it - something I just realized I really like about Linux and
> really dislike about Windows.
>
> This machine is currently set up as dual-boot, and right this minute I
> happen to be in Windows (why? Don't ask.) I'm reasonably sure I
> installed a news client on the box, but I went looking for it and
> that's when it hit me.
>
> First, when I go to the start/programs menu, I don't get the whole
> list. Fine, fine. Now I expand the list and see... well, what I see
> is a mess.
>
> For example, I have some apps here for authoring, ripping and burning
> CDs; each of them has its own top-level menu entry. Others, such as
> games published by MS, don't - they're in "Microsoft Games" - but other
> games are installed at the top level.
Another issue: names. While people make fun of Linux application names
because they are weird (as in "not ordinary" or "not quite the norm"), most
distribution choose rhetorical names for the applications that reside in
menus (or have both a name and a description). This is not the case with
Windows and Mac OS. To name just one example among many: Microsoft Outlook
is a program that will most possibly deliver to your some weather forecasts.
> Some apps have their icon right at the top level; others you have to
> delve down two, sometimes three levels deep.
>
> In my Linux setup, by contrast, multimedia apps are in a multimedia
> menu, games are in a games menu, internet stuff is in an internet menu
> and so forth. If one wants to do something internet-related, such as
> read news, you know where to look. If one wants to play a game, you
> know where to look. If one wants to do something multimedia related,
> you know where to look.
This is particularly important in large distributions or images where you
have plenty of packages preinstalled. As a matter of fact, our University's
standard image has had all the application (pre-)organised in categories,
much as in GNU/Linux. When a new program is installed in Linux, it goes into
a sensible location 'automagically'. Why can't Windows achieve the same, or
at least deliver applications in a tidier way 'out of the box'? Answer:
because the assumption is that everyone grew up with Windows application at
hand's reach. It's also about glorification of the brand, which deserves its
own level in the menu (urging you to buy more products perhaps).
> By contrast, the Windows menu is loaded down with disorganized dross.
> As an example, the MS XML Parser has its own menu. In that menu is a
> single entry, a help file. Given that it is an SDK reference and
> contains several developer guides, wouldn't it make more sense to take
> it, and Visual C++ and Visual C# and other development tools and put
> them in a single Development menu?
>
> There are no fewer than eight separate top-level entries, *all* of
> which are CD or DVD authoring, burning, ripping or playing apps;
> wouldn't it make more sense to put them all in a single "CD+DVD" menu,
> rather than having eight separate top level menus? No wonder one needs
> this "personalized menus" bit; the menus are a mess.
More points along these lines: to assign keyboard shortcuts to applications,
one needs to place application icons on the desktop. This leads to
unnecessary clutter. I consider that a major repellent in Windows. Desktop
clutter is almost a necessity and many installers insist on making it even
more cluttered (application shortcut/s, affiliate programs and so forth).
Returning to the motto, who 0wnz your desktop? Take control over your
workspace by choosing Open Source.
> Several of the top level menus are links to sub-menus - which, instead
> of containing the app icons, help icons, etc, contain a sub-menu which
> contains them. So if you open the menu item, you don't see the app
> icon, you see another menu item - and it contains the icons, the
> shortcuts. Why create an entire menu folder to contain nothing but a
> menu folder, when you could just put the shortcuts into the first
> level?
>
> That is, what I _see_ is this:
>
> Top Menu -> App Menu -> Sub Menu -> Shortcuts
>
> Where it would make more sense to do this:
>
> Top Menu -> App Menu -> Shortcuts
>
> The app menu is completely empty except for a pointless submenu.
> Silly.
>
> So, is there a news client installed? Perhaps, perhaps not... but
> given that the menus are such a complete mess, who can tell?
>
> I like my Linux menus. Neat, clean, tidy, well-organized. Perfect?
> Probably not... but definitely better than this mess.
Have a look at SuSE and Ubuntu menus. I particularly like the ones in SUSE
because you have multiple levels and everything appears where you would
expect it to reside. The names of the applications (no description
available) are also self-explanatory. Other KDE distributions I tried
(Mandriva and Mandrake, for example), seem to follow the same rule.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
GNU/Linux is beautiful. < http://youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws >
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.77 1.00 1.15 2/132 8698
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
