Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Is XP really that good?
Josh:
And in the case of linux, most of the times you are told "RTFM" which means reading the MAN Pages and sorting through pages upon pages of text which doesn't relate to what you need or relying on a support group/forum where users treat those who are less knowledgable as "morons". I speak from this as a FIRST-HAND experience so it is not something I am just pulling out of my rear. I have been treated like an idiot several times when requesting support for linux because I didn't know the answer already.
nontroppo:
That'd be the norm for any OS (of the currently available) if it was the dominating product. As soon as you get a zillion shit-for-brains people using something, it'll go horribly wrong . Yeah, the Windows API is pretty messy, and it's very clearly visible that it has legacy all the way back to win3x... but at least it is properly documented, covers more or less everything you need for core OS services (without requiring third-party libraries), etc.
--- End quote ---
<hypothesis-alert>Well, I think I'd argue that the messy APIs of windows, and the do-it-yourself ethos of user interfaces (everyone reinvents their own interface, little coherence anywhere, even between MS products) makes Windows software on average (independent of number of users) messier than OS X or KDE.<hypothesis-alert>[1]
Honestly, I can't think of one piece of XP-originating software where I could say the user interface has been really beautifully and consistently designed (functionally and/or aesthetically)[2].
I wouldn't mind playing around with OS X, but why oh why did Apple choose Objective-C for Cocoa? :-s
--- End quote ---
;D Though there are some nice bridges to a whole other plethora of languages. My favorite is Ruby, where one can have a full cocoa experience while still using a nice and cuddly language (for me anyway not being a "real" programmer).
----
[1] hypothesis is really just a fancy way of me saying i have no solid evidence (if it was ever possible to collect) this is the case :P
[2] I exclude cross-platform marvels like Lightroom which ignore the platform UI guidelines completely.
Lashiec:
Honestly, I can't think of one piece of XP-originating software where I could say the user interface has been really beautifully and consistently designed (functionally and/or aesthetically)[2].
-nontroppo (November 30, 2008, 10:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
FeedDemon or Paint.NET look damn fine to me :)
nontroppo:
8)
I used to love Ray Bradbury's Topstyle and FeedDemon, but I find this XP style has too much emphasis on rows of buttons. I haven't used FeedDemon since a while, so it may have gotten better. It used to be a brilliant app nevertheless. I have to admit also I'm no fan of the horrible baby-blue feeddemon (and huge swathes of other windows apps) is smothered in according to its current screenies. The UI should be chromatically mute and not compete with buttons and/or content.
Paint.NET is also a great app (especially for free, why hasn't Microsoft picked it back up yet?), but not what I would think of as optimally designed (a kind of hybrid between paint and photoshop), a bit of a clutter of buttons+panels; it is no Pixelmator :P
----
Screenines from Feeddemon and NetNewsWire for OS X: http://www.newsgator.com/images/screens/fd26-screenshot1.png vs. http://www.newsgator.com/img/ss/nnw_3.1_readingNews3.png -- unnecessary clutter (why does each XP toolbar have some little arrow widget taking space) and bitmappy unclear icons.
Lashiec:
I don't know about you, but I prefer Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 ;D
Oh well, it got much better since then, I'm sure. Probably you used some of the first versions, which even by Nick's own admittance were terrible in the toolbar department. And with the new changes coming in 2.8, things are like these UI-wise. Personally, I prefer this kind of interface to the lean one used by NetNewsWire (not to mention this one seems to lack the newspaper-style to show the feeds).
HA! I knew you were going to mention Pixelmator ;D. There's a lot of software for the Mac that looks great, but it always baffled me that most of it it's payware, and not exactly cheap. When considering the initial price of a Mac, and the extra you have to pay for most software, the design-advantage starts to feel smaller :-)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version