Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 17th Mar 2003 22:49 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces So many operating systems and so many graphical desktop environments... This article is a comparison of the UI and usability of several Desktop Environments (DEs), that have been widely used, admired and reviled: Windows XP Luna, BeOS 6 (Dano/Zeta), Mac OS X Aqua and Unix's KDE and Gnome. Read on which one got our best score on our long term test and usage.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Glenn Sweeney:
by Janne on Tue 18th Mar 2003 09:53 UTC

First: could you please type properly? You sound like a 14-year old.

"_CE is diff from windows_ but the APIS are very similar. Terminal server and XP home share a very very very simlar codebase. Perhaps u dont program?? so u dont realise this?"

So you admit that the OS'es are different? Thanks for proving my point. As to Linux: The OS IS the same, even if it's on PDA or mainframe.

"U proved my point that u dont understand DX. A even John Mcormak likes DX better than open GL now"

Wrong. Carmack said that only with DX9 Direct3D has reached OpenGL (1.4. OpenGL 2.0 is in the pipeline). And still, OpenGL has the advantage. For example: if you want to use ALL the new features of GeForce FX, you have to use OpenGL, Direct3D just doesn't cut it. And why do all professionals use OpenGL and not Direct3D?

"None of these are as good as DirectMusic and DirectSound"

How do you know?

"also its AWEFUL having 4 standards"

The word is "awful". And there's nothing wroing with having several competing standards. In MS-world, MS dictates what goes on, in Linux, it's free competition and the best tech wins.

"Yup it has its also slow thats why ppl want to change X to be like windows without the bad network implementation."

What is slow? X? Nope it ain't. Some IMPLEMENTATIONS (like Xfree) could use more tweaking, but X itself is good and fast. And the network-implementation is good. Fact is that X has had features for a long time that were unheard of in Windows-world. MS touts their "remote desktop" as an innovation, when in reality it's has been standard in X since it's birth! MS just lags behind. Big time.

You obvously don't know what you are talking about.

""Heh, MS only recently got features that has been standard in Linux for years."
Such as?"

Like the remote desktop you raved about. Old news on Linux. And besides, MS has started copying KDE and Gnome with XP (like application-grouping).

"Linux is still chasing the performance enhancements windows has."

Yeah, right. It's a well-known fact that Linux mops the floor with Windows. Windows might SEEM to be faster (on the desktop that is), but in reality it isn't. And in Linux you have the choice to choose your UI to fit your needs. Don't need full-featured desktop but a lightweight UI? use something like Fluxbox. On Windows, you are more or less stuck at what you get.

And the new 2.6-kernel bring HUGE benefits to end-users, desktop-user included.