OSNews

"People only want icons on the desktop b/c they come from the Windows-land. If you really think about it - you have to minimize most of your current windows before you can get to the icons - that's really an interruption of workflow."

I admit, I've been a Windows user since '97 (started with Win95, of course), so I do like icons. In the past my desktop has become a usability nightmare, though in more recent years I only have the programs I most often use on it, and arranged in a certain way. With a high enough resolution (1600x1200 in my case) and well-placed icons, however, the icons rarely get covered. Each window normally saves its position on the screen, and tends to re-open where it last was.

Still, I've been using Linux (Zenwalk) almost exclusively for probably around a year or more, and tend to prefer an icon-free desktop now, preferring a simple right-click anywhere or the bottom icon panel. Icons on the desktop aren't exactly "bad," and sometimes can be useful (I still like them on some environments). One thing's for sure: I would never use a Windows machine without My Computer and the Recycle Bin on the desktop.

Windows' biggest problem with desktop icons is the fact that practically every program... even system maintenance tools like disk defragmenters and disk cleanup tools (like CCleaner) install an icon to the desktop by default. That, I hate.

Even Windows by default doesn't cover your desktop with icons anymore. Apparently there are still a lot of people out there that only use one application at a time, then close it, and click on another icon on the desktop to start the next application.

No. I want icons on the desktop because otherwise it's a screen sized surface with zero functionality. As for interruption of workflow, I disagree too: with Exposé (or the Linux equivalent of it), a simple flick of the mouse shows me the desktop and I can even do so in the middle of a drag.

No. I want icons on the desktop because otherwise it's a screen sized surface with zero functionality

So why just not to start some useful applications to cover that "useless" surface?
I prefer fullscreen apps (on 21") and do not use the desktop at all.

And with Expose, you can actually double-click on one of those icons? I was under the impression that this would get you "away" from the window selecting mode, let alone the fact that with more than five or six windows around, you don't see a thing.

Needless to say, everyone has their own option on how they use their desktops. Most of those who are used to traditional Unix desktops don't carry anything on their desktop, because I prefer to have the entire screen available.

The bottom line is, though, that most Linux users who do not use KDE or Gnome (i.e. most of those who are not recently converted Windows users) do not use icons -- which is why they were at the bottom of the priorities.

I find that highly amusing, since I remember Mac advocates crying foul when Win95 was released - because it incorporated the same "desktop-as-a-folder" metaphor which had been present since at least MacOS 7.x (if not earlier).



I've never found that particularly problematic. In Windows, there's the "show desktop" icon in quicklaunch, or the Winkey-D keyboard command. And in any desktop system that has built-in support for virtual workspaces, you can simply switch to a workspace that doesn't contain any open applications. And that's not even considering things like Expose in OS X.