OSNews

"I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting"

Please explain.

To me, the advantage of Linux is that there is a good GUI and an equally good CLI, so you can choose CLI or GUI depending on the situation. In windows the CLI sucks major, just compare things like command line completion in cmd.exe and bash or zsh.

Then, if you use KDE there are KIO-slaves they make you feel like you sit in front of the internet, instead of in front of your computer. Having all programs internet enabled makes life a lot easier especially if you manage things like web contents on remote web servers.

here is my list:

* Windows does not have any decent virtual desktop manager
* No borderless full screen
* Not able to move windows with Alt + leftclick
* not able to resize windows with Alt + Middle click
* does not have taskbar applets
* Windows explorer has no previews
* no support for protocols like sftp in explorer
* no themes

And thats only about the windowing system, I have not even talked about the command line or other applications.

Edited 2007-10-22 12:57

Well, I am not the parent poster, but the Windows Desktop is limiting in this point: Virtual desktops (and I am NOT talking about the 3D effect "cube" there).

I know, there are virtual desktop addons for Windows too, but they either are unstable themselves, or make other programs unstable, or don't integrate into the taskbar (or combinations thereof).

With the linux virtual desktops you get everything you need, and then some: Stable, well-integrated and fast.

In Windows, if you have 60 applications open, things get royally messy. In Linux, I still find the application I want to switch to quite fast.
That is, because I only let the taskbar show the applications which are on the currently active Desktop, and I can keep in my mind "desktop 1 for project A and desktop 2 for project B and desktop 4 for Office stuff" easier than remembering that "explorer number 3,6,7,12 and 15 are open for project A and numbers 1,2,5 and 10 are open for project B, and the rest is for office stuff".

That is the main reason why the Linux desktop is so much better. I simply cannot understand why Windows does not have virtual desktops, one can still configure them so that only one desktop is available if one does not like several desktops.

The second thing: I am a hardcore Konqueror - addict. I use several split views in several tabs and have different stuff running in each of them (ftp, man-pages, file-browsing, pdf-viewing and console). You know, Konqueror is so far ahead of Windows Explorer you would not believe it possible. Konqueror can be everything (including a kitchen-sink ), WITHOUT being bloated, and that is the amazing thing about it. Konqueror, despite being so powerful, never shows more than 15 Buttons on it's whole interface, probably 10 of them in the button-bar. There is no such thing in Windows. I hope KDE4 is stable unter Windows, so that I can use Konqui at my workplace.

It is like stated in the article: GNOME and KDE take the good stuff from Apple and MS (in fact Xerox ), and improve on them.

And frankly, after 2,5 years of KDE, I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting.

And frankly, after 1,5 year of OSX, I find Linux GUI just ugly and inconsistent.

I've used OS X for a week or so, but I dislike the GUI. Actually, not just the GUI, the overall system. I don't remember a thing I liked better than other systems. I like Windows XP and Linux (Gnome).

Funny how the initial post got scored up by saying exactly what scored you down ...

I don't see why Linux desktop should make you never look back at any other OS.

I switch from OS X this summer to linux, _completely like in the title, initially to 7.04 and update to 7.10. One major reason it's speed. I needed to run virtualized Windows for my development and business needs (accounting) and OS X was simply unresponsive on heavy load. At the same load on exactly the same computer (mac mini) Linux handle the job far more efficiently.

But what annoyed me with this -completely- exageration, is that the author use limited users needs, normally HIS.

Synchronisation in Linux, Ubuntu for me, doesn't provide something close as what you can find in windows or OSX. Palm work OK, better in Gusty, but it's still doesn't support multiple group, notes sync, crash on sync exception. Grouping is mandatory. Even if opensync is a really promissing, open source, multiplugins etc., it does not offer a viable alternative right now.

Bluetooth headset are not plug'n'play, but they are under windows and OSX. Just look the Ubuntu forum for "bluetooth headset". It's a mess to make it working.

Since this weekend I'm back in OSX, I don't need to use vmware that much. I prefer OSX for a lot of other reason. But I think Linux in general is ready for the desktop, but not "completely and never look back".

I can't believe the blatant bias of Linux zealots. Someone says: "And frankly, after 2,5 years of KDE, I find the Windows GUI just inefficient and limiting" and gets a plus 7. Someone else says something very similar but replaces Linux and Windows with OSX and Linux and gets marked down to 0. Both arguments are not backed up with anything but we get two opposite reactions. Please explain.

Well, I'm a Linux-nut and I have Vista on sda1. I paid for it (laptop tax), and I don't want to wipe it off just yet. I'm getting the Orange box in a few days and my hardware won't be able to take the extra hit that Wine will ask of it.

I also boot into it every now and then to remind myself why I use Linux

But seriously, say I need to do something quickly, and it requires Windows. Then I can boot in, get it done, get out. Sometimes I don't want to have to fight with Wine.

Just because you dual boot doesn't mean you're less of a fan!

*EDIT* Let me just say that if Dell offered Ubuntu laptops in South Africa, however, I wouldn't have chosen to get one with Windows on it. It would be Ubuntu only.

Edited 2007-10-22 11:59

> Well, I'm a Linux-nut and I have Vista on sda1.
> I paid for it (laptop tax), and I don't want to
> wipe it off just yet.

Assuming you're using an OEM pre-activated version of Vista and you *do* eventually choose to wipe it I found a cool program that can backup and restore Vista's activated state.

http://directedge.us/node/24

It's at the very bottom of the page, "ABRbeta3.zip", and it works perfectly: if you ever want to reinstall Vista just do so with any Vista DVD, choosing the correct edition and leaving the CD key blank field blank, when it's installed, just run the restore program and reboot and you're laughing.

It's perfectly legit and also *very* handy for fresh Vista reinstallation to strip away OEM bundleware.

I agree completely, the only reason I ever boot into windows is for HL2.

Why bother? Works quite well under Cedega. Sure it's evil commercial software and all, but so is Windows and $15 is not too much next to a Windows license.