Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 00:05 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
KDE We all know what KDE stands for, right? Unless you're new here, you'll know that it stands for the K Desktop Environment. While this certainly covers a large chunk of what KDE stands for, it has increasingly lost its meaning over the past few years. Consequently, the KDE team has decided to 'reposition' the KDE brand.
Thread beginning with comment 396610
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Problem they have is KDE 4
by ba1l on Thu 26th Nov 2009 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Problem they have is KDE 4"
Member since:

But for me, it seems the Window-esk in design out of all of the *nix DE I've tried.

Superficially, yes.

It's close enough that you can probably use KDE 4 (and certainly KDE 3) if you'd only previously used Windows. Most of the basic parts are in the same place, and work much the same way.

However, once you get beyond the superficial level, there are so many little details that differ.

For example, in KDE, windows snap to the borders of the screen. New windows open, where possible, such that they do not overlap existing windows. The UI widgets don't behave quite the same way, in some cases better, in others worse, but usually just different. Drag and drop is more ubiquitous in KDE than Windows, but less so than in Mac OS X. The file browser determines file types by examining the file, not by file extension (sometimes an advantage, sometimes not).

Probably the most obvious little detail - files open by single-clicking, rather than double-clicking. Double-clicking simply doesn't exist in default KDE. It's difficult to get used to, but once you're used to it, it's difficult to get used to double clicking again. Absolute newbies will probably prefer single-clicking, but it's probably grating to anyone else who isn't used to it.

Really, the "problem" isn't that KDE looks fundamentally different. It's all the little details. They'd be grating to an experienced Windows user (I've seen that first-hand). They look similar enough that you're expecting the details to be the same, but they aren't. I used to get the same problem switching between KDE 3 and Windows XP.

I have fewer problems switching between KDE 4 and Windows Vista / Windows 7. They look far less similar than KDE 3 / Windows XP, so I find it much easier to mentally switch gears.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Laurence Member since:

But then an experience user could easily change KDE or Windows to reflect their preferences (as they're going to be more tech savvy) so I don't see the problem.

I love the fact that KDE has a simular GUI as Windows because, as much as I might dislike other aspects of Windows, I've always liked the way how the GUI was layed out.

But I also love the fact that KDE isn't a clone of Windows. They've taken the bits they liked from the GUI and added a few things they preferred.

So while it might grate some users who are new to the system - ultimately it's still better than creating a carbon copy (as people would stick to Windows and not bother with KDE).

Reply Parent Score: 4