Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Gnome The day is finally here, the day that the GNOME team releases GNOME 3.0, the first major revision of the GNOME project since 2002. Little of GNOME 2.x is left in GNOME 3.0, and as such, you could call it GNOME's KDE4. We're living in fortunate times, what, with two wildly divergent open source desktops.
Thread beginning with comment 469365
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Despite what the studies might say, not *everyone* is utterly incapable of multitasking. Some people are actually more productive with it. Are those people supposed to stoop down to the majority's level? If so, why even buy computers with gigabytes of RAM? And tabbed browsing? Get rid of that too--can't have too many Web pages on your mind, now. Might as well go back to 512MB-1GB, tops, if we're going to throw effective multi-tasking out the window. It's a good thing GNOME has tons of competition.

Edited 2011-04-06 23:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Sigh...
by Mystilleef on Wed 6th Apr 2011 23:36 in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Most people are capable of multitasking. They're just bad at it. For
example, people are very capable of talking on the phone and driving.
However, the chances of an accident increases dramatically when they do
that. Add 2 more activities such as eating and brushing your hair and
then chances of having an accident becomes certain.

Can people talk on the phone, eat, brush their hair and drive at the
same time? Yes. How well will they perform all these tasks? Not too well.
Should people do this? No. Why? People are not good at multitasking.

There's an increasing consensus in the Nueroscientific community that
multitasking actually decreases productivity and not the other way
round. This is due to the expense of context switching and the energy
spent refocusing (entering into a state of flow) when switching to the
new tasks. And also due to the fact that the brain can't multitask as
far as we know.

You are better off readjusting your workflow to eliminate multitasking.
Multitasking is cool for computers (hence more ram and cpu power is
welcome, plus new software can't get enough of them), but not for us
humans.

The whole point of GNOME Shell is to reduce multitasking so you don't
have to switch focus too often. That's why, for example, instant
messaging is baked into the Shell. As more apps adopt this design
philosophy, hopefully in the near future switching back and forth to
different apps will become irrelevant. So also will starring at the
task bar.

This link shows articles and studies that show how multitasking is bad
for productivity.

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=multit...

Edited 2011-04-06 23:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 01:26 in reply to "RE[7]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"Most people are capable of multitasking. They're just bad at it. For
example, people are very capable of talking on the phone and driving."

Nice example of a type of "multi-tasking" that could mean serious injury or death to one or more people by an "accident". Which I wouldn't call an accident really--if someone was dumb enough to talk on the phone while driving and they really couldn't do it before they took off or after parking, they asked for it and deserve what happens to them. And they don't have the alcohol to blame--just their own sober stupidity.

Either way, I thought this whole "multi-tasking" thing was about computers specifically, not doing random things at the same time like: messing with your hair and watching the dog, while listening to the radio and making sure the food in the oven doesn't burn. All while keeping an eye on a lit candle so a cat doesn't bump it and burn the house down. Oh, and listening for the clothes dryer to be done for a new load to be put in. Multi-tasking on a computer is different, in that you do *not* need to constantly monitor everything that is going on. But you *should* still be able to quickly flip through programs if you need to.

I have Iceweasel opened with more tabs than you would care to know, but that doesn't mean I have to constantly monitor them like I would have to look at the road while trying to listen to/talk on the phone (using your example). Those tabs aren't going anywhere, until I choose to close them. I also have Geany running with several text files opened in tabs. A terminal emulator is also running, with wget downloading the newest Linux Mint Xfce release, just minding its own business. And PCManFM is sitting down there in its little corner with four tabs open.

Most traditional OSes and GUIs make it a simple click to quickly switch between programs. GNOME 3 is the one that decides to make things difficult.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Sigh...
by sdeber on Thu 7th Apr 2011 05:35 in reply to "RE[7]: Sigh..."
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

Most people are capable of multitasking. They're just bad at it.


OK, but who cares? Smoking is bad, but people still smoke, drinking is bad, but people still get drunk. Loud noise is bad, but people still "rock-and-roll". Speeding is bad, people still speed. Why? because it makes people FEEL better. The same applies here. We are not talking about rocket science here, it is more about feeling. All we want is just comfort, and we do feel more comfortable when we do multitasking. That is it.

I don't really understand these designers. I think they should adopt a "no-policy, only mechanism" approach. They should only offer tools which are "primitive" enough so that users can use them to implement their own work flow. They are not supposed to enforce their policy.

Edited 2011-04-07 05:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Sigh...
by cmost on Thu 7th Apr 2011 01:11 in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Despite what the studies might say, not *everyone* is utterly incapable of multitasking. Some people are actually more productive with it. Are those people supposed to stoop down to the majority's level? If so, why even buy computers with gigabytes of RAM? And tabbed browsing? Get rid of that too--can't have too many Web pages on your mind, now. Might as well go back to 512MB-1GB, tops, if we're going to throw effective multi-tasking out the window. It's a good thing GNOME has tons of competition.


I hate to break the news to you bud, but no matter how much you might think you excel at multi-tasking, it's utterly impossible for a human being to multi-task. Period. Sorry. While you might be able to efficiently switch between tasks, you're incapable of true multi-tasking, as is everyone. I only wish I could convince others, like the ones hurtling down the expressway at 80 mph while yapping on a smartphone, of this fact.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Sigh...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 01:37 in reply to "RE[7]: Sigh..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I hate to break the news to you bud, but no matter how much you might think you excel at multi-tasking, it's utterly impossible for a human being to multi-task. Period. Sorry. While you might be able to efficiently switch between tasks, you're incapable of true multi-tasking, as is everyone. I only wish I could convince others, like the ones hurtling down the expressway at 80 mph while yapping on a smartphone, of this fact.

Okay, second person to take it this way. Clarification: Multitasking, as in computer multitasking. Not using both hands and feet to do various things while listening for things with your ears and eating food--simply switching between tasks in a multi-tasking computer environment. Which takes only one or two hands depending on mouse vs. keyboard or both when using a GUI that is decently designed for multitasking, and can be done at will.

How the hell did a thread on computer multitasking and GUIs get misinterpreted and turned on its head to be about human multitasking? Seriously?

Edited 2011-04-07 01:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Sigh...
by unclefester on Thu 7th Apr 2011 08:34 in reply to "RE[7]: Sigh..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Aviation experts confirmed decades ago that humans can't multitask. That's why airliners have two pilots and a seperate cockpit without a stereo.

Reply Parent Score: 2