Windows Software: Ugly, Boring & Uninspired

[ribitch]

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/c0508/44c08/44c08.asp&did=844&aid=27197


i am biased, but i totally agree. cocoa allows developers to easily create applications with amazing interfaces, and small amounts of code. Best of all, the IDE is included with the OS. Sure, there are tons more apps available for windows, but how many zip programs are really needed, or multichat protocol IM clients? Choice IS good, dont get me wrong, but often times the choices suck.

[Bires]

You're ugly, boring & uninspired!

[zero2dash]

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/c0508/44c08/44c08.asp&did=844&aid=27197


Ok, let me address a couple of the points of his article that I think are BS.

Software for Windows is generally uninspired, generically cloned, and overwhelmingly wrought with lackluster (read: lousy) user interfaces. There’s too much coal and not enough diamonds within the sphere of downloads. The greatest pieces of software are plagued by unintelligent design, and very few rise to the level of ubiquity. Windows users don’t have a strong sense of belonging; there’s no user community rallying around the platform. We use the computer, certainly, or is the computer using us?

First of all, what programs are giving what user problems in terms of interface? The way I look at it, you've got two choices - icon based or text based. Icon based interfaces are the dominant force (with the few notable exceptions where people use DOS for batch commands such as file renaming, or people use the command line with Unix/Linux for apt-get etc). What icon based interface is really all that hard to understand? Up until a few weeks ago, I had trouble finding my way around Gnome but after an hour of digging around, even that seemed easy. Now we're getting into personal preference, where instead of pointing out facts (ie users across the board screaming "Windows is too complicated to use" etc), we're (he's) resorting to fanboy statements because he thinks OSX is more pretty than the others. Hey, here's some news for you...OSX may be pretty, but (IMHO) KDE is even better looking. And then he goes to blab on about other useless dribble...computers using us? Dude, get out and get some sunshine once in awhile...read a book. Use your brain. WTF is he talking about? Some people need a serious education...

And then...

The “coolest” software today seems only to have been developed for OS X. Prove me wrong, CPU readers.

What software is determined to be "cool", eh? What...Final Cut Pro? One of the few apps that (the film) industry prefers over...Adobe Premiere? One app and let's do away with Windows PCs forever. Every other app that one could construe as cool is available on both platforms. If you ask me, the only app (and a suite at that) you could construe as "cool" is Adobe Creative Suite (simply because it's the best application suite for design professionals, bar none). Guess what? It's available on Mac...and...*poof* Windows PC!

With Apple’s release of Tiger, widgets--desktop applets that each serve one purpose--have jumped to the forefront of everybody’s imagination. Why? Because they look slicker than snot! Windows users might argue that Stardock (stardock.com) has had DesktopX for years. That’s true, but 99% of its existing widgets look absolutely horrendous.

And how quickly were Widgets determined to be security flawed?
All this raving about Widgets...ooh ooh I can check the weather from my desktop! I'm 1337! Guess what? I can do the same thing from within Firefox (with the Forecastfox add on) and how much did the product cost me? $0.

Secondly, Stardock is crap. Stardock software is buggy and eats resources like a sob.

At that point, what’s the point? Again, we come back to the concept that Windows software developers rarely develop any kind of pleasant UI.

The point is you have no point. Shut your piehole, fanboy.
I hate the default XP Luna GUI, it was fine for the first few days but now I can't stand it. What do I use instead? The Royale theme. Royale is the stepping stone from which all future versions of Windows should be based. Royale looks a lot nicer and cleaner than Luna (and more 1337 if you're into that sort of thing).

I'm done with this guy...I would reply to him directly but I'd just be wasting my time. Fanboys - there's no changing a fanboy. :stupid:

Now, ribitch:


i am biased, but i totally agree. cocoa allows developers to easily create applications with amazing interfaces, and small amounts of code. Best of all, the IDE is included with the OS. Sure, there are tons more apps available for windows, but how many zip programs are really needed, or multichat protocol IM clients? Choice IS good, dont get me wrong, but often times the choices suck.

Why don't these apps appear on Macs? Mainly because developing for the platform is a waste of time and cost. Cater to whom...the majority or the minority? Why hasn't Adobe released CS Suite for Linux? Minority. (That, and they realize Linux has viable alternatives, ie Gimp.) Some people like choice. I don't see the need for chat programs period; I haven't used them since I was a single man and wanted to meet chicks. As for Zip programs - hell I agree. Make a unified compression format (ie Zip) and get rid of all this RAR and ACE BS. Considering how icon based interfaces have developed and evolved...we're coming along here. We went from primitive (Windows 3.1, Macintosh System 7) to upgraded (Windows 95/98, System 8) to now (XP w/Luna, OSX w/Cocoa). Before people start writing off the Windows icon package, let's not forget that there will always be room for growth and advancement. Macs didn't always look like OSX, did they? :rolleyes:

It's amazing how stupid a fanboy with a blog can be. (<- aimed at the guy with the article, not you, ribitch) :)

[modena]

"I hate the default XP Luna GUI, it was fine for the first few days but now I can't stand it. What do I use instead? The Royale theme. Royale is the stepping stone from which all future versions of Windows should be based. Royale looks a lot nicer and cleaner than Luna (and more 1337 if you're into that sort of thing)."

So standard Windows XP style is called Luna? Then where would I find this Royale Theme?

[zero2dash]

(Hopefully this works)
I uploaded it to my Yahoo Briefcase here (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fd8d578_10d6b/bc/crap/Royale_theme+leak.zip?BCNltyCBKtrh.tCt)

There's actually two versions I have. This one I downloaded last year and it's perfect (it was a leak). Recently, Microsoft New Zealand *officially* released the theme but when I tried to use theirs, it didn't look as good (there were white boxes around all the text at the top of File windows (ie File, Edit, View etc, every one of them was surrounded by a white box). The leak version isn't like that.

I also put the three wallpapers MSNZ released in with the zip file I uploaded here (the leaked one). If you would rather download the official one, just google "royale theme" and you'll find a link to the MSNZ site. Like I said though, the leak one doesn't have that glitch with the white boxes.

Enjoy :cheers:

Pictures (for the visually inclined):
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6010/royale4qu.th.jpg (http://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?image=royale4qu.jpg)
I use the Classic Start menu but I turned on the default one just to show the eye candy...
http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/4277/royale25ga.th.jpg (http://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?image=royale25ga.jpg)

[modena]

hey i cant open your yahoo briefcase link, mind sending it to me? sent you a PM with email address.

[zero2dash]

Sure, no prob...ygm :)

[spigidygak]

*yawn* people that bitch about how things "look" bore me

[zero2dash]

*yawn* people that bitch about how things "look" bore me

Yeah, I don't get this whole "trash the competition OS" thing going on with this guy (the author of that article). If you don't like the competition, that's ok, who the hell cares - you're entitled to your opinion. But for the love of god don't act like Windows doesn't work. Windows works as well as OSX and Linux if you look at the bottom line. :rolleyes:

[modena]

thanks for the royale theme zero2dash, will try it out tonite!

[TruckStuff]

Yeah, I don't get this whole "trash the competition OS" thing going on with this guy (the author of that article).Its simple. All OSX users have a *massive* infiority complex to everyone else in the world. I've seen this over and over in my personal and professional life. Mac users like the fact that only 5% of the world's software runs on their system and think its "only a matter of time" before the rest of the world figures out how wonderful Macs are. In the meantime they try desparately to convince anyone who will listen that they absolutely must use OSX b/c of these great "features" like desktop widgets (no one has ever thought of that before... :rolleyes: )

I have this theory that comes something like this. There are two kinds of people in the world: Mac people and PC people. The Mac people never associate with the PC people and the PC people never associate with the Mac people, both out of fear that they will "catch" what the other one has. Occasionally you will find someone who has "switched teams," but most of the time they are still "in the closet" due to the shame that would be brought to their freinds, neighbors, and loved ones by their "coming out". Sometimes you will even find a "bi" (someone who can use either), but many of those people will never admit to that fact in public.

And the gist of the article all comes down to a single point: OSX users love eye candy. If an OSX user has the choice between two pieces of software that perform the exact same function equally well, but one has an additional 100Mbs of GUI, they will sacrifice the HDD space every time. Its like they're retarded children and love looking at all the pretty colors. :gle:

[verve247]

In XP, developers are just happy their software works. They don't have time to work on the form and aesthetics.

[spigidygak]

Its simple. All OSX users have a *massive* infiority complex to everyone else in the world. I've seen this over and over in my personal and professional life. Mac users like the fact that only 5% of the world's software runs on their system and think its "only a matter of time" before the rest of the world figures out how wonderful Macs are. In the meantime they try desparately to convince anyone who will listen that they absolutely must use OSX b/c of these great "features" like desktop widgets (no one has ever thought of that before... :rolleyes: )

I have this theory that comes something like this. There are two kinds of people in the world: Mac people and PC people. The Mac people never associate with the PC people and the PC people never associate with the Mac people, both out of fear that they will "catch" what the other one has. Occasionally you will find someone who has "switched teams," but most of the time they are still "in the closet" due to the shame that would be brought to their freinds, neighbors, and loved ones by their "coming out". Sometimes you will even find a "bi" (someone who can use either), but many of those people will never admit to that fact in public.

And the gist of the article all comes down to a single point: OSX users love eye candy. If an OSX user has the choice between two pieces of software that perform the exact same function equally well, but one has an additional 100Mbs of GUI, they will sacrifice the HDD space every time. Its like they're retarded children and love looking at all the pretty colors. :gle:


Actually... just like in politics, there are 3 kinds of people republicans, democrats and the majority that don't give a sh!t. In the computer world there's the windows, mac and the rest of the normal people that don't care whose virtual pee pee is bigger than another's hoo hoo.

[Jenny]

hey i cant open your yahoo briefcase link, mind sending it to me?

:stupid: Can I get a copy to [email protected] please? :D


Actually... just like in politics, there are 3 kinds of people republicans, democrats and the majority that don't give a sh!t. In the computer world there's the windows, mac and the rest of the normal people that don't care whose virtual pee pee is bigger than another's hoo hoo.


:heh: SPIGIDYGAK! :D

[zero2dash]

Jenny, ygm. :)
I don't know why that Briefcase link won't work for you guys, it works ok for me (and I'm not signed in). Just left click it, it should ask if you want to download or open the file...if that doesn't work, then I'm seriously puzzled. :eek3:

Nevertheless - I just uploaded the file to my (never viewed) :heh: Geocities site, hopefully the link will stay up before Yahoo catches wind that I'm using it for file hosting. ;)
Link (http://www.geocities.com/zero2dash/Royale_theme_leak.zip)

[speedracer120]

:hihi:

Thx man.

[hapoo]

In XP, developers are just happy their software works. They don't have time to work on the form and aesthetics.


gimme a break, the main part of any program would be the same on any platform, and if you can't do that part right, you suck anyway. That leaves the interfaces (which depending on your language might even be the same) which are not unstable on either platform.

[TruckStuff]

Actually... just like in politics, there are 3 kinds of people republicans, democrats and the majority that don't give a sh!t. In the computer world there's the windows, mac and the rest of the normal people that don't care whose virtual pee pee is bigger than another's hoo hoo.PC != Windows. Thanks for alienating the Linux community. ;)

[shocky123]

In XP, developers are just happy their software works. They don't have time to work on the form and aesthetics.

As much as I hate to stick up for Micro$oft, 'just getting software to work' is not the direct-fault of WinXP, nor is it in any way isolated to Windows. This is entirely due to the changing trends in software engineering.

.. you cannot sell what you havnt released yet, development is about getting from a empty .c file to the consumer's wallet, it's not at all about making the consumer happy.

~Kyle

[spigidygak]

PC != Windows. Thanks for alienating the Linux community. ;)

:rolleyes: wasn't alienating, just didn't realize there are linux fanbois now... any solaris fanboys out there too?

[eSDee]

Its simple. All OSX users have a *massive* infiority complex to everyone else in the world. I've seen this over and over in my personal and professional life. Mac users like the fact that only 5% of the world's software runs on their system and think its "only a matter of time" before the rest of the world figures out how wonderful Macs are. In the meantime they try desparately to convince anyone who will listen that they absolutely must use OSX b/c of these great "features" like desktop widgets (no one has ever thought of that before... :rolleyes: )

I have this theory that comes something like this. There are two kinds of people in the world: Mac people and PC people. The Mac people never associate with the PC people and the PC people never associate with the Mac people, both out of fear that they will "catch" what the other one has. Occasionally you will find someone who has "switched teams," but most of the time they are still "in the closet" due to the shame that would be brought to their freinds, neighbors, and loved ones by their "coming out". Sometimes you will even find a "bi" (someone who can use either), but many of those people will never admit to that fact in public.

And the gist of the article all comes down to a single point: OSX users love eye candy. If an OSX user has the choice between two pieces of software that perform the exact same function equally well, but one has an additional 100Mbs of GUI, they will sacrifice the HDD space every time. Its like they're retarded children and love looking at all the pretty colors. :gle:

All your points are incorrect. I am one of those "bi" :rolleyes: users who uses Mac and PC on a daily basis, and I know many professionals on both sides of the fence. A lot of OSX users are friggin GEEKS, who love OSX because it is Unix based. They could give a rats ass if it looks good or not.

Stop being a hater. Both platforms have their good and bad. Macs are damn good at a lot of things, including a lot more than just Final Cut Pro.


Rant

Nice iTunes you got there buddy. Owned.

[Nija]

I am one of those "bi" :rolleyes: users


I always knew you weren't hitting for just one team ;)

[zero2dash]

Nice iTunes you got there buddy. Owned.
:heh:
Rant?
Owned?
:stupid:
I never said anything derogatory about Apple other than their fanboys are weak :rolleyes:
I'm a designer; I use a G5 at work all day. Guess what? OSX WORKS. Just like XP works.
I could give a crap what platform I use as long as it works. I prefer PCs and Windows but will easily use a Mac if I have to because they're good machines. I've never said anything otherwise. (Other than they cost too damn much which is the truth.)

iTunes is a great audio app. Apple makes good apps and computers. So what?
What's wrong...you a little miffed someone pissed on your (bi) Apple fanboy mentality? :rolleyes:

[eSDee]

Ok, let me address a couple of the points of his article that I think are BS.

Software for Windows is generally uninspired, generically cloned, and overwhelmingly wrought with lackluster (read: lousy) user interfaces.


The point that you tried to discredit you proved by running iTunes, which is the best audio application on both platforms. OWNED BUDDY.

You can think I'm a fanboy if you want. If you check any other threads about Mac/PC comparisons you will see that I am the one who sings heralds of both platforms.

[PrObLy]

The point that you tried to discredit you proved by running iTunes, which is the best audio application on both platforms. OWNED BUDDY.

You can think I'm a fanboy if you want. If you check any other threads about Mac/PC comparisons you will see that I am the one who sings heralds of both platforms.


I wouldn't go as far as to say that iTunes is (hands down) the best audio application on both platforms. For a Mac? Definitely. For Windows? I'd say Winamp at least gives it a run for its money. iTunes ,in Windows at least, is rather clunky and doesn't provide the user with enough "tweaking" ability over how their music is played. I'd say that the vast amount of Winamp plugins and skins available and the ability to customize is to your desire might give it an overall edge to iTunes at the moment.

That being said, I have switched to using iTunes over the past several months and I have grown to like it a lot. It makes it easy to stream music off of my roomie's computers, browse their playlists, etc. I also like the straightforward rating system and its default appearance is pretty attractive.

A strong argument can be put up for both applications and I think within the next year or so iTunes will have an advantage over Winamp with the addition of some useful plugins and websites such as the iTunes Internet Registry (www.itunesregistry.com) .




OK, onto the appearance of Windows in general:

I really like the way my Windows looks....although it took a bunch of modifying with 3rd party apps and skins to get it that way. By using Konfabulator, Cursor XP, and Windows Blinds and a cuople other related applications you can get a pretty neat and unique look to windows.
I understand that the main argument here is that, generally speaking, windows software and whatnot is pretty bland. I agree, it's just that there are ways to spice it up a bit.

Here's a couple screens of my current theme/desktop, etc:

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~hsaubert/Music/junk/windowstheme/theme%20small.JPG (http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~hsaubert/Music/junk/windowstheme/theme.JPG)



http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~hsaubert/Music/junk/windowstheme/theme%202%20small.JPG (http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~hsaubert/Music/junk/windowstheme/theme%202.JPG)

[ribitch]

By using Konfabulator, Cursor XP, and Windows Blinds and a cuople other related applications you can get a pretty neat and unique look to windows.


call me crazy, but konfabulator originated on Mac OS X. The Windows version came out well afterwards.


http://www.konfabulator.com/info

[PrObLy]

call me crazy, but konfabulator originated on Mac OS X. The Windows version came out well afterwards.


http://www.konfabulator.com/info


You're absolutely right.

All I was saying was that Windows can be spiced up to be attractive in many ways using several programs, not that it's more attractive than a Mac or that you can't do similar (or even the same) things like that with a Mac.

Of course, it would be nice if one didn't have to scour the internet to find these programs, themes, widgets, etc. and a neater and cleaner look was readily available out of the box.

[verve247]

Wow that a lot of apps to make your desktop look like Mac OS X.


You're absolutely right.

All I was saying was that Windows can be spiced up to be attractive in many ways using several programs, not that it's more attractive than a Mac or that you can't do similar (or even the same) things like that with a Mac.

Of course, it would be nice if one didn't have to scour the internet to find these programs, themes, widgets, etc. and a neater and cleaner look was readily available out of the box.

[eSDee]

You've got a nice set up PrObLy.

[Jeffbx]

Actually, a lot of it has to do with one thing that MS does very well - a standard user interface. Meaning from one version to the next, everyone is still familiar with the start button, everyone knows the alt-key shortcuts they like to use, everyone looks to the same place for a file.. edit.. view.. menu, etc.

MS places a high priority on maintaining a familiar interface, with a very minimal learning curve from one OS to the next. You can take someone using Windows 95, upgrade them to XP, and they still know how to find Word, IE, Notepad, etc. This is *one* of the reasons that MS maintains such a stronghold on the market - familiarity. No learning curve between versions.

The main thing blocking a mass migration from one OS to another is the learning curve - this is why you'll never see a Fortune 500 company making a mass switch from Windows to OSx or Linux. It's not because Windows is any better, but it's because of the massive amount of training & support that would be required to get the people to the same level of familiarity with the OS as they have with Windows.

So yes, you can ALWAYS find a prettier interface out there. But a vast majority of users prefer a familiar interface over a pretty one.

[zero2dash]

The point that you tried to discredit you proved by running iTunes, which is the best audio application on both platforms. OWNED BUDDY.

You can think I'm a fanboy if you want. If you check any other threads about Mac/PC comparisons you will see that I am the one who sings heralds of both platforms.

You still make no sense.
What point are you talking about? :confused:

I pointed out that all interfaces are useful (whether Mac or PC based). I pointed out that Macs and PCs both have "cool" software. I talked about the security flaws with widgets when they were introduced. I talked about GUIs. Yep, I think that glosses over it all.

Where am I owned for using iTunes, and why? Why, because it's pretty? iTunes could look like a Windows 3.1 program and I'd still use it; I use it because it is useful, not because it's not "ugly, boring & uninspired". Again - what's your point? Why am I owned? :heh:

As for iTunes being or not being the best audio app; I think it's the best media collection/organizer. If you use ID3 tags, iTunes has a much better way of categorizing music files. If you have a large music collection (as I do), iTunes will more than likely help you immensely in keeping it organized. I primarily downloaded and installed iTunes as a one-trick pony, just to seek out and delete duplicate songs (which afterwards, I was just going to uninstall it and then return to normal Winamp usage); what I found out quickly was that I kept the program because Winamp doesn't really display duplicates that well (it just eliminates them from the media library completely, unless there's a hidden option in there somewhere) and it doesn't have the "browse" window where you can list songs by artist, album, genre etc. that iTunes does. I used to love Winamp but after a week with iTunes (and some music collection organizing), I can't live without it. :thumb:

[Bires]

(wisper) only teenagers and 1337-wannabes still say "owned"


For my $0.02, I like WMP 9 & 10. I like that one proggie plays all my media files (except quicktime :rolleyes: ) with the proper codecs installed.