Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 16, 2003 02:23 PM
Actually, anonymous, I found this one of the more provocative observations in this article.
What he was saying is that when there was an expectation of "Windows-like" behavior, in this case fostered by the appearance and features of the desktop, the users were more jarred by deviations from the "Windows Experience," whatever that might be, than were users of a desktop that was obviously a more distinct departure from Windows.
I have always questioned the objective of closely duplicating Windows functionality, behavior, and appearance. Same goes for the Mac OS interfaces. The learning curve would be steeper for a desktop and for applications that broke new ground and did things their own way, but many users might be surprised to discover they prefer the changes.
Personally, there is not much I like about Windows, and this goes double for XP. The same is true about many Windows programs I have used. One example is the Gimp. I've spent enough time in Photoshop and in recent years, the Gimp to clearly prefer the latter. I understand that experienced PS users claim its interface is more intuitive, but it's hard to factor out their experience in that observation. My experience is pretty equal with each, and I prefer the Gimp.
What I am saying, is that the goal of producing a Free software application that most closely approximates a Windows equivalent, or reproduces the "Windows Experience" may be misplaced. I truly prefer much about these Gnu/Linux applications, the Gnu/Linux OS, and the operating environment.
I have spent considerable time in both Gnome and Kde and feel comfortable and productive in each, but have developed a strong preference for Fluxbox which simply suits my way of working and supports the Gnu/Linux applications and a way of doing things that represent a clear departure from Windows.