On 11/10/2005 10:28 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Tyler Strickland wrote:
I switch _everything_ back to the classic view - start menu, themes,
control panel, etc. I'm not a huge fan of the new layouts and flashy
things that just get in the way. Is it just me or does Microsoft
like making the process of doing advanced things hard?
>
While I agree that Microsoft seems to make doing advanced things hard,
I do not agree the "classic view" is advanced. The new Control Panel
layout is just a different way to organize it. It might be different,
but can be just as easy once you learn it well. I have heard a lot of
people complain about the new layouts and themes. These people are
usually the same people who are afraid of any kind of change. Change
is inevitable.
Did you hate the new look of Windows 95? Did you complain back then too?
I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about change just
because it is different. There are a lot more important things to
complain about besides small changes like this. Like the lack of true
privilege separation. Learning new things and ways of doing them is a
way of life. Get over it!
Yours was a fairly flameworthy response, but I'm going to be civilized
and try to respond as if it were not.
I agree with you that the "classic view" is not necessarily advanced,
but to me it seems that advanced settings are more easily accessible
through that interface. Also, I find the new design too flashy and
frequently too clumsy for my tastes. The new start menu would be a good
example of that.
As I've gone through the various different user interfaces of Windows
(3.1, 95, XP) and Linux (Enlightenment, Fluxbox, KDE, Gnome) I've
learned what style of user interface suits me best. The key to my
optimal interface is simplicity. It can be flashy or nice, so long as
it does not get in the way of my work. For this reason, the user
interface I use on my home system is Fluxbox. It is simple, fast, and
easy to work with. Does it do the fancy things that KDE does? Does it
have a gui to change its settings or add items to its menu? No, but the
interface is so simple and solid that I rarely even need to consider
doing those things, and when I do, I can do it from my good friend vim.
I recognize that my tastes and needs are not the same as those around
me. KDE and Gnome offer very nice interfaces and I've spent a lot of
time using them. I was a Windows 95 user in 1995 and yes, I did like
its interface better than that used in Windows 3.1. One of the things I
love about Linux is that choices are available. I can use Fluxbox
because it works best for me, but that in no way has to influence what
anyone else uses. In Windows, I use the classic view because it suits
me best.
You state in your message that "learning new things and ways of doing
them is a way of life." I agree. Learning new things is essential to
growth and survival. I do not agree, however, that newer is always
better. Newer solutions can sometimes be worse then older solutions;
newer ideas are not always better than those that preceded them. The
key to successful evolution is to examine new developments, keeping
those that you feel are better and discarding those that you feel are
not. This is often a completely subjective process.
I also agree that there are many aspects of Windows that are more
important than the user interface. That does not mean, however, that
the UI is not worth discussing. As an element of Windows that one _can_
change, it may even be a more practical use of discussion time than
things, such as privilege separation, that we have no control over.
--Tyler
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
