Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Nobody has mentions the UI. I know Ubuntu has come a long way but Windows' UI is much, much nicer. It may sound silly but I think it's a valid reason for some. The same reason why one would buy an iPhone over another less expensive (or non-apple) phone, you pay for looks (it may not be the only reason of course but it is part of it). People like nice-looking stuff, and older folks seem to care (or notice) less these things, especially if they're not technologically inclined.



Bullshit. That's just your own very subjective opinion of UI preferences.

I personally really don't care at all for the ridiculous glassy look of Aero in Windows 7; it's ugly to me.

I think the biggest problem with Linux is that many people plainly prefer what they're used to. Additionally, if you're a so called Windows "power user" you have vested more knowledge in the Windows ecosystem - specialized knowledge that is useless in the Linux world. An older person doesn't have this specialized knowledge, computers are all the same to them. THAT'S why it's easier for them to switch. They're used to being n00bs and knowing little about the OS they're using. It really doesn't matter which OS it is.


>Bullshit. That's just your own very subjective opinion of UI preferences. >I personally [...]

You're rather rude there. I don't agree with what you said and I can say the same thing about your statement. I know plenty of people my age with Linux experience that don't use it as their primary OS precisely because of the UI. And no, they don't want to waste time on config files with a WM, they did that when they were 16-18. And BTW, I was talking about Windows 8, not 7.


I'm sorry I came across as rude. Your blanket statement about Windows and iPhone being prettier presented personal bias as fact, which annoyed me, so I called you on it.

Yes, you may not agree when I say Windows (7) looks butt ugly -- and that was my point. It's all quite subjective.

Linux has a big advantage, though, in that you can quite easily switch between different Desktop Environments and/or Window Managers. Configuring the look and feel of your desktop is just a lot easier. And config-file time wasting is entirely optional, I promise.


The Windows 8 UI is the most annoying thing I have ever dealt with -- and I am not alone in making that statement, even people I know who frequently use Windows have said so. Microsoft took a UI designed for touchscreens and tried to make it work on desktops and laptops; it is not even that great of a touchscreen UI.

I find it ironic that you talk about wasting time on config files. My experience in Windows is that doing anything beyond the 10 tasks Microsoft determined to be common results in hours of clicking through menus, configuration dialogs, and in some cases dealing with the registry editor. Trying to troubleshoot a problem is a nightmare. Trying to set up something unusual is beyond a nightmare.


Please don't try and pass off your personal preferences as fact. Beauty is just a matter of preference.

Personally I've never cared for Microsoft's design. XP always looked chunky and gaudy to me - I hated it. Aero looks unfinished compared to Compiz (but part of that might be down to the fact that Linux has been doing desktop compositing for years before Windows finally caught up). And Windows 8 just looks like Microsoft forgot the last 2 decades of OS design and reverted back to the 320x200 days of square windows, square widgets, etc.

So I'm happy you find Microsoft's design to be your particular eye candy, but don't patronise us by arguing that this preference is fact.


I think you're confusing aesthetics with usability/experience.


No I'm not. The former commenter was on about aethetics because he was talking about people being drawn to pretty things. However I don't think Windows has better usability / experience either. If it did, I wouldn't be running Linux as my primary desktop. But again, usability is partly down to personal preference / workflow as well.


Wow, you really don't understand what tiles and metro design are about? Have you considered the power fonts have? Have you thought of making content a first class citizen in GUI?


I'm talking purely about aethetics. I couldn't give a toss about what ever excuses you have for the massive usability fail of Metro (and it is seriously lacking as a desktop user interface) in a discussion about personal preferences with design aesthetics. But who cares about a level headed discussion when people like you can instead post condisending fanboy BS...


One word: Cinnamon

It's what Ubuntu should be, its what Windows 8 should be! it's classic and yet functional and customizable, both my parents laptops are using it as UI and I hear no complaints.


I have to refute that statement in regards of Windows 8 on desktop. The amount of confusion in that UI, even for me, is a handful.

If we ignore the metro side of things, I agree with you however.


>If we ignore the metro side of things

Yes, absolutely. My start screen is an empty, blue wall with a large tile taking me to the desktop. Despite the start screen I like everything else about the system.


That's a shame, the start screen is very useful place to organize shortcuts to your most often used tasks. I use oblytile to generate custom shortcuts and I have (organized by location / purpose) 12 shortcuts to start a ssh/rdp session to a remote server. It also has shortcuts to spotify/outlook/xencenter/vsphere and gmail.


But that is just your Start menu expanded to take the whole screen... Were you removing all the items from Start menu on older versions of Windows as well?


The new one has a setting that boots to desktop, if that helps any.


yea--just too much. Same with Bing. Sometimes I want to see a blank screen--especially if I'm not quite awake.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: