BTW, for students in science and engineering, you can get it for free by joining IEEE as a student member, as student members get full access to MSDNAA. I just joined, not only for this reason :P (I wouldn't pay $30 to get 7 when I have XP and Vista). I'm going to be a computer/electrical engineer... so will join sooner or later anyways.
I sadly still have to run Windows on my laptop, even though I am a lot more comfortable with Linux, since a few engineering programs we use don't have Linux ports. But then it's the same situation for Mac users, so we are not alone.
IMHO, Windows 7 should really be Vista SP3. It has most of the same stuff, no (or little) new features, with a somewhat new interface (is it just me or is the W7 taskbar copied directly from KDE3?). They say major improvements are in optimization and bugfixing. Never knew you can charge money for those. A lot of money. Even Vista had new features and fundamental changes.
Gates would want them to have done. Vista launched right into -- and shuffled for 3 long years -- the marketing equivalent of a pool of wet, warm dung. It had to be a new name and repackaging. You just can't expect such a huge mistake like Vista was to not have its consequences.
They even have the little bar on the right.
Sure, they are now grouping windows together with the program's icon, but isn't that a Mac thing?
Of course, there's nothing wrong with imitating good designs (like what they are doing quite a bit), but shouldn't they contribute a bit of originality for other people to copy, too?
I still don't see the similarities beyond what has always been long established as "If you see a taskbar, you've seen them all".
1. Big square buttons
2. Smaller, floating in the middle, status icons (or whatever you call those on the right)
3. On the right, time on one line, date on the next
4. Vertical bar on the far right
None of those things are in Vista/XP.
Still waiting for virtual desktops.
All it says is that: do not think that what you have is the best. Try other things out, just for the sake of it. You might take a liking to it.
Switching to something new can be done however you want, if you want, at a privileged time.
As for the UI:
Microsoft did not steal it from anywhere. They looked at how people worked and did experiments to increase their productivity.
There are a lot of videos and commentaries about that stuff available on the web. They did research to improve the UI, simply put.
All they did in researched was check out the competition. But hey, I don't have a problem with that. They saw something(s) good and decided to use them, the better the better. The only thing I dislike in the matter is that people who don't know better assume it's all original.
Nothing against Microsoft at all, why wouldn't you want to benefit from other areas of advancement? I would be more upset about Mac selling their OS when it comes with a bunch of free software (like vi, X, etc), so you're basically paying for it.
Windows 7 statusbar is... a statusbar. Like so many other statusbars are statusbars. As if Microsoft needed to copy KDE UI elements. Or if KDE UI elements were some kind of Sacred Golden Cow of GUI Excellence in Innovation. Give me a freakin' break!
Find something else to pick. Frankly, there's much better things.
Want one? This is Windows 7 Advanced Search Query. Now, try to search inside all your text files. Useless piece of crap.
Like many others and I have pointed out, there is nothing wrong with copying. People copy good designs all the time. I was merely pointing out the fact (or opinion) that a lot of copying happened between vista and 7.
Linux people copy stuff, too. It would be ridiculous to say the design of modern Linux GUIs (which took off quite a bit later than Mac/Windows) are totally original and independent of existing designs at that time (Mac/Windows). The title bars, top menus, context menus, 3 buttons (close, maximize, minimize), taskbar, windows minimized to buttons, icons, etc.
I am not a big fan of Apple, but they do have many original, effective, and aesthetically pleasing designs. They were successful because they took BSD (and its stability/security/efficiency), which is a very good kernel, and made it easy to use for even the most computer illiterate. That's why they can sell computers with huge premiums and people still gladly buy them.
IMHO Microsoft was like that a few decades ago, too, by popularizing the PC platform with IBM, which gained them their well-deserved marketshare. But now, they are just living off it. Relying on vendor lock-ins and various other questionable business tactics to stay in the game. People don't CHOOSE to use Microsoft products. They are either forced to or (more commonly) didn't know the existence of alternatives. If everyone used open formats, how many people would still shell out hundreds of $s to get MS Office when they can get OpenOffice for free? Is it really THAT much, if any, better?
Compare it to, say, Photoshop. It doesn't employ any of those techniques - graphic formats are largely all open, and good and free implementations are everywhere. For people who only need the basics, GIMP will do. But for designers and other professionals, they use Photoshop because it is a truly superior program in some way. Not because they are forced to.
My implied point was that, while everyone has been copying everyone else's designs, Microsoft has recently contributed very little originality to this pool.
Has it ever occured to someone that perhaps both apple and microsoft has done research on ui and came to the same conclusion? They have not stolen anything right off the bat. Inspired? Perhaps. Also go check out the prototypes of aero peak while you are at it. Perhaps the bat signal might prove interesting.
Certainly possible, but I guess that this is kind of like patents: the first one to make it official gets first dibs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Well, they changed the name of Outlook Express to Windows Mail in Vista (Apple Mail). I wonder what kind of research would tell them Mail is a better name than Outlook.
It just feels like Apple is doing all the innovation (they invented the icons concept, too, didn't they? and the mice, and "status bar"? not sure about this one, and the concept of having windows). What did Microsoft invent?
Linux copied a lot of things, too, but people aren't usually as harsh about them because they are not selling Linux at a ridiculous price.
It just seems strange that Windows even resorted to copying Linux (KDE). That's... copying the copy cat and making a lot of money doing that.
Originally Posted by cyberfish
I remember being taught in some computer class long ago that the mouse was invented by Engelbart. The relevant Wikipedia articles claim that while Engelbart could be considered as the inventor of a significant mouse prototype, the more modern ball mouse and the concept of an icon as applied to a GUI were invented by the Palo Alto Research Center people (who basically invented the GUI, which the relevant Wikipedia article does not dispute). As for status bar... that may fall under Mario F.'s "a status bar is a status bar" thing, since certain information displays that pre-date GUIs could be considered status bars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish