What is your ideal desktop experience?

Which desktop paradigm would you prefer?

  • Dock (ala. macOS/NeXTSTEP)

    Votes: 6 12.0%

  • Taskbar (ala. Windows)

    Votes: 6 12.0%

  • Panel (ala. Classic Gnome)

    Votes: 5 10.0%

  • Minimalist (is. WM)

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • Other..

    Votes: 6 12.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Beastie7 said:
Thanks for the replies and votes. I’m actually surprised the Taskbar, and Dock options are relatively tied. This will put a slight shift in my design process.
Click to expand...
You're aware that these votes are not representative since only nerds hang around here?
 
I have been using Windows since version 1.04 in 1987.
For me to configure Xfce with the button on the bottom left corner and taskbar on the bottom just seemed natural.
Ala Windows NT 3.1 and newer.
I think its a wonderful thing that our desktops are so configurable.
 
Beastie7 said:
I don’t understand this statement. Representative of what? What constitutes a nerd demographic? This poll is about preferred experiences. That’s it.
Click to expand...

I could not decide what to vote. I am using a WM but it has a taskbar... so i don't really know.

Edit: Voted. I think i got the question all wrong.
 
Phishfry said:
I have been using Windows since version 1.04 in 1987.
For me to configure Xfce with the button on the bottom left corner and taskbar on the bottom just seemed natural.
Ala Windows NT 3.1 and newer.
I think its a wonderful thing that our desktops are so configurable.
Click to expand...

I think configurability is the most difficult thing for me when trying to conceptualize how an experience should be. In your opinion, do you think a desktop should be configurable, piece-by-piece or by paradigm?

For instance, a simple switch where you can dynamically change paradigms or piece it together on a very generic session (ie. Xfce).

I can kind of see where mjollnir is coming from with his statement; but I’m using feedback to craft my implementation, so to speak.
 
I think a good case study is Mint Linux. Gnome3 changed their paradigm so radically that users fled to Mint.
People don't like radical change. Especially when it was similar to Windows8 and their desktop redesign.
One desktop environment for all devices. Phones, Tablets and Desktops. Not a laudable goal as so many varying screen sizes IMHO.

Back to MInt. What made it the choice of fleeing Gnome3 users? I believe it was Cinnamon and Mate.
It was a desktop environment they could easily use as it mimicked Windows 3.1

Configurability is hard for me to pinpoint. Part of it has to do with changing taskbar location but more deeply it is the theming.
GTK theming is probably equal to or greater than Windows theming. That is what I want. From changing desktop colors to Window title bar colors and fonts. That is configurability.

Then we can discuss Openbox. Completely a blank slate. Which direction do you want to go. OpenStep like or Windows taskbar like.
I know Xfce is more bloated than OpenBox and Tint2+Conky. But I feel that Xfce has made some good desktop design decisions.
 
Beastie7 said:
I think configurability is the most difficult thing for me when trying to conceptualize how an experience should be. In your opinion, do you think a desktop should be configurable, piece-by-piece or by paradigm?

For instance, a simple switch where you can dynamically change paradigms or piece it together on a very generic session (ie. Xfce).
Click to expand...
I don't think that one (or a few for that matter) paradigm(s) can fit everyone's needs/expectations. What I do know for sure is that things that cannot be changed to the way I'd like them really annoy me. The inability of Windows 10 to work in focus-follows-mouse mode or to change key bindings cause your keyboard just happens to not have a damn windows key are good examples of that. And as those things happen on your desktop, the thing you work with on a daily basis, there is a strong possibility that these things not just annoy you eventually, but constantly.

One thing I'd like to know: What exactly makes the difference between a panel and a taskbar? My understanding is that a taskbar is a panel (or something you put in a panel, like in KDE) but not necessarily the other way round.
 
mickey said:
One thing I'd like to know: What exactly makes the difference between a panel and a taskbar? My understanding is that a taskbar is a panel (or something you put in a panel, like in KDE) but not necessarily the other way round.
Click to expand...

Someone may correct me here, but as I learned it a panel is simply a long narrow bar that displays information. A taskbar has clickable applets in it. In most cases they're combined. The only time you see them separated is in some window managers that have a panel but no task bar. I use spectrwm and it has only a panel; I would have to add the taskbar separately if I wanted it.
 
Phishfry said:
For me to configure Xfce with the button on the bottom left corner and taskbar on the bottom just seemed natural.
Ala Windows NT 3.1 and newer.
Click to expand...

You haven't even used that.
Case in point:
Winnt31.png
 
phalange said:
Someone may correct me here, but as I learned it a panel is simply a long narrow bar that displays information. A taskbar has clickable applets in it. In most cases they're combined. The only time you see them separated is in some window managers that have a panel but no task bar. I use spectrwm and it has only a panel; I would have to add the taskbar separately if I wanted it.
Click to expand...
I guess the line is a bit blurry here. Earlier versions of windows used to have distinct areas for quick launch icons to start programs, and the task manager area where running programs appear. Nowadays it's mostly combined into one. I think of a panel like a (customizable) container that could basically contain anything from start buttons/menus/icons over a task manager/bar (KDE actually has two you can choose from) to status information, system tray and clock. Therefore it did not make much sense to me having to vote for Panel or Taskbar.
 
I vote Minimalist.
In a sentence, after a lot of test, KISS stay the best approach event for "complex" usage like OS GUI.

Historic with desktop OS:
I discover the computer world with a Thomson (TO9+) computer (games, animated cartoon builder and basic...)
I was a Mac OS 6 -> 8 user and left the Apple world to Linux (Yellow Dog Linux, Debian and a lot of "distro" I was comfortable with Xubuntu).
When Apple launched Mac OS X, I saw a real bookmark with "#!/bin/sh on a mac, you bet ?"
And I bet... I was back on Mac (I still use Mac OS X today).
I stop using linux in my desktop (thanks X11 on Mac OS X) and in the same time, I replace Linux by FreeBSD on my servers.
I never had a DOS/Windows computer.

Why OS X stopped to be sexy for me?
This 4 last years, a lot off features that I use every day is remplaced with a golden jail in OS X.
Screens (virtual desktop in grid) is remplaced by virtual desktop in row !
The mixing "fullscreen application" "desktop / window" is a nightmare. You nver know where a new window open, when you want move a window, you need to minimalize it in some case. Why a new mail message open an half fullscreen window aside my browser ? And how the hell I can drag and drop from my desktop to my fullscreen app without touching my keyboard ?
The Mac OS X desktop inherit from iOS usage and the result is against my productivity and my 'liberty'.

What I try and why dwm ?
So, I bought a laptop and decide to use FreeBSD as desktop OS.
I try my old friend (XFCE) but it was not as sexy as I remember.
So I try, Gnome, KDE, Enlightment ... a lot of test, and all is under the OS X quality.
One day, on my OS X, I try to project the OS X futur. And for me Apple try clearly to transform the OS X desktop into a tiling window manager. All things that I dislike is a mix between "finder/window" mode and fullscreen mode.

Finally, I try some WM and I am very comfortable with dwm.
I write a script to launch app from image with sxiv in 20 mins and the result is as good as Apple launcher.
dmenu is a good tool (but I will filter the entries ...) and finally a lot of cli tools are very good for mail, IRC ...
When something is nasty, I can fix it with a specific tool (or script). I am free, I have a computer that fit my needs.
KISS (a concept that I honestly forgot) is a winner for me.
 
Beastie7 said:
[...] I can kind of see where mjollnir is coming from with his statement; but I’m using feedback to craft my implementation, so to speak.
Click to expand...
My objection was that IMHO most "average Joe" users don't care about implementation details, but instead want & need graphical configuration tools for their GUI. Obviously, many of those who answered your poll prefer a minimalistic & highly customized DE setup; in that this is not representative, as the average non-nerd user lacks the skills & time for such customization. If you want to create such configuration interface for one of the numerous (tiling?) window managers, and/or enhance one to better fit your needs, that's for shure a good thing. As is to collect feedback before going to design & coding.
 
Cthulhux said:
You haven't even used that.
Case in point:
View attachment 8446
Click to expand...

He was close. Windows NT 3.51 was the first version of Windows to get the modern Windows 95 style shell. It was called newshell and was effectively a preview. Similar to the Windows 95 active desktop being a preview for Windows 98's one.


It is weird how I used to give a damn about Windows back then. It was exciting and fun to see what things Microsoft were doing. Now all they do is try to get more power and control over their customers. Bunch of criminals.
 
kpedersen said:
It is weird how I used to give a damn about Windows back then. It was exciting and fun to see what things Microsoft were doing.
Click to expand...

At this point in time there actually was some innovation to be made. Nowadays it's just a race to the bottom about who targets the least able users and while managing to lock in most of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top