I personally feel it is too bad that
the Linux community can't agree to build on
one graphical environment.
Yes, Linux needs to grow up and have a
single, consistant interface, just like
Windows. Look at the many products which
accept the need for conformance under
Windows. Products like
Softimage [softimage.com]
(example [softimage.com])
(though they may have an advantage, being
owned by Microsoft for a while),
LightWave [6] [lightwave6.com]
(example [digitmag.co.uk],
check out the conforming buttons and tabs), and
Kai's Power Tools [corel.com]
(example [corel.com])
Media players naturally conform to the
standard Windows look and feel.
Winamp [winamp.com]
led the way. Soon there were competitors like
K-Jofol [ronography.com]
and
Sonique [lycos.com]
which felt that they could make their mp3
players conform even better to Windows GUI
standards.
RealPlayer [real.com]
quickly followed. Apple realized they
couldn't rehash the Macintosh interface for
QuickTime [apple.com],
and delivered a version that perfectly
matched the Windows standard. Not to be out
done, Microsoft released a new version of the
Windows Media Player [microsoft.com]
which perfectly complied with the Windows
standards for interfaces.
Even the next version of Windows,
Windows XP [microsoft.com],
has been carefully crafted to conform
to existing standards. With such strong and
unwavering leadership, no one would even
think of
using an alternate shell [litestep.net]
or
replacing the entire widget set [windowblinds.net].
Thank you, Microsoft, for getting the
world to agree on one graphical environment.
Thanks to your efforts to end competition,
there is no risk of the Windows platform
fragmenting into a pile of inconsistent
applications, each making their own rules.
Window's one graphical environment (Score:5)
I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
Yes, Linux needs to grow up and have a single, consistant interface, just like Windows. Look at the many products which accept the need for conformance under Windows. Products like Softimage [softimage.com] (example [softimage.com]) (though they may have an advantage, being owned by Microsoft for a while), LightWave [6] [lightwave6.com] (example [digitmag.co.uk], check out the conforming buttons and tabs), and Kai's Power Tools [corel.com] (example [corel.com])
Media players naturally conform to the standard Windows look and feel. Winamp [winamp.com] led the way. Soon there were competitors like K-Jofol [ronography.com] and Sonique [lycos.com] which felt that they could make their mp3 players conform even better to Windows GUI standards. RealPlayer [real.com] quickly followed. Apple realized they couldn't rehash the Macintosh interface for QuickTime [apple.com], and delivered a version that perfectly matched the Windows standard. Not to be out done, Microsoft released a new version of the Windows Media Player [microsoft.com] which perfectly complied with the Windows standards for interfaces.
Even the next version of Windows, Windows XP [microsoft.com], has been carefully crafted to conform to existing standards. With such strong and unwavering leadership, no one would even think of using an alternate shell [litestep.net] or replacing the entire widget set [windowblinds.net].
Thank you, Microsoft, for getting the world to agree on one graphical environment. Thanks to your efforts to end competition, there is no risk of the Windows platform fragmenting into a pile of inconsistent applications, each making their own rules.