Funny, since Cell Phones often do not work anyway like how I want. And configuring or changing settings is like pulling teeth.
Regular users that don't modify or change things. Power users and developers modify a lot... and if we can't find a way available to users, we will find or create a script to get it done!
My phone does everything I need it to, themed as I want it and allows me access to most of the files I want access to.
Haven't figured out how to root without tripping Knox, and don't want to lose biometric use in applications... so I deal with that... but otherwise, I'm happy.
I blame these new folding things called phones. Nothing will compare to my old Razr! Know the entitled thing - was once support in Vegas for a resort. Upper mgmt was, fun to deal with.. The expectation was unreal on stuff just working. Lots of hand holding with.. those. And the higher the title, the worse it got
I don't understand why so many developers try to bring the smartphone UI to the PC, although I can see why Apple would do it.
Most computers don't have touch screens, so even Apple is a little backward in their thinking.
I'm under the impression that large software companies go for what is familiar in everyone's everyday life. Just about everyone has a smart phone or used one at some point. Give them something their familiar with and it will attract more.
Except on a computer, things operate differently and you still need a mouse to get around (for most). This is where hardware that should be treated differently is having a completely incompatible UI thrust upon it. Making it vague and more difficult to understand what is going on, where things are and how to operate it.
Yeah, I think this is the reason why Win8 failed.
We can easily examine Mobile Gaming and PC Gaming.
Mobile Gaming is much more limited. In every way.
From user controls to hardware and resources.
Blizzard Entertainment did not really look at reality. They just looked at "trending".
There is a very large problem with "trending." It does not mean what you think it means. Things that are trending are simply things that got attention. It does not mean that they are liked or wanted. Or in use. Mobile games are fine when you are marking time at a bus stop.
Diablo: Immortal as the next big thing in the Diablo franchise and they were shocked that the gamers were shocked. These folks dropped thousands of dollars on gaming rigs only to have Blizzard throw them under the bus.
But the big question is: Why? Why would Blizzard take such a direction so eagerly.
Comes back to Mobile gaming being much more limited. In the long run,
Limited aspects mean limited costs, too - But you can keep charging that same price. You can cut out a lot of things and a lot of teams.
So, many companies would love to eliminate the notebook computer and desktop PC market and have only Portable mobile tablets. It seems easy for them to market this as a benefit since people already have useful, portable phones and tablets.
And... there's the disconnect.
People already have phones so they know how very limited and restrictive that they are. They are useful when in a hurry. Useful when you need to make a quick net search. A complete nightmare to use for much else. And marketing at people to convince them that tapping different points of a screen is productive simply is not fooling anyone.
I like to think it's just to keep up with the times; the new age is all apps and glassy themes lol I get it.. it's 'the future' .. which gets kinda annoying after a while. iRemember when everything had an 'i' in front of it, just for appeal; had absolutely nothing to do with iAnything
I wish that I could agree with you.
Sadly, there is another factor to this that is harder to see on the surface looking from the outside in.
I will give a rather weak, but easily accessible example here. This user pointed out an issue:
A Brief Background: In Web Dev; a coder will set a class in html, then assign properties for that class in the stylesheet.css.
With GTK, the class is set independently of the person creating the stylesheet. It is set in the gtk widget. Once set, the theme styler must work with what the app developer set as the class.
Many App Developers are taking a Very Easy Route of setting classes based on the current themes that trending which are generally flat and monochromatic.
That is a fine thing; as long as theme trends remain static.
But they don't remain static. Styles change.
And the problem is that these many app devs set classes that depend on the theme being flat and monochromatic in order to appear normal.
Instead of correcting these classes, the app devs would much prefer to Lock In Theming to prevent stylers from making new themes, prevent user control and prevent having to go back in and correct what they did.
Which, all of the above means that a change in trends won't eliminate the problem.
In fact, the app devs will probably double-down and rely on more force.
(Which, we already see them beginning to do...)
HTML eh, angelfire? I'm a Python user. Played very little with the HTML and web stuff.
Yeah, not bashing any of it - and that's fine not to. Did read that post when it was new; just pointing out: since Vista, we've had, and will continue to have, glassy, pretty themes. Take that how you like, no offense - but, I'm also using the said glassy, pretty themes myself! I can already tell you, I wouldn't be able to create any themes, from scratch .. but I don't need to - I think it looks just fine with what I have. Did give it a shot with my old iPod and Rockbox - meh. But I don't think there would be any new devices sold at large numbers without that 'new' and 'updated' look .. I would buy it, because I'm me lol the same me that sees old iPods on eBay and starts looking at bigger batteries, SSD swap, maybe a clear faceplate and such - fun! But, what I call fun.
Just pointing out the progression we've had with the how the modern computer looks through the years. Heck, just look at the amount of change that took place with the Twitter logo, or Facebook - not necessarily speaking ill of the dev behind the look; or theme. And this is coming from someone that still wouldn't mind using XP - but, that's just me.
No, it isn't. XP was Rock Solid.
Had a really old MicroQ PC with Win95 on it - tiny little thing, for the time. Later with XP though, that's when I got into gaming and cared a little more about performance. With fears of Vista being the next run - that's when I heavily got more into Linux than Windows Even had an old desktop with OSx86 - was trying everything I could to ditch Windows completely lol ended up using both, still more Linux vs Windows though!
I'm a (frontend) developer and I don't want to modify a lot. That's why I'm using Zorin OS after trying many other distros. Zorin OS is the most beautiful distro I've ever seen and I needed only to change few settings so that it works very well for me
Other distros let me modify very much but even with modifications they're not getting even close to what Zorin OS looks like.
Ah, Windows XP and Windows 7... good times . I guess I should both blame and thank the clumsy C-suits at Microsoft who ruined their own product and pushed me towards Linux.
I also love the way Zorin OS looks, it's really quite beautiful. I used Deepin for a while, but Zorin feels much less clunky, and I'm glad I switched. One thing I do miss, however, is the fact that Deepin was Debian based as opposed to Ubuntu.
This is slightly misleading. Both are Debian based. Ubuntu's is highly modified and uses systemd, but is still based on the Debian version of Linux.
When building a Debian system, there are many options for system components.
Otherwise, Ubuntu would be a BSD variant or other Linux based variant (fedora, arch).
It would cut out the middle man if Zorin was built directly on Debian, but there is so much more development that would need to go into it that we would be lucky to see new versions every 5 to 7 years. It would be a nightmare for two people to create, build and maintain.
I was unaware of this, interesting.
The kernel is part of Linux. It and a few other pieces fit into the gnu system, which uses the kernel to access hardware. On top of that you have the middle men software that speaks to these life level systems and processes, as well as the system services and desktop.
This is where the different bases come from. Some are proprietary. Like Red Hat, others are based more on Unix systems (BSD) and there is Debian which is a compilation of simple processes for efficiency and speed.
Ubuntu is based on it, but highly modified (systemd is not that fast nor efficient).
It gets really technical really quick, but a lot of well liked distros are Debian based (Ubuntu,
Zorin, pop, mint, mx?... there's a list).
22 posts were split to a new topic: The effects of AI being included in new hardware
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not an expert. So I might miss something here. But isn't Debian a fully functional operating system? Why would it take so much longer to develop, if Zorin OS was based on Debian directly instead of Ubuntu? Yes, they would have to go with the Debian repositories. But the main work that I see as a user are the modifications to the desktop which are either Gnome or XFCE issues, and some performance and stability improvements. How would switching from Ubuntu to Debian change that so much?
I'm not arguing here, I genuinely lack the knowledge and don't understand.