Why the BAD design of WINDOWS hurts LINUX desktops

👏 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:
Get access to a weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and get your name in the credits:

👕 GET TLE MERCH

🎙️ LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE NEWS PODCAST:

🏆 FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE:

This video is distributed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license.

#Linux #Windows #ux

00:00 Intro
00:35 Sponsor: Monitor and secure your internet connection with Safing
01:35 The Start Menu
05:34 How the start menu affects Linux desktops
06:42 Disjointed User Interface
08:55 Program installs and storage
12:22 System Updates
14:17 Windows design matters to Linux
15:53 Sponsor: get a PC that supports Linux perfectly
16:46 Support the channel

This is going to be controversial, but the Windows menu, or really the whole start menu paradigm is bad. This menu is used to start and open things. It's not a multitasking experience. So having a menu that occupies a small corner of your screen is not great.

The reality of things is that people are now just used to it. In Windows 11, the centered menu is a disaster, and once it's open, it's just a bad launcher. Apps are sorted chronologically, so if you don't know the name of a program, you're out of luck, and you can't create any folder that you could build muscle memory upon. And there's the case of opening multiple apps in a row.
With the windows menu, you need to open it as many times as the number of apps you want to launch. Not efficient.

The issue is, this bad menu design affects Linux desktops. Because many distributions or desktops don't want users to run away, they mostly moved to a windows like menu.

We all know about the mismatched UI of Windows.The real problem is that people are now completely used to it. And for Linux, it means that UX, or just UI is not often considered.

Next, let's look at how apps are installed on the system.
On Windows, while the store is progressively getting better, the main way to install a program is still to head over to its website, download an executable, and run it, then click next a few times, pick a location, and let the program install itself.

The files are stored in a single folder usually, with all the libraries the program needs, and the program itself in its own directory structure, that varies from program to program.

And this is a bad design. First, for security reasons. Storing executables and libraries and data in a single folder is a surefire way to have badly set permissions on these files.

Second, it makes finding the files you're looking for difficult. You need to learn each program's directory structure, and look online to find where the data is stored.

And this bad design on Windows also influences Linux desktops negatively. Because to this day, I still get people telling me it's easier to install a program on Windows than on Linux. Seriously.

The reality is that a lot of people don't understand how to install programs on Linux. They're so used to downloading them manually that they try to replicate this, and get super confused.

And a lot of newcomers to Linux just don't understand where the files a program uses live, because they're used to having them lumped into a single directory. The better way to look at it is: what type of file am I looking to access? And then this tells you the folder where it's been stored.

It's no secret that system updates are dreaded by a lot of Windows users. Windows updates have always been problematic, super slow to install, they require a reboot in most cases, and they can make your system worse than it was, so it's no wonder that many users are wary of these.

App updates are also handled separately from system updates. And people that moved from Windows to Linux will keep this fear of updates, because it's been drilled into them again and again that updates or even worse, major version upgrades, aren't a good thing. But they ARE.

And that negatively affects Linux desktops, because you'll get plenty of people who don't apply their updates and then ask for help about a bug that's been fixed already, or who stick to insecure software that has patches available. It makes the work of maintainers and developers harder.

[stwenty]

I'm helping someone move from Windows to Fedora on an older laptop, and I've gotta say, it's bold of you to assume they delete the installer file after installing the app. When I was backing up their data, the amount of stuff in their download folder was... impressive.

[arthurnorth]

As someone who chafed really hard under the concept of a full screen start menu in windows 8, gnome is like home these days. Turns out it wasn't the concept that was bad, it was Window's implementation of it.

[temari]

There's a funny thing I notice in myself. Whenever I encounter a UI or UX inconsistency on Linux - I hate it and try to fix the issue. Whenever I encounter the same on Windows - it's just expected and I don't care, because the entire system is like this to the point that being inconsistent is kind of consistent.

[deusexaethera]

There absolutely _is_ a reason to have your app menu occupy a small section of your screen instead of filling the entire screen. That reason is to prevent the user from losing the context of what they're working on when looking for the next app they need to open. It's essentially the same as the "walking through a doorway effect", where you walk into a room and forget why, because the complete change of context wipes your short-term memory clean. Microsoft tried the full-screen app menu paradigm in Windows 8 and it was a complete failure. Almost everyone hated it, and this is the reason why. That being said, I absolutely agree the design of the new Windows 11 app menu is terrible and I hate it. Show me ALL my apps dammit!

[Michael-Archonaeus]

The reason most OSs use a traditional start menu in the corner is that the corner is the fastest spot to accurately move the cursor to, and once the menu is open, you want things as close to the cursor as possible, in order to reduce how much it has to move to reach items.
It is not simply because people are used to it.

[VeryUsMumblings]

It's amazing how GNOME users think it's much more efficient to have a crapload of icons covering your screen almost entirely and then scrolling through pages and pages of icons looking to find the one icon you want, instead of having a taskbar on the side or bottom of the screen with a few icons that you use more often. and launch the programs you need more quickly and, yes, more than one at a time. I don't doubt that windows has it's problems, bu GNOME is not necessarily the answer.

[jamessmith]

I am a retired mainframe programmer/analyst. Using Linux since 1995. I have used many OSes over the years and had to adapt to a new UI/UX more times that I care to mention. I guess I am so hardened that it matters not to me at this point. I just adapt and keep on truckin'. Nicely presented, however.

[JodyBruchon]

The Start menu from the Windows XP and older days was pretty great. There are very good reasons to have the menu small and in the corner. I don't want everything else I've got open to be obscured by a huge menu. Just because I'm not actively working on something doesn't mean that I'm not watching it. If I have a transfer ongoing then I might abort my menu searching to bump that along.

The combination of the cascading menu and pinning at the bottom is the best paradigm I've seen to date. GNOME's launcher is inferior for the same reasons Windows 8 Start was inferior..

[onred_]

New Linux user here coming from Windows just starting a few weeks ago. Very good breakdown of some of the habits that we former windows folks have. Especially true about downloading content. One of the reasons I always downloaded from the official site was for the assurance that I’m getting the correct file. When I see some packages in Linux for the same thing with slightly different names/sources, it sends alarm bells to my brain that some could be imposter apps trying to Trojan onto my system. Likely not the case in Linux for most apps, but it’s a real concern coming from windows and a hard habit to break.

[microcolonel]

The reason a small menu makes more sense is that if you open it with your cursor, it will be closer to your cursor/finger, and you can traverse more options in less space than if they were larger. (though the items need to be large enough to comfortably click)

[RogueRen]

I like the small "start menu" because I want to see what's behind it. If I'm streaming, using the menu can free my mouse from the game

[JodyBruchon]

Several of the things you went after Windows for have been solved a long time ago. User data and programs have been forcibly isolated since Vista came out around 2006. You can't store user data in program folders. There are two places that per-user program data are stored: in your user profile under AppData and then Local or Roaming. The split exists because Windows in a server environment supports "roaming profiles" where Roaming is stuff that should follow your *login* anywhere on the network while Local is stuff that should only be on the local computer such as browser caches. In an organization where your account's profile is a roaming profile, you can log into any machine where you are permitted to do so and all of your stuff follows you because it's actually stored server-side.

Of course this is pointless for the vast majority of smaller businesses and residential users, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. The setup, update, and upgrade processes have improved massively in recent years as well.

I think you may not understand these aspects Windows enough to properly criticize them. I applaud you for admitting your biases upfront. I'm just annoyed that my most popular production is "Windows 11 Must Be Stopped" yet here I am defending Windows. Excuse me while I shower.

[Queldonus]

Options over decisions. A good UX has a thoughtful design with consistency and clarity, but it also has options to let users customize things to their preferences and needs. Its a factor of accessibility as well. Being able to customize the under interface may make someone with limited means able to use a device they couldn’t otherwise.

[shaunhall]

Time will tell but I think people leaving Windows will figure things out that work best for themselves. We as a community need to be there to help them make the change. Change is always hard but we can adapt.

[pisiont_groszy]

You're actually quite right about new Linux users. However, I will honestly admit that I switched from Win 10 to Linux Mint in February this year because I was irritated by updates and the general sluggishness of the Windows system. Now, when I see opinions about Win 11, I think that switching to Linux Mint was one of the best decisions in my life, especially that I just fell in love with cinammon, I think that I will use this system for a long time. :)

[SoimulX]

I think having programs in their own folders is great for portability as transferring apps to an external storage is simple.

[My-noname]

The problem os not that we can not stray to far from Windows.
I converted a company from win to Gnome last year and they just sat down and started to work. No problem at all. 5min basic "how to" was all it took.
I think the problem comes before any contact with a gui. The problem is to make the decision to throw yourself out of your "safe" Windows environment to something unknown.

[marufbepary]

I switched quite a few friends to Linux (Fedora with Gnome) and I tell them to treat it like their phone. Use it the same way you would use your phone and you will be fine. Now they are happy Linux users.

[emmettshaw]

I think you went a little hard into the start menu, and it's more of a preference thing. That said, window managers with basic run prompts are far better in my experience.

[wingflanagan]

Hmm. Mixed bag, IMHO. Probably because I'm a software engineer, my ideas about usability are slightly skewed. Great video, but my views are a little different.

I use all three major OS's (Windoze, Mac OS, and Linux) daily, so my comparisons are continuously updating. For me, the start menu makes sense (when it's on the left, always in the same place), along with the ability to tap the Windows key, type the first few letters of the program I'm looking for, and then hit Enter to launch. Pretty simple. On Mac, it's Windows+Space bar (I use Mac with a Windows keyboard) to get a middle-of-the-screen launcher. Before Windows adopted the quick keyboard method of launching from the Start Menu (and many Linux distros as well), I used to use Launchy or something similar, which mimics the current Mac quick-launch method. I don't like the Gnome way of doing things, though I'm sure many do. To each their own.

In terms of app installation, I frankly don't like ANY of them. They all pretty much suck. Yes, app stores/repos are great, _as long as they have the app you want._ If not, it's the Wild West. Flatpak? Snap? AppImage? Deb? RPM? Source? You either have to keep multiple package managers (which can totally mess each other up), or go with something like the AUR on an Arch-based system (which is what I do). And I DO like the concept of the single-folder install, where all the dependencies are in one place. If I want to configure an app, I can just look in its folder. No scrolling through a zillion config files. AppImages are the next best thing, although there is more work (making them executable, getting them on your menu).

One thing I absolutely _HATE_ and which has not (so far) infected Linux or Mac, is the Windows Registry. Dear God! Whose idea was that? We need to bring back cruel and unusual punishment just for that person - and maybe the idiot who invented COM, while we're at it!