Improve SOS article in CPC Wiki

[Gryzor]

Well; I wouldn't go as far as saying that it feels like what you say it does, but I see your point and I'll raise some.

The reason I won't go as far as you do is that, in putting it in perspective you can see the effect that SymbOS has had on our perception. If you take SymbOS out of the picture everything else can shine under it own light.

But it's true, and it's something I didn't realise up to now: it _does_ look antiquated, especially if you consider that there were true WIMP attempts twenty-odd years ago. FOS may have been a great idea back in the day, and it still does some quite impressive things, but it does look and feel old, like the UI part has not really progressed in all that time. And in that I completely agree with you, maybe TFM should listen more to costructive criticism instead of thinking he's the victim of a witch hunt...

[TFM]

For those who happened to see a message that was subsequently deleted: TFM opened another account under a different name to post in his defense. No reason to have it that way...

The user (Algon) uses the same IP as TFM, has a futureos.de address and just *happened* to sign up and post just right after TFM started editing and posted again after a while.

What a coincidence!

Hy Gryzor,

Your really think I have no friends? You behave like the axe in the woods when you delete somebodys account, only because he is a friend of mine. This goes really crazy here :-//

TFM

[TFM]

I can't stay silent any longer... FOS IMHO feels like a crippled early attempt at an 80's OS. If this is, as claimed a GUI based OS then it is quite frankly the worst of its type. TFM, I realise FOS has been in development for many years, but I think the first massive mistake came from not approaching the CPC community and asking them what they really needed from a CPC OS. Instead you've produced an OS that sits nicely in your head, but hasn't produced the kinda experience that end users i.e. the community as a whole want to use.

TFM, I'm not suggesting your OS isn't powerful... just that FOS might have stood a better chance, felt more convincing as an OS if you'd have stuck with a command line interface, rather than a badly designed GUI.

This is not an attack, but in my opinion valid and constructive criticism that other people seem to skip over.

Thanks for the critics, but I miss ideas how to make it better.

The FutureOS GUI has only one real disadvantage, it doesn't look like Windows, which is known by nearly everybody.

Personally I don't like windows, because (as seen on the PC) they bring chaos, so I decided to create a fixed GUI, which look the same on every CPC, so you can start up immediately and must not search for your icons. Also the file-section is fixed to 64 file-names, the maximum number of files on a data or system disc.

If you don't like the icons, you can change them. I'm not a graphic wizard, but if somebody sends me some improved icons I'll release an update of the Icon-Changer tool. So you can create your own Desktop-Icons.

I was thinking long how to do the GUI, for me it's still the best solution, because you can access all things fast. Thats also the reason to leave away a command interface. Typing commands is always slooooooow.

However, if there is one person out there, only one idea how to make it better, then please tell it here and now.

Greets, TFM

[TFM]

Well; I wouldn't go as far as saying that it feels like what you say it does, but I see your point and I'll raise some.

The reason I won't go as far as you do is that, in putting it in perspective you can see the effect that SymbOS has had on our perception. If you take SymbOS out of the picture everything else can shine under it own light.

But it's true, and it's something I didn't realise up to now: it _does_ look antiquated, especially if you consider that there were true WIMP attempts twenty-odd years ago. FOS may have been a great idea back in the day, and it still does some quite impressive things, but it does look and feel old, like the UI part has not really progressed in all that time. And in that I completely agree with you, maybe TFM should listen more to costructive criticism instead of thinking he's the victim of a witch hunt...

Well, there is NO constructive critism. Nobody tells here HOW to make it better.

And by the way, it may look antiquated. I like antiquated things, because usually they're more reliable. For me it look also more futuristic, which I like also.

So why has the GUI never been changed? Well, what do you want to improove? I got no real hint here what to make better! I wouldn't talk that loud that I say its perfect, but if something would be perfect, then there would be no need to change it. So again, what do you want to change oder see different??? Just tell it here, but don't write only about "constructive" - be it!

Bye,
TFM

[ukmarkh]

         

Thanks for the critics, but I miss ideas how to make it better.

The FutureOS GUI has only one real disadvantage, it doesn't look like Windows, which is known by nearly everybody.

I hate to be negative, especially to someone that puts the time and effort in such as yourself, but big mistake imho... it needs to look and feel like windows or Linux, popular platforms for a reason you know.

Personally I don't like windows

It doesn't matter what you or I like... it's about what the community as a whole wants, supporting and providing the best OS in order to keep the CPC scene exciting and alive. Symbos is currently the better OS in terms of user base and familiarity. I suppose it's a bit like buying an iphone, it's by no means the best phone, features a weak camera and can only run one task at a time. There are other phones out there that are better in terms of spec, but they just don't deliver as well on the looks and ease of use. (I'm not basing this on Symbos in case anyone tries to use this against me, just generalising)

If you don't like the icons, you can change them. I'm not a graphic wizard, but if somebody sends me some improved icons I'll release an update of the Icon-Changer tool. So you can create your own Desktop-Icons.

That's a good start, although I think people including myself feel the current system needs a complete revamp in the looks department all together.

I was thinking long how to do the GUI, for me it's still the best solution, because you can access all things fast. Thats also the reason to leave away a command interface. Typing commands is always slooooooow.

But many people like a command line, I for one feel more at home, gives users the feeling their in full control of a system. I think it needs one regardless, you at least should give people the choice.

However, if there is one person out there, only one idea how to make it better, then please tell it here and now.

I've already talked about possible improvements above, I think a major upgrade is needed with a possible look and feel to that of Linux or Windows. The system is powerful, no question about that, just feels restricted, outdated and in need of a makeover. Put a feeler out, ask people what they'd like FOS to look like, or things to include? The more people you get using it, the more apps, games and other stuff will follow.

Greets, TFM

[TFM]

Thank you very much for concrete answers. I think I understand what you want to say.

However I asked the question how an OS shall look like in the FutureOS group of Yahoo. It has over 150 active members, but I didn't get an answer up now. May I shall wait some more days.

About SOS, it may look like that it has a better user base, but if you subtract all fake-identities of the Spam-writers of the SOS group, then the FutureOS group has not less members. I had that problem with these Spam-writers too, but I did delete everyone of them. Pdt probably had no time to do this or just sees no reason to care, since new members are usually moderated and therefore can't produce the Spam they want.

However, coming back to the point how an OS shall look like, to go closer to Windos/Linux/MacOS has surely the advantage that people know how to work with it. It's in a way pseudo-intuitive, you know it from the PC i.e. so you do the same things on a CPC.

But the windows-like OS have in my eyes some heavy disadvantages:

- A windows GUI looks different on every PC. So you have to search your icons first, before you can use them.
- If I open one window I waste the rest of the screen, in this case I can buy a smaller (and cheaper) mointor instead of using a window. Looks the same, saves money.
- If I work with more than one window, then in principle it should be possible to arrange them in a good way, but usually with the number of different windows the chaos on the Desktop increases exponential.
- On a CPC it make no sense to use windows, because of it's resolution. This may be different with a graphic card which provides a bigger resolution - but then there is no compatibility.
This problem you can see with every CPC-GUI that tries to work with windows, it's nice with very little windows, but not suitable for real applications like word processor etc.

I don't say that I'm right with the above points, it's just the way I see it, so please let me know your opinion.

[mahlemiut]

But the windows-like OS have in my eyes some heavy disadvantages:

- A windows GUI looks different on every PC. So you have to search your icons first, before you can use them.

You mean you forget where you put them to start with?  Always starts more or less the same after installation.

- On a CPC it make no sense to use windows, because of it's resolution. This may be different with a graphic card which provides a bigger resolution - but then there is no compatibility.
This problem you can see with every CPC-GUI that tries to work with windows, it's nice with very little windows, but not suitable for real applications like word processor etc.

Wouldn't that make any real application unsuitable?  After all, they still have to deal with the same resolution limitations.  That being said, 640x200 is not that bad.

Just curious, what PC OS do you use?

[Gryzor]

I think that the chaos theory does not hold much water. You mean to say that you restrict the user for his own good? This is quite paternalistic... There's a reason that GUIs evolved the way they did. IIRC the first GUI overlays had fixed areas on the screen, but at some point along the way their creators decided that the user wants/needs/could use more flexibility. It's not chaos, it's freedom.

If nothing else, a fixed-size file selector may be a huge waste of space. You could start by making it smaller and adding scroll bars...

What you say about the resolution is a real issue, I won't disagree there. But it's not as much an issue with mode 1 and certainly not with mode 2...

[TFM]

...  That being said, 640x200 is not that bad.

No 640x200 is absolutely not bad, in this case you use no window. But if you work in an window then you use for example only 200x90 and this is not suitable for most applications. May be good for little tracking windows and so on, but not for an text editor.

So therefore they implemented in Windows a full-screen mode. And a full-screen mode is (I think) a must for every windows based OS. At least a maximize-window function shall be there.