A Modern Operating System

The place to bring up any design issues, or post your own creations

Moderator: Moderator Team

GoBusto
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:13 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by GoBusto » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:00 pm

kevinski wrote:The two-click system sounds nice, although I doubt that you'd need to have EVERY SINGLE OPTION available as a two-click deal. Obviously, there are a lot of options that the average user doesn't even touch in most applications.

To me, a modern operating system (or the operating system of the future) could vary depending on who is using it. Really, I feel that any operating system should be tailored to the people using it, so it'd make sense that you could put anything wherever you wanted to. For me, an ideal "modern" operating system would incorporate all sorts of built-in social networking functionality right out of the box. Example? Well, how about a simple video editor that allows anyone to click a button to have their final product uploaded to YouTube? (I realize that there are apps out there that do this already, but I was merely giving an example.)

Also, I'd prefer that a record of installed applications and their respective settings be stored remotely, allowing for them to be easily re-installed to my liking. Really, a modern operating system, to me, needs far more Web integration.
So you'd fall into the "multimedia user" group, then.

Personally, I think I'd fall into the "technical user" group. I'd want to be able to use Code::Blocks, VLC, Firefox and some other stuff like simple image editing and low-poly 3D modeling. I don't use social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook or Youtube - my browsing history consists mostly of Debian, gNewSense and ReactOS, ReactOS, ReactOS, along with various programming reference pages.

My own ideal operating system, therefore, needs to be able to do just about anything, but be quite bare, which is why ReactOS would be ideal for me. I'm currently using Windows 2000.

This is, I suppose, why the developers do not bundle stuff with ReactOS but instead use Download! - different strokes for different folks, but with a standardised, flexible base.

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by vicmarcal » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:43 pm

Well..this shows in which way different Distros could be useful.
One could follow the NT GUI guidelines,others can remake all the GUI (all stuff that users can see),one could be Internet based,when other could be light-speed based.Indeed some could improve new system calls but always keeping compatibility.

Maybe a Compatibility test should be done.A test that check compatibility of all Distros.

So some Distros would be just Design,others Design+Enhancements. But always with a Main GuideLine: Full Compatibility with windows apps.
Image

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by Z98 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:13 pm

Generally, when one tries to "improve" the syscall interface, you WILL break compatibility, as the expected behavior gets changed in the process.

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by vicmarcal » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:16 pm

Well not really...you can add Systemcalls without breaking anything.
Adding Stuff doesnt mean breaking Stuff before(If u do it correctly)
;)
Image

GoBusto
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:13 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by GoBusto » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:09 pm

vicmarcal wrote:Well not really...you can add Systemcalls without breaking anything.
Adding Stuff doesnt mean breaking Stuff before(If u do it correctly)
;)
You might end up adding new, ReactOS-specific behaviours which can coexist with the Windows NT 6.0 design but which will get in the way of implementing the new "XYZ" feature of Windows 7, which wasn't known about beforehand.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by Z98 » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:01 am

Why exactly would we add new stuff? I mean, none of the Windows apps out there would know they exist and thus not use them at all, and if any future apps did try, we'd be breaking compatibility with Windows in the process.

Anyways, I believe this topic was about user interface design, not OS internals design.

kevinski
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:23 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by kevinski » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:33 am

I love Windows 2000 Professional due to its bare-bones approach. Problem is, developers simply don't support it well anymore. And newer games run quite poorly on it, which is a shame, because you'd think that games would run better on a less bloated OS.

Anyway, I suppose that I kinda caused the topic to stray a bit. I did touch on the UI bit, as I do feel that you should be able to put anything anywhere. I think that a modern operating system, as much as I hate to admit it, simply shouldn't resemble any current operating system, as the operating system model simple needs to change to draw more users. I definitely prefer a simple, clean interface, but do keep in mind that what is clean isn't necessarily what is best for the novice user. I hate text labels on buttons, for instance, yet a lot of people have no idea what different icons mean, despite their graphics making it quite obvious, in my opinion.

Example: My dad just called me last night, wondering what the little pink arrow next to a message in his inbox meant. I told him that it meant that he'd sent a reply to that particular message already. Do keep in mind that there's a similar icon on a button at the top of the window with the word Reply on it.

As for a modern UI, it really needs to revolve more around widgets and whatnot, in my opinion. Widgets are great in so many different ways, but I'll mention two of my favorite aspects or widgets to keep things simple. First off, widgets make things easily accessible, and they generally focus on doing one thing. Secondly, since widgets are very simply by design, their options are also very simple (which makes them easier to manage). Digging through the Control Panel is nowhere near as intuitive as managing the settings in a widget. That's why I recommended leaving out the Control Panel, as I don't feel that it's necessary. Use the widget approach to settings, and things will be easier.
[ Web | kevinski.com ] [ Wii | 7030 8283 2535 8378 ]

af3
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by af3 » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:17 pm

As a response to the original post, I would not mind having the capability for a dazzle desktop under the hood, however I would appreciate a method of determining what kind of user is behind the keyboard. An example of which being; upon first boot, the user is prompted with a choice of what experience they want. Win2k, or Psuedo-Aeromania.

Call me dull, but I love how fast Window's XP zips through navigation with the themes service disabled, and all visual effects shut off.

Whichever way you go with this project, the Beta will surely be worth a try, and I hope I live long enough to try 1.0! :)

SdC
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: GMT +1

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by SdC » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:06 am

kevinski wrote:.....Really, I feel that any operating system should be tailored to the people using it, so it'd make sense that you could put anything wherever you wanted to. For me, an ideal "modern" operating system would incorporate all sorts of built-in social networking functionality right out of the box. ....
Ummm that's seems like a contradiction right there.

Aape
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:29 am

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by Aape » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:56 am

GoBusto wrote:
kevinski wrote:The two-click system sounds nice, although I doubt that you'd need to have EVERY SINGLE OPTION available as a two-click deal. Obviously, there are a lot of options that the average user doesn't even touch in most applications.

To me, a modern operating system (or the operating system of the future) could vary depending on who is using it. Really, I feel that any operating system should be tailored to the people using it, so it'd make sense that you could put anything wherever you wanted to. For me, an ideal "modern" operating system would incorporate all sorts of built-in social networking functionality right out of the box. Example? Well, how about a simple video editor that allows anyone to click a button to have their final product uploaded to YouTube? (I realize that there are apps out there that do this already, but I was merely giving an example.)

Also, I'd prefer that a record of installed applications and their respective settings be stored remotely, allowing for them to be easily re-installed to my liking. Really, a modern operating system, to me, needs far more Web integration.
So you'd fall into the "multimedia user" group, then.

Personally, I think I'd fall into the "technical user" group. I'd want to be able to use Code::Blocks, VLC, Firefox and some other stuff like simple image editing and low-poly 3D modeling. I don't use social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook or Youtube - my browsing history consists mostly of Debian, gNewSense and ReactOS, ReactOS, ReactOS, along with various programming reference pages.

My own ideal operating system, therefore, needs to be able to do just about anything, but be quite bare, which is why ReactOS would be ideal for me. I'm currently using Windows 2000.

This is, I suppose, why the developers do not bundle stuff with ReactOS but instead use Download! - different strokes for different folks, but with a standardised, flexible base.
I'm the "Technical" user as well. While we do prefer a stripped-down environment, you almost must realize that we're the minority amongst Computer users. The vast minority. Let's face it. The number of people who use their computers only to access Social Networking sites is bigger now than it ever was before, and that number will only grow. The computer is changing in the minds of the public, no longer being "Something you use MS Word from" but rather "Something you get on Myspace from." Barring a Specialty OS specifically designed for one minority user base, an OS should always try to appeal to the majority, and allow the minorities to get the system how they want anyway. And ReactOS does not appear to be something intended for us techies, and making it so would not be a very good idea in my eyes.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by hto » Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:43 pm

In the end, the community will decide what ReactOS will be.

GoBusto
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:13 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by GoBusto » Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:32 am

Aape wrote:I'm the "Technical" user as well. While we do prefer a stripped-down environment, you almost must realize that we're the minority amongst Computer users. The vast minority. Let's face it. The number of people who use their computers only to access Social Networking sites is bigger now than it ever was before, and that number will only grow. The computer is changing in the minds of the public, no longer being "Something you use MS Word from" but rather "Something you get on Myspace from." Barring a Specialty OS specifically designed for one minority user base, an OS should always try to appeal to the majority, and allow the minorities to get the system how they want anyway. And ReactOS does not appear to be something intended for us techies, and making it so would not be a very good idea in my eyes.
However, if you're an IT technician for a business, managing the computers for everyone else, even non-technical users will need to be using an OS that is designed to be fast and secure rather than MySpaceOS. Of course, for non-business, non-technical users, it might be a different story. Perhaps, when the big 1.0 comes nearer, the dev. team can start thinking about doing ReactOS Home and ReactOS Business editions in order to cater for everyone.

Aape
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:29 am

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by Aape » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:58 am

We could have different distributions that have different defaults, but probably a better idea would be to let the office itself change whatever it needs to. After all, we're never going to make a default configuration set that's going to perfectly suit everyone right out of the box...

unofficialforum
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by unofficialforum » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:56 pm

the gui is a gorgeous clone of vista, although i'm not sure about the 3 buttons. the lower ones look okay, the ones that are bolder colors, not so much.

how long have you been thinking about the design, layout, and usability of the gui?

johnwedd
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:00 am

Re: A Modern Operating System

Post by johnwedd » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:25 am

I hate to say that its quite possible that MS has done the work for us, if not shown the best examples.

the best best and biggest example is to use pictographic icons. the best implementations of this that i have seen thus far come in the form of the newer "MS Ribbon"/tool-bar interface technique, taskbar/Rocket Dock (not MS, but best example), and the ever present desktop.
Desktop - Big, recognizable and easily interpretable icons on a nice background. the users eyes are drawn to them constantly, and they immediately associate them with the universally accepted double click. The users know that: "If i double click this, it will do stuff" and "if i right/context click this, i will get to do stuff to it". Placement of these icons must be easy to customize, by sorting, alignment, and/or simply dragging the icon to a new location.It serves as ground zero, most users want a way to go back to the desktop because it lets the evaluate what the hell is going on, its the "face" of a computer.
TaskBar/Dock - This is present in all modern OS GUI systems, in one form or another. In Mac's case, two forms. This acts as the main way a user interacts with the computer because its the starting point for most things, the desktop acting more of a convenience than actual interface element. Users look to it to find out what there computer is doing, and they use it to tell the computer to do many different things. But these things are still very simple in the way it is used. The Dock is the form of a task bar with the functionality of the desktop. it allows for a sub layer of ease that gives the user a faster way to have desktop functionality. but the dock, is still an optional component, (but rapidly becoming standard.).
Tool-bar- essentially a dock for individual applications, only instead of files and applications, options and functions are made in an easy and quickly accessed form. while another, more powerful set of options and functions are availible to the user via the drop down menus.
these are essential elements of a ui, the idea is to split the interaction levels by three, the upper most being the docks desktops, and tool-bars, the second being slightly more involved, while still graphical and easy to navigate, this includes the task-bar, and the drop down menus/configuration forms. the bottom most being the CLI and config file editing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest