I'm trying to install it right now.
Let's say it's definitely starting with -300 points for the install process.
I mean, come on. Firefox- Opera- Chrome- a few clicks installs them.
For Internet Explorer 9:
First, I had to FIND THE BLOODY DOWNLOAD. most others you know, when you click "download" or "download now" download the file for you. But no, with IE9 it takes you to some otherwise unrelated site that drones on about how great IE is and silverlight and other unimportant BS... and it makes sure you know about the tiny "download" button in the upper right, by not highlighting it's location at all.
So then I download some seemingly random file which starts out by downloading IE9.
OK, am I seriously the only one who hates the way they do this? if I choose to download something, I want to download IT not some stupid web-installer for it. This is the same nonsense we get to go through with service packs. but at least Service packs can justify it with their rather large size compared to how much will be used during the install.
So the install started... I guess... and the first thing it tells me is it has to close...
Every single useful application I was running. Visual Studio 2008, Editpad Pro, Firefox, Fox-it reader, mIRC, and best of all, Explorer.
I'm serious. when I had saved and closed all of those and clicked to continue...
IT terminated Windows Explorer. Goodbye start menu. For some reason I had to restart it manually too. Good thing I actually now how to do that.
And now it's doing nothing. Just sitting in the background- no prompts since. Do I have IE9 now? is it finished? Nope... still IE8.
So, I decided to look up some scree... *censored* program is that?
I think somebody mentioned it before, but it seems like both Firefox 4 and IE9 are going in the same direction as chrome- which is to say, they are throwing caution to the wind and using completely custom UIs, and custom skins. Sigh.
What is wrong with the developers? When you develop a Windows Application, it should look like a windows application. There shouldn't be any of this bloody "skinning" of your application to make it look special. It's called being CONSISTENT. At least most Linux Desktop developers understand this; their applications have a consistent interface that follows a set guideline. There shouldn't be ANY of this nonsense where Applications have skinned windows. It's stupid. Windows Live Messenger is an example- *censored* is that? SHOW ME A DAMNED NORMAL WINDOWS APPLICATION. none of this STUPID crap where you show me some fancy skinned window that I can... OMG! I can change the colours of it! I don't care. I want a Windows application to act as such. It should look like a windows application, not like a 5 year old vomited pastels all over the graphic designers concept art.
Obviously, Chrome was hardly the first example of this. But custom-skinned applications were stupid in 1995 when Media players were using it and they are still stupid today. Chrome just took an extra step and decided to completely redesign how menus are done.
Menus are something that should remain consistent throughout an OS. You don't go screwing around with something for the sake of trying to fix it, because it's not broken. There is nothing discoverable about what the "wrench button" does. The "hide menus until alt is press or the user hovers near it" was annoying in and of itself but at least it was consistent.
Go ahead. Open chrome- you know what the wrench does.
can you apply that piece of GUI info to any other application? No. of course not, it's a menu but it's entirely nonstandard. What they might have gotten away with- and what might actually work- would be to use something more akin to the Ribbon UI; and use the chrome button that would then be at the upper left to show the aforementioned menu. Then Users would learn about something that other applications actually use and they will be able to apply their knowledge that they learned about the ribbon from other applications to chrome.
Media players are another example of this, that have been this way for years. I don't know what in particular makes them think they can turn their windows into a bloody canvas for idiot graphic designers who wouldn't understand good UI design if you buried them in Alan Cooper's published works, but they should STOP.
There are people praising how IE9 (and chrome, and by default FF4) get rid of the toolbar.
Why is this a good thing? I mean, Toolbars came around for a reason. to provide easier access to commonly used functions. It seems though that they really haven't removed the toolbar, they just stripped it down to three buttons and put it on the title bar. On the title bar. You know, even though the User Interface guidelines they've published since windows 95 have essentially said not to change the titlebar.
It just pisses me off to see developers wasting time re-solving a solved problem. Window management should be done by the Operating System. The minimize, Maximize, etc buttons should be off-limits and their appearance should be dictated by the appropriate color settings for the current theme. If you want to design your own User Interface with new concepts from the ground up, write your own OS; or better yet, write a DOS application.
