Think about a hybrid between Windows and Unix OS

[thinhtq]

First of all, thank you very much for some valuable quotes and question here. That make me feel interesting as there are someone who care about my ideas. I would answer you questions step by step:

I admit not having read your design document. However. There are only a limited set of function keys on the keyboard (most of them have ten or twelve), as opposed to tens (or hundreds) of commands that can be placed in menus. Also, not every command is meaningful to every application. To stick with your example, the graphic designer application can't interpret a "stop playback" command - and you have just wasted a key.

This is already stated in my design, after supporting many people, I find out most of them just use limited numbers of applications which connects to their jobs. There is also needful to bring more functions keys (external keys) which could be arranged around them for their faster actions. It is no problem if you have more 10-20 special keys around you. Furthermore, I have tell you in previous post the way to build a new function key.

Edit: after reading the design document, I would also argue with some (most?) of the presumptions of your design. To mention a few:
- "Letĺs imagine if you just push a button to call a command window, then you type ôgoto excel1ö you will be at Excel window. This is clearly save time of users."
I still think that clicking *twice* (or pressing alt+tab, two keys) beats typing "goto excel" (ten characters) every time. Even with auto-completion (type G, space for "OTO ", type E, space for "XCEL") I don't see the benefits. This gets worse if more than one instance of the same application is running.
- "The frequency to use mouse reduce considerably much. We could use keyboard in almost all tasks"
Ever tried selecting a non-rectangular area in Photoshop?

If you see more, you know my Command Box is RICH-INPUT command box, which could support VOICE. That is the real benefit you could gain from. I also suggest to TRAIN or customize common commands if the voice of user is not so good that OS could recognize. I also suggest the NAMING for application to avoid mistake when calling them.
Moreover, I have clearly state that we could use keyboard in almost all tasks (try to use SMITTY or AutoCAD). However, the commands could use in most frequent tasks rather than in all tasks. You could imagine a number like 70% command, 30% mouse.

- "Every application could be considered as an object ... As a result, they may include two main parts: method and property. Methods could be considered as functions, which fulfills a specific task basing on parameters provided to them."
While this could be arguably true, how would you perform (to stick with the previous example) image manipulation in Photoshop? That can't be done without actually looking on the screen. Furthermore, to actually make use of this method/property system, *every* application would need a thorough rewrite. Sorry, but I just don't see that happening.

You show a sharp point here. In fact, every current applications now have been already programmed with inside functions or method, data. Which I suggest is to create some DOORS (or Inter/Outer Processes so called) for the users or others applications could touch or connect. This does not require you to rewrite every application (however, if you need a new OS, application must be changed to follow it)

What you described here reminds me of batch files or those Unix programs that perform one specific task, and the results of one may be sent to the input of another.
- "User needs to find or look into menus then run after windows. So he becomes slave rather than master of Windows."
The new, so-called Ribbon user interface of Office 2oo7 was actually designed to address exactly this issue.
- "Key-set for application means we could make specialized keyboard for every application."
Try convincing keyboard manufacturers.
- "When we allow application object to have properties and methods (like .NET programming) and allow users to transfer message to application object properly help users to remember easily and manipulate on application."
Sorry, but I see this as requiring users to actually *program* their PCs. Not everyone is/wants to be a programmer just to be able to browse the internetz and watch silly *tube videos.
- "OS will have many modes (such as Normal and Safe mode currently), include those like Television, Game, MS Office, Printing Modes... Each mode allow OS to have access to specialized data ..."
So after having watched a movie I would need to restart the OS just to access for example Visual Studio?

Thank you for some of your valued feedback. Ribbon is good enhancement in Office, but that is not enough, to some extent, it requires you to look for menus. I have tell you that if you need to touch mouse, this reduces your speed a bit. With command box, you just type "abc xyz" then choose requested buttons, menu from searched results. Ribbon could be more efficient if there is a keypad for surfing or filtering the menu (see some Oracle applications, even menu or command is also considered as database of control)
The property and method do not make people program their PC, on the contrary, this makes them find it INTERESTING, as they could tell the system and see any object like REAL OBJECT/ANIMAL in life.

And, finally, my favourite:
- "o Make user like Windows as drug thanks to learning and training progress"

This training process is shown clearly in xNIX system than windows as the command line the same as you learn to speak or to write, that is enhancement in your MIND. In windows, it is fast eye and fast hand, that is enhancement in your EYE.

Regards,
Tran Quang Thinh

[madeofstaples]

First of all: where is the user looking, if not at the screen, when (s)he is typing? Supposing they know how to type, they shouldn't have to look at the keyboard. In any formal touchtyping lesson, the user is indeed taught to look at the screen, however, the important issue is how most users actually behave when using the computer. I think you're making the assumption here that reaching for the mouse necessarily requires the user to fully divert attention and thus breaks his/her concentration. This is probably not actually the case for users who have for a long time habitually used a mouse to operate a computer.

If you are UNIX/Linux skilful users, I think you would never say like this. Especially, if you are expert in Windows support,

My main operating system for the previous decade is Gentoo Linux, and I have to keep a copy of windows around for the development work I am paid for, so I am quite familiar with Windows as well--at least with its API and the MSDN documentation.

I think you should remember the saying "try to use mouse as less as possible".

Who are you quoting? What is the context?

And when the Windows user, who you are supporting, said that: "Oh, I cannot see what you are doing", I thing you are quite successful at that time.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; for supporting windows or some application in windows, support teams can typically either ask the user to open a command prompt and type the relevant commands, and if the issue cannot be solved that way, they can also request a remote desktop session.

Even so, typed commands often must be precise, and a lot of time is wasted ensuring that the user has typed the correct command, whereas asking the user to click on a button with a certain label is immediately more intuitive and less prone to error.

My suggestion for you when you want to explain about speed to use mouse and keyboard is that:
1. Try to SMITTY/SMIT in xNUX system fluently and then tell some things.

I'm not familiar with SMITTY/SMIT, but it doesn't really matter because you're not making a comparison to any GUI-based solution which involves using the mouse. I understand that SMIT may be run under X to provide a point-click interface, but it sounds to me like it is only an extension to a version which was originally developed to be used in a text-based interface. If I am correct in that understanding, then it's not really a fair comparison, is it? A valid comparison would be between SMIT and a similar program that was intended by design to provide a point-click interface. How can I say, based on a program which does not require me to use a mouse, that another application which would require me to use the mouse would be worse than the non-mouse program?

Furthermore, the entire point of my previous post was that your preferences and my preferences don't really matter--you want to know the preferences of your target audience.

2. Try to use some Oracle applications at your highest speed and then show me your feeling.

I'm not familiar with Oracle, but I am with SQL, and dare I say thank god for phpMyAdmin. I still plan out and optimize important queries by hand, but it keeps me from spending time remembering how to do some menial task.

I think your design could benefit if you used axioms from cited research rather than your own, presumably untested observations. That is, unless this project is mostly intended for your own use only. No offense intended, just my 2 cents.

In fact, if my design is so easy, many people could find out it earlier. I do not have any cited research until now except for my experience. What I have in my experience is to witness and summarize activities of many skillful users.

I never said your design would be easy. I suspect you have not actually collected data on the behaviors of "many skillful users" and analyzed it disconnected from the initial observation, am I correct?

Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely fine to pursue your design if you think it would be practical, useful, beneficial, or even just a neat idea. I'm just a little skeptical that a lot of people would like your design better than their current solution or take the time to learn your design--especially skillful computer users who have, without a doubt, already developed conditioned behaviors related to their main OS and the software packages of choice. Introducing even minor changes can cause anxiety and negative feelings/cognitive dissonance, which are exactly the opposite of what you want to happen.

If you are not sure what I mean, I think (or I hope, at least) that you'll find some interesting information in Wikipedia's entry on Operant Conditioning. I'm not sure how good the information is in the wikiipedia entry, but I would be happy to send you quotes from a psychology text book if you are indeed interested.

[quanganht]

There is nothing to do with the kernel. Only replacing/modifying windows managers is roughly enough.

IMO mixing 2 OSes will be nothing than a huge mess. So never think about it. If you want, write a new OS, and try to blend stuffs from Windows and Unix together. It is hell !

@thinhtq: I'm Vietnamese too

[thinhtq]

There is nothing to do with the kernel. Only replacing/modifying windows managers is roughly enough.

IMO mixing 2 OSes will be nothing than a huge mess. So never think about it. If you want, write a new OS, and try to blend stuffs from Windows and Unix together. It is hell !

@thinhtq: I'm Vietnamese too

Oh, nice to meet a Vietnamese person here. I have explain this design is different from Windows manager in previous notes, kindly read it carefully.
If fact, my idea is from System Support side and it should be implemented by developers.
I can "mix" as I use Command Key, which help Windows Inherit from previous command line system.
Regards,
Tran Quang Thinh

[thinhtq]

My main operating system for the previous decade is Gentoo Linux, and I have to keep a copy of windows around for the development work I am paid for, so I am quite familiar with Windows as well--at least with its API and the MSDN documentation.

Who are you quoting? What is the context?

This notes still means you are developer more than system support. When you just use Windows in ONE application, you rarely find it's drawback. Why? because within one application, the software producer often try to make most comfortable environment for user. If you have to switch between them more, you will see!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; for supporting windows or some application in windows, support teams can typically either ask the user to open a command prompt and type the relevant commands, and if the issue cannot be solved that way, they can also request a remote desktop session.

Even so, typed commands often must be precise, and a lot of time is wasted ensuring that the user has typed the correct command, whereas asking the user to click on a button with a certain label is immediately more intuitive and less prone to error.

I feel to loose time when try to argue with someone who do not read my design or try not to understand my expression. It is difficult to explain with a person who try to misunderstand such a simple meaning of a sentense or intend to drive my explaination.
Why do Microsof call a Hot Key or Short Key. Using Hot Key means you can save a lot of time by using combination of keys, this way actually saves time and is much more faster than using mouse. Therefore, I give you example in which the user said: "I cannot see what you do" that means the supporter use so many Hot Key (short key) that the users cannot recognize the real action. If the support does it by mouse, he cannot reach that speed. In fact, this is also a conclusion which I have draw when seeingd many skillful supporter from Microsoft or IBM when they did project with me.
If you read my design you may see I have argument that Microsoft make some Hot key but to some extent the user find is difficult to remmeber. Then I try to suggest some ways to make Hot Key, for example, by normal expression in life (and this solution just could be done well only with the Command button's appearance).

I'm not familiar with SMITTY/SMIT, but it doesn't really matter because you're not making a comparison to any GUI-based solution which involves using the mouse. I understand that SMIT may be run under X to provide a point-click interface, but it sounds to me like it is only an extension to a version which was originally developed to be used in a text-based interface. If I am correct in that understanding, then it's not really a fair comparison, is it? A valid comparison would be between SMIT and a similar program that was intended by design to provide a point-click interface. How can I say, based on a program which does not require me to use a mouse, that another application which would require me to use the mouse would be worse than the non-mouse program?

Furthermore, the entire point of my previous post was that your preferences and my preferences don't really matter--you want to know the preferences of your target audience.

In other point, I explain about SMITTY or CAD is to emphasize EVERY menus or command buttons have a corresponding command line which we could take advantage. For example, MS could be make Winword a command line: "WordDoc.font =+1" equal to choose "Ctrl + }" or "choose field font then change one point bigger"
In fact, I will make it clearer that we should devide the application into some areas, the applications which need to be interacted by users (input data, exchange data..) should be have easier way to take advantage of keys (Oracle application I showed as an example is a kind of this). On the other hand, the application which just need to be viewed or chosen by users (web surfing, text reading..) should be used more with mouses or limited special keys such as page up, page down, zoom, home...

It is quite late now and I have to work tomorrow, I would explain more for this idea.
Regards,
Tran Quang Thinh

[madeofstaples]

This notes still means you are developer more than system support. When you just use Windows in ONE application, you rarely find it's drawback. Why? because within one application, the software producer often try to make most comfortable environment for user. If you have to switch between them more, you will see!

So you think I've only ever used Visual Studio in Windows?...

I feel to loose time when try to argue with someone who do not read my design or try not to understand my expression. It is difficult to explain with a person who try to misunderstand such a simple meaning of a sentense or intend to drive my explaination.

To be fair, I am not trying to misunderstand anything; on the contrary, I am actually trying to understand what you are saying most of the time. I have read your design document but, like your posts here, it's certainly not the epitome of technical writing. Please do not take any offense to that! It is clear that English is not your primary language, and I'm afraid the only other language I know is Spanish (and I'm not nearly as proficient at it as your are proficient at English!), so miscommunication and misunderstandings are inevitable. I apologize if I misunderstood something

Why do Microsof call a Hot Key or Short Key. Using Hot Key means you can save a lot of time by using combination of keys, this way actually saves time and is much more faster than using mouse. Therefore, I give you example in which the user said: "I cannot see what you do" that means the supporter use so many Hot Key (short key) that the users cannot recognize the real action. If the support does it by mouse, he cannot reach that speed. In fact, this is also a conclusion which I have draw when seeingd many skillful supporter from Microsoft or IBM when they did project with me.

So I don't understand--are you supporting the idea of hot keys? or command line usage? Your design document doesn't talk much about hot keys besides a key combination which would bring up a console... at least from what I understood.

If you read my design you may see I have argument that Microsoft make some Hot key but to some extent the user find is difficult to remmeber. Then I try to suggest some ways to make Hot Key, for example, by normal expression in life (and this solution just could be done well only with the Command button's appearance).

But your examples rely heavily on correct word usage and grammatical construction. As I've been saying, you don't really have a basis to say what would or wouldn't be a "normal expression in life."

In other point, I explain about SMITTY or CAD is to emphasize EVERY menus or command buttons have a corresponding command line which we could take advantage. For example, MS could be make Winword a command line: "WordDoc.font =+1" equal to choose "Ctrl + }" or "choose field font then change one point bigger"
In fact, I will make it clearer that we should devide the application into some areas, the applications which need to be interacted by users (input data, exchange data..) should be have easier way to take advantage of keys (Oracle application I showed as an example is a kind of this). On the other hand, the application which just need to be viewed or chosen by users (web surfing, text reading..) should be used more with mouses or limited special keys such as page up, page down, zoom, home...

So CAD applications already employ the technique that you like, and web browsers already employ the technique you like. Clearly this is an application design issue, not an operating system design issue. Personally, I don't think Word would benefit from adopting some of the design principles of a CAD software package, being as it's meant for word processing and not computer-aided design...

[thinhtq]

So you think I've only ever used Visual Studio in Windows?...

When I said [I think you should remember the saying "try to use mouse as less as possible"] you told me:
"Who are you quoting? What is the context?", I already field you are not an expert users in Windows!

So I don't understand--are you supporting the idea of hot keys? or command line usage? Your design document doesn't talk much about hot keys besides a key combination which would bring up a console... at least from what I understood.

You know that the evolution of command has reached a higher step. Hot Keys or Command Key may meet each other if you see Cisco IOS. For example, when you work with IOS, you can use a command: "config t" instead of "config terminal" or "wr mem" instead of "write memory". You should study it and find this interesting.

So CAD applications already employ the technique that you like, and web browsers already employ the technique you like. Clearly this is an application design issue, not an operating system design issue. Personally, I don't think Word would benefit from adopting some of the design principles of a CAD software package, being as it's meant for word processing and not computer-aided design...

It is really not very interesting to discuss with you as you are always "TRY" to misunderstand. I show application such as CAD to prove that: Perhaps every menu has it command line which functionally equal to. Then when design OS, you can take this advantage to support "DOOR" or control point so that user can RUN this command line even they are not WORKING in this application!

Regards,
Tran Quang Thinh

[madeofstaples]

I am familiar enough with windows that I can help others over the phone without actually having a computer running windows in front of me in order to know how to give instructions. I've also encountered and needed to use countless applications both for work and for classes. Still "try to use mouse as less as possible" is neither grammatically correct (so I doubt it could correctly be called a "saying"), nor is it familiar to me.

I have taken two years of CISCO classes (but it has been a while), so I am, of course, familiar with their shortened versions of commands. I do not see how that is relevant here.

You continue to accuse me of intentionally misunderstanding you, even though I have been patient with the slight but obvious language barrier. Even if you implement the idea of allowing a command for any action achieved by the mouse regardless of whether the relevant application is running, then you are still talking about the shell, not the OS or kernel itself.

[AJ]

I have locked this topic because:
a) Is going round in circles.
b) The OP is continuing to post agressive answers to someone who has IMO tried to understand the situation and provide some constructive criticism.

I can already imagine the next response without reading it.