Hiya,
I will preface this by saying i'm a noob in Linux. You might well say it was the poor sighted leading the blind
I got a few friends over to play with Linux in my garage on some older machines. They are experienced Windows users, some were power users but none are IT pros - they don't program or create content. They know how to use Windows efficiently and effectively. Some had seen Linux and all knew of it. But none of them had actually used Linux on a desktop before, let alone actually installed it. They experimented with OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and Mint (Mate, Cinnamon, XFCE).
They gave some feedback. You might be surprised that what irked them was not things like the package management, repositories, settings, or terminal. In fact, they loved terminal in comparison to the "Command Prompt" in Windows. They understood that commands would be different, as would paths etc. This didn't bother them other than they'd have to set about learning how to use the OS, instead of spending that time learning how to make best use of the apps that reside on it. The group agreed that they didn't
have to do this because Linux worked more or less perfectly well 'out of the box', but that because Linux was different enough they felt they'd need to investigate areas they weren't happy or comfortable with. We didn't spend that much time on this, which i think matters. A lot of people may well try Linux only briefly and not go much further. First impressions matter. So much of the awesomeness of Linux is under the hood, but most buyers these days look at the styling and if the buttons are easy to reach.
We could well be wrong with these points and please point it out if so. (politely is preferable) Solutions are better than ignorance.
So, here's their notes/opinions...
Installation
They liked the Live CD technique, and the fact they could cruise the web while waiting for the install to happen. It was a great introduction to the world of Linux. The OpenSUSE installer was more "pro" to them and a bit confusing not knowing the terms but much more informative than the Ubuntu-based installers. Some 'help' would have been good for noobs by why of links in the installer.
[B]Drivers[B]
They didn't really play with this, because every computer worked out of the box. There was one PC that had poor graphics performance and needed proprietary drivers installed. It was running Ubuntu and they didn't find the drivers location intuitive at all, nor the installation procedure. Forget OpenSUSE, the installation procedure is ridiculous and put everyone off.
File Manager address bar:
In Windows, we can select anywhere along the path with one click OR we can write directly in the address bar. In Cinnamon/Unity, we have one or the other - not both without clicking a button to choose one or the other. It's also ugly by comparison
KDEs Dolphin was better but not as attractive or instantly obvious and it couldn't do this...
In Windows we can be in a path, and then start typing a filename at the end of the path which will then autofill against filenames that match the beginning of what is being typed. At which point we can either hit enter to load it, or highlight/select it (mouse or keyboard) the whole address bar and copy to get a complete URL we can pass to others - useful in networked workplaces. We couldn't see how to do this in Linux.
However, people who have used Windows 10 File Manager are irked by it's cluttered interface with far too much crap everywhere. Everyone preferred Win7's file manager to the rest.
Show desktop:
They loved hotcorners, but didn't like that there's no 'click to activate' option (were we just blind?). The number of times the mouse is moved toward the corner of a screen and activated a hotcorner was frustrating, leading them to agree that they'd just leave the feature off and use an icon instead (less preferable as it takes up more space on the bar, and is slower to activate - ramming the mouse to the bottom right and click is much faster). Microsoft sensibly created a small area at the bottom right corner for this role (show desktop at least) and it works great with a click. In Win10 they made it (sensibly) much smaller, using less space on the bar, yet still visible for new users to go "what does this do?". Once known (or set up), some used a keyboard shortcuts instead.
Workspaces:
Most of the guys were still on Windows 7 and LOVED Workspaces in Linux. Sadly, this is no longer a point of differentiation for Linux as Windows 10 has them out of the box.
Firefox:
Why on earth does Firefox have a titlebar in Linux when it doesn't in Windows? This annoyed everyone. Speaking of which, those in OpenSUSE had to Google 'install chrome in opensuse'. That's far harder than it should be - type in 'software' in the menu and there's multiple options.
Firefox didn't see Nemo's bookmarked network locations. In SUSE, if a bookmark was added to Dolphin, it still appeared in Firefox save as dialogue box. This was a big negative for Mint Cinnamon in the eyes of the users. I think all Ubuntu derivatives were the same as Mint for memory.
DEs:- Most people thought that KDE was too much effort - too different. They would have preferred a basic layout with options to add things as you go, rather than lots of stuff up front. Some didn't like the layout of the menu either.
- Unity was liked because it was evident it was different. The File Manager was despised by all though. Mixed opinions about the universal bar. The screen that showed all the keyboard shortcuts at first boot was very much liked.
- Cinnamon was liked because it just let you get to work, with enough prettiness to engage the user. Nemo was better than Nautilus, and prettier than Dolphin, but not as useful. They liked the menu a lot; Simple and effective.
- Mint Mate - thought is was better than XFCE for lower-end systems. Liked the menu. Easy to get used to.
- Mint XFCE - the group preferred everything else to it. Felt old and preferred Mate if using an old computer. Seemed 'different'.
File Manager and Windows style 'Libraries':
This was a big one for those who use Libraries in Windows. Not software libraries, but paths. I understand there's such a thing as symbolic links, but i don't understand how they might do this and wasn't able to share an alternative...
In Windows File Manager, we click on 'Videos' (a Library i've created) and it shows me subfolders of paths we have selected in 3 different places:
\\NAS\Video (where i store whatever videos that aren't in the other categories)
\\NAS\Home Movies (where i store family home videos)
C:\users\me\Videos (where i edit film)
There might be 20 subfolders visible from 3 different locations all in one 'Library' view. It's extremely useful and efficient.
e.g.
http://blogs.technet.com/blogfiles/h...ibraries_2.jpg
Networked drive mounts:
If we turn on a networked location after we turn on the PC, the path doesn't automount. This rendered shortcuts dead until we mount the location manually or reboot. This isn't necessary in Windows, once it's available - it's available. People didn't understand why Linux would want to be different here and it was annoying.
=================================
So there you have it. They only dabbled for a few hours and a fair amount of time was installing the distros. First impressions matter and they left feeling impressed with what they saw but those little quirks made them wonder why they would put the effort into going to Linux when they'd still need (want) Windows anyway (gaming, but also the odd niche application). File management seemed to be a big issue and they weren't impressed with what came out of the box of the distros we experimented with.
To summarise, one guy said (not quite verbatim) "to switch to Linux i would have compromise some usability aspects and lose access to many games. Dual-booting is an option, but the only real reason to do this was for ideological reasons".
Help me find solutions to these 'issues' they have and maybe i'll bring them around again for round 2
Windows users try Linux and their comments...
