Hello dear guest!

Why not join our boot disk community? So do it. Life's short!

  - You get free access to our newsletter with all the interesting buzz about boot disks
  - We share publicity revenue with everyone who wishes to participate at the forums
  - Publicity is never, never, never displayed to members (along with many other cool things)
http://boot-land.net/register

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topic
 'simplicity of use' vs 'chaos pur'
Rating 5 V
post Nov 12 2008, 10:14 PM
Post #1
MedEvil
Platinum Member   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 29-December 06
Posts: 4,242
Thank(s): 100


When i remember back, almost two years ago, when i first came here, we had WB052 and the Standart project.
It was not as much short of todays projects as one might think and was very easy to use .

'Easy use' is a thing of the past today and things get increasingly worst with every single day, imo.
Main forces behind this development are the:
- 'i need extra small, so put this in another script' fanatics
and the
- 'i need a checkbox for this, even if i never touch it' fanatics

Yes, small is beautiful, but not if it makes things so complicated that one needs an extra degree from an university to use it!
Also more checkboxes, make not for a better script. Keep in mind the rule of the 7!

I think it is important to keep in mind, that our projects are ulimately meant to be used by people, who did not spend weeks, month and years to familiarize themselfs with the internals of XP or WB building.

I see WB making the same mistake Linux developers make. Thinking they need more and more options and features to be better than Windows and fall short of seeing, why people choose to rather buy Windows then getting Linux for free. Simplicity Of Use!!!

And if i see, that i can check the same option in 3 different scripts in LiveXP, i know that developers have lost track too. thumbdown.gif

---------------------------

How about less options and more usability?


cheers.gif


--------------------
NaughtyPE - The Multimedia PE!
Requirements: WB072 or 077RC2, XPSP2/W2k3SP1 source, Pentium CPU, 128MB RAM (256MB to use video players)


1 user(s) said "Thank you!" to MedEvil for this fantastic post:
Nuno Brito
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #2
psc
Guru   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 14-July 06 From: Korschenbroich

Posts: 8,443
Thank(s): 441


Germany


QUOTE (MedEvil @ Nov 12 2008, 11:14 PM) *
When i remember back, almost two years ago, when i first came here, we had WB052 and the Standart project.
It was not as much short of todays projects as one might think and was very easy to use .

'Easy use' is a thing of the past today and things get increasingly worst with every single day, imo.
Main forces behind this development are the:
- 'i need extra small, so put this in another script' fanatics
and the
- 'i need a checkbox for this, even if i never touch it' fanatics

Yes, small is beautiful, but not if it makes things so complicated that one needs an extra degree from an university to use it!
Also more checkboxes, make not for a better script. Keep in mind the rule of the 7!

I think it is important to keep in mind, that our projects are ulimately meant to be used by people, who did not spend weeks, month and years to familiarize themselfs with the internals of XP or WB building.

I see WB making the same mistake Linux developers make. Thinking they need more and more options and features to be better than Windows and fall short of seeing, why people choose to rather buy Windows then getting Linux for free. Simplicity Of Use!!!

And if i see, that i can check the same option in 3 different scripts in LiveXP, i know that developers have lost track too. thumbdown.gif

---------------------------

How about less options and more usability?


cheers.gif


thumbup.gif

You are right with demanding simplicity.

But help me to understand the logical results.

If I'm trying to hold just the basic functionality in nativeEx core and give the responsibility for everything else to the project / scripts.

Do we fight on the same or on different sides?
(To pack EVERYTHING into the core would make live much more simple)

Peter


--------------------
Build the house starting with the basement rather than with the roof! But always have in mind how the roof should be made!

There are very rarely problems, in most cases there are issues.

There are never stupid questions, there can be only stupid answers.

+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 10:32 PM
Post #3
Galapo
Platinum Member   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 16-July 06
Posts: 3,136
Thank(s): 256


Australia


QUOTE (psc @ Nov 13 2008, 08:23 AM) *
(To pack EVERYTHING into the core would make live much more simple)

Yes, that what pebuilder did, and in order to get a more minimal system, things had to be scripted for removal.

I personally prefer nativeEx philosophy of only adding what is essential and leaving the rest for the project. If a project wants, it can just add everything back in that pebuilder would have generated. But in my opinion that should be left up to the project to decide (whether this be through checkbox or just automatic addition).

Regards,
Galapo.


--------------------
galapo.boot-land.net
------
Recommended steps to build LiveXP:
1) Download suitable WinBuilder.exe from here and run it;
2) Update through the Download Center by clicking the 'Download' button; and
3) Then build LiveXP by pressing the 'Play' button.
1 user(s) said "Thank you!" to Galapo for this fantastic post:
psc
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 10:59 PM
Post #4
psc
Guru   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 14-July 06 From: Korschenbroich

Posts: 8,443
Thank(s): 441


Germany


QUOTE (Galapo @ Nov 12 2008, 11:32 PM) *
Yes, that what pebuilder did, and in order to get a more minimal system, things had to be scripted for removal.

I personally prefer nativeEx philosophy of only adding what is essential and leaving the rest for the project. If a project wants, it can just add everything back in that pebuilder would have generated. But in my opinion that should be left up to the project to decide (whether this be through checkbox or just automatic addition).

Regards,
Galapo.

Galapo, today I'm spending my 'Thanks' for you with a watering can. You explain my intention better than I could do!

Peter


--------------------
Build the house starting with the basement rather than with the roof! But always have in mind how the roof should be made!

There are very rarely problems, in most cases there are issues.

There are never stupid questions, there can be only stupid answers.

+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #5
MedEvil
Platinum Member   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 29-December 06
Posts: 4,242
Thank(s): 100


QUOTE (psc @ Nov 12 2008, 11:23 PM) *
If I'm trying to hold just the basic functionality in nativeEx core and give the responsibility for everything else to the project / scripts.

Do we fight on the same or on different sides?
(To pack EVERYTHING into the core would make live much more simple)

Eventhough you know, that i have a different idea about what the core should be than you.
The one thing, i hope we both can agree on, is that a functionality should by eighter included or not. Not just half or 3 quarter of it. So that people, who know that this functionality is included, can with confidence build on it!

If someone feels the need, to slim his project down, by removing each single file his applications do not need. It should be done by an extra script.

Besides, isn't it funny, that all those who say, that they favor really really small, use the huge LiveXP. While i, who is making it a point, that his project fits on a MiniCD, has no problem with a few additional files, if they make life easier.

-----------------------

@Galapo
What do you think, if i would remove all settings from all scripts in LiveXP, how long would you, as the project maintainer and therefore more accustomed to the project than anyone else, need to get it in a state that it works flawless on the first build?

Now guess, how long it takes someone, who has never seen LiveXP before!

There are just way too many settings and way too many settings, that can stop PE from working, imo.

@all
Why do we have a imdisk, a ramdisk, a fbwf.script? Those are all serving the same purpose! Since one is always required, they should all be one mandatory script, with a radio button to select. And yes, boot sdi does also belong into that script! wink.gif


cheers.gif


--------------------
NaughtyPE - The Multimedia PE!
Requirements: WB072 or 077RC2, XPSP2/W2k3SP1 source, Pentium CPU, 128MB RAM (256MB to use video players)
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:13 PM
Post #6
Galapo
Platinum Member   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 16-July 06
Posts: 3,136
Thank(s): 256


Australia


Hi Peter,

Thanks for your "thanks"!

I guess it's just that I spent much time with autobuild postprocessing to get stuff removed from my BartPE back in the day. When I discovered WB it was a great thing: it was starting with the minimum and could then be added to as desired (or not, as the case may be).

I realise that it's a bit pedantic fighting over the necessity of the inclusion of one file, namely c_932.nls. But it's an example: for me, I don't want or need the file, and if a "core" script were to add it in, then I would have to write another postprocessing script to have it removed (a la autobuild postprocessing with BartPE).

Providing options are fine, in my opinion. Someone can write a simplified project if they desire, where the "options" have been hidden and are basically preselected. Someone can provide a project where the options are plain and can be selected/deselected by the user. The most important thing is making sure that the project provided "as is" works with default settings. In this regard, a significant advance has been made, in my opinion, with the 'Mandatory=' option. Project providers can make sure that project-essential/core scripts may not be deselected without additional recourse.

Regards,
Galapo.


--------------------
galapo.boot-land.net
------
Recommended steps to build LiveXP:
1) Download suitable WinBuilder.exe from here and run it;
2) Update through the Download Center by clicking the 'Download' button; and
3) Then build LiveXP by pressing the 'Play' button.
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:22 PM
Post #7
Galapo
Platinum Member   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 16-July 06
Posts: 3,136
Thank(s): 256


Australia


QUOTE (MedEvil @ Nov 13 2008, 09:03 AM) *
@Galapo
What do you think, if i would remove all settings from all scripts in LiveXP, how long would you, as the project maintainer and therefore more accustomed to the project than anyone else, need to get it in a state that it works flawless on the first build?

Now guess, how long it takes someone, who has never seen LiveXP before!

But that's an unrealistic example: the project is not provided with all settings removed and will never do so. A working selection is provided, with Verify working to alert the user in case they have altered that preselected state to be non-functioning.

Of course, there is always the "minimal", "recommended", and "complete" options of download. For me, while I provide the project, in personal use I use a much more minimal configuration, with my own "apps" folder and not that from LiveXP.

Regards,
Galapo.


--------------------
galapo.boot-land.net
------
Recommended steps to build LiveXP:
1) Download suitable WinBuilder.exe from here and run it;
2) Update through the Download Center by clicking the 'Download' button; and
3) Then build LiveXP by pressing the 'Play' button.
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:33 PM
Post #8
psc
Guru   ******
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 14-July 06 From: Korschenbroich

Posts: 8,443
Thank(s): 441


Germany


Post #5 by Medevil and post #6 by galapo show very different opinions which unfortunatelly are both acceptable!

But here we can have only one philosophy and have to go ONE way!

And, sorry, as the developer of the current nativeEx core, I agree to #6, because that meets my intention when developing the nativeEx stuff.
To use suggestions of #5 I would need a lot of arguments.

@Medevil:
QUOTE
Why do we have a imdisk, a ramdisk, a fbwf.script? Those are all serving the same purpose! Since one is always required, they should all be one mandatory script, with a radio button to select. And yes, boot sdi does also belong into that script!

Here you are wrong.
A RAM drive (or something 'writable') is not necessarily needed by a nativeEx based project.
If you try in nativeEx_barebone_075 (from my signature) the testVirtualBox script, it will run w/o any RAM drive.
The script primarily is thought to be used with trackWBInstall, but it also can be used to test any PE.

So: Do not be absolute with your statements. Try to be relative to 'what is neccessary here'

Peter


--------------------
Build the house starting with the basement rather than with the roof! But always have in mind how the roof should be made!

There are very rarely problems, in most cases there are issues.

There are never stupid questions, there can be only stupid answers.

+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:56 PM
Post #9
fxscrpt
Frequent Member   ***
Group: .script developer

  Joined: 15-September 08
Posts: 347
Thank(s): 62


Germany


QUOTE (MedEvil @ Nov 12 2008, 11:31 PM) *
fxscrpt, 1. absolutely agree. 2. sounds logical at first, but if Lancelot would not have had by accident a build, which did not show the error, we might never found the problem.
....
cheers.gif

MedEvil,
i know what you mean!! ,
let me explain a suggestion.

when i have started with PEbuiler,i have classified all 'plugins' into two groups: core system components and applications
that's what i miss in the LiveXp Project.

Thinks like Fonts,Shell,MMC,WSH,Help and Support,Windows Services, Network Support, etc.
should be separated from other "application scripts" and "build scripts".

"application scripts" should explicit define core system components dependencies.
"build scripts" should only do the minimum:
e.g. HOJOPE should only create a registry for PE as it is made by Windows in the text setup part. (maybe some extras)

for example 'Help and Support' component is unnecessary , but if you want to develope msinfo32.script 'Help and Support' should be
activated automatically because of dependency defined by script developer.

if an application needs a full set of nls files.......


cheers.gif
+Quote Post
post Nov 12 2008, 11:58 PM
Post #10
sanbarrow
Silver Member   ****
Group: Developer

  Joined: 13-October 06 From: Germany - Sauerland

Posts: 751
Thank(s): 40


QUOTE
Yes, small is beautiful, but not if it makes things so complicated that one needs an extra degree from an university to use it!
Also more checkboxes, make not for a better script. Keep in mind the rule of the 7!

I think it is important to keep in mind, that our projects are ulimately meant to be used by people, who did not spend weeks, month and years to familiarize themselfs with the internals of XP or WB building.


thumbup.gif thumbup.gif thumbup.gif

Great - please keep on thinking along this line.

By the way - I don't think "small is beatiful" - I think "enough is beautiful" rolleyes.gif

Regards Ulli
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic ()





Collapse

  Topic Replies Topic Starter Views Last Action
No New Posts Offtopic posts
How to handle?
5 psc 302 2nd November 2009 - 08:04 PM
Last post by: jaclaz
No New Posts VSS & WMI (system services)
2 joakim 605 29th May 2009 - 09:49 AM
Last post by: joakim
No New Posts Office Integrator
Directly integrate Updates and other things to your Office inst disks.
0 Siginet 1,218 10th September 2008 - 12:05 AM
Last post by: Siginet
No New Posts off the wall idea?
It couldn't work or could it!
3 ispy 1,454 28th June 2008 - 10:15 PM
Last post by: MedEvil
No New Posts Office 2003 + Wine +linux ??
1 Mikorist 1,540 3rd June 2008 - 11:24 AM
Last post by: Nuno Brito


Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum