> 
> > Actually, it is.  It's not unreasonable to say that almost "all"
> > computers run windows.  Windows has over 90% of the market, so most 
> > people will feel that windows style is more intuitive because it's 
> > what they're used too, that doesn't mean it's better, but 
> it is more 
> > intuitive.
> 
> Actually it isn't.  What you are really saying is its more 
> "familiar".  It is certainly not more intuitive.
> 
> It wasn't until Win95 that Microsoft added the ambiguous "X" 
> to the upper-right but kept their legacy left-side 
> "window-menu" to this day.  This ambiguity is less-intuitive.
> 
> Squeak is a leader, not a follower, so lets not dumb it down 
> to "follow"
> Microsoft's mistake of ten years ago, especially just before 
> Microsoft releases "Looooonghorn" (say it correctly, with 
> that cowboy accent) which may have an entirely different look 
> itself; which would prove to the "masses" forced to accept it 
> that, once again, Microsoft is a "leader" in user-interface design.
> 
> > The real question is what's the goal of LookEnhancements, 
> if it's to 
> > make squeak prettier to make it more popular, then it needs 
> to try and 
> > look more like windows, plain and simple, because that's the target 
> > market, that's where "most" programmers are.  If the goal 
> is to look 
> > cool, then make it look like Mac, it's much prettier, but 
> that isn't 
> > where the programmers are.
> 
> Programmers don't need Squeak to look like Windows.  
> End-users using Word and Excel in corporations or Grandma who 
> got a Dell pre-bloaded w/ Microsoft stuff for Christmas using 
> Outlook and IE, *may* feel more comfortable with basic 
> window-operations in Squeak were they to use it.
> 
> But how long before these type of users, in Squeak and 
> suddenly away from their sprawling two-dimensional 
> spreadsheets and 100' long Word scrolls, feel uncomfortable 
> with Squeak anyway, which doesn't do any of those things as 
> well (rightly so).
> 
> Merely giving them icons for *window-management* that look 
> like MS Windows is so insufficient that, in fact, it is 
> probably misleading.  In other words, it is very quickly 
> *counter-intuitive* because they may be initially fooled into 
> the Windows mindset, but quickly discover that nothing else 
> works the way they expect.


Hey, chill out, I wasn't defending Windows, or Saying squeak should look
like Windows.  I said if the goal was to attract more programmers, that
it wasn't a bad idea to look more like windows, "if that was the goal".
No one is a blank slate except kids, sit any other adult user down to
play with a UI, and what's intuitive will depend on what they already
know, and most know windows.  Familiar and intuitive aren't exactly
unrelated concepts, and frankly, Windows looks vastly better than
Squeak.  I love Sqeak as a programmer, but it's UI isn't exactly trend
setting, it needs improvement, Squeak isn't leading anything in this
arena imho, it's got some catch up to do.