The weakness of gadgets
Friday, July 14, 2006 by BlueDev | Discussion: OS Customization
I dig gadgets. I really do.
Well, okay, I lie. As someone who has DesktopX installed, I think objects are vastly inferior to widgets. I see the plus of objects not needing DX installed, blah, blah, blah. But for those of us who have DesktopX already, gadgets just really, really suck. Oh, and as an aside, it would appear I feel like whining today.
Why do I think gadgets are inferior to widgets? There are a number of reasons:
1) They don't auto-install. A small point, sure, but a point nonetheless. If I download a widget, open the zip file and double click, the widget runs AND drops itself in my Widgets folder. It is all about convenience, and in my sloth I can't tell you how many gadgets never stayed on my system because I double clicked from the zip, then closed the zip, only to realize I didn't manually extract that gadget somewhere.
2) They don't respond to F9 and F10. This is huge for me. Widgets responding to these keys (either to bring to the front or to hide completely) was actually the functionality that got me to finally use DesktopX. I don't like lots of things cluttering my desktop, so I love being able to hit F10 and make them all go away. And when I want to change the song, see the temp, date, news bit, etc. I love to be able to hit F9 and have my widgets come to the front. With gadgets I have to manually bring it to the front, or minimize all my other windows. Again, a HUGE step back in terms of convenience when it comes to gadgets vs. widgets.
3) You can't customize them. Heck, this is WinCUSTOMIZE, so this should be a no brainer. There are a number of widgets that I have downloaded, imported, looked at their scripts and then changed something small, or changed a font, a color, or an image, to make the widget behave a little more how I would like. All for personal use, of course. But the fact that I can't import a gadget, tweak it a little to make it fit my personal style a bit more, or even get scripting ideas, means they are far inferior to widgets IMO.
Again, I understand the reason behind gadgets. But I don't understand the reasoning behind only releasing the gadgets over here at Wincustomize.com. Isn't that what DesktopGadgets.com is for? It is a shame to head to the WIDGET section, only to seem some nice, new toy is actually a castrated widget (aka gadget).
Bring on the "shut up and make it yourself" bitch-slaps.
Well, okay, I lie. As someone who has DesktopX installed, I think objects are vastly inferior to widgets. I see the plus of objects not needing DX installed, blah, blah, blah. But for those of us who have DesktopX already, gadgets just really, really suck. Oh, and as an aside, it would appear I feel like whining today.
Why do I think gadgets are inferior to widgets? There are a number of reasons:
1) They don't auto-install. A small point, sure, but a point nonetheless. If I download a widget, open the zip file and double click, the widget runs AND drops itself in my Widgets folder. It is all about convenience, and in my sloth I can't tell you how many gadgets never stayed on my system because I double clicked from the zip, then closed the zip, only to realize I didn't manually extract that gadget somewhere.
2) They don't respond to F9 and F10. This is huge for me. Widgets responding to these keys (either to bring to the front or to hide completely) was actually the functionality that got me to finally use DesktopX. I don't like lots of things cluttering my desktop, so I love being able to hit F10 and make them all go away. And when I want to change the song, see the temp, date, news bit, etc. I love to be able to hit F9 and have my widgets come to the front. With gadgets I have to manually bring it to the front, or minimize all my other windows. Again, a HUGE step back in terms of convenience when it comes to gadgets vs. widgets.
3) You can't customize them. Heck, this is WinCUSTOMIZE, so this should be a no brainer. There are a number of widgets that I have downloaded, imported, looked at their scripts and then changed something small, or changed a font, a color, or an image, to make the widget behave a little more how I would like. All for personal use, of course. But the fact that I can't import a gadget, tweak it a little to make it fit my personal style a bit more, or even get scripting ideas, means they are far inferior to widgets IMO.
Again, I understand the reason behind gadgets. But I don't understand the reasoning behind only releasing the gadgets over here at Wincustomize.com. Isn't that what DesktopGadgets.com is for? It is a shame to head to the WIDGET section, only to seem some nice, new toy is actually a castrated widget (aka gadget).
Bring on the "shut up and make it yourself" bitch-slaps.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
BlueDev
Reply #2 Friday, July 14, 2006 11:12 AM
Reply #2 Friday, July 14, 2006 11:12 AM
Zubaz: I think the point you bring up, that gadgets ought to be targeted to those who want simplicity, is a valid one. And it actually adds to my frustration. Since that is really the focus, I just don't think they belong here at Wincustomize, in the widget section. Or at least, there ought to be a widget version available here, and a gadget version available at DesktopGadgets.com.
ZubaZ
Reply #3 Friday, July 14, 2006 11:16 AM
Agreed.
Or maybe a gadget section that on download click, redirects to DG.com gadget.
Reply #3 Friday, July 14, 2006 11:16 AM
| there ought to be a widget version available here, and a gadget version available at DesktopGadgets.com. |
Agreed.
Or maybe a gadget section that on download click, redirects to DG.com gadget.
Fairyy~
Reply #4 Friday, July 14, 2006 8:30 PM
Reply #4 Friday, July 14, 2006 8:30 PM
I agree with everything you both said- If i see its a " Gadget " I dont even bother downloading it. Not to say some Gadgets arent really cool..and yes - I'd purchase one if it was really different ...but I am too use to using F9 F10 and the not being able to open a gadget in DX builder just seems counter productive to having DesktopX ...that was the ' perk " of it all. At least separate them - as they are not widgets.
They are Gadgets.....
Its like seeing a sign for Cockerspaniel puppies - then i go in to buy one and they are poodles.
I do not like Poodles.....
They are Gadgets.....
Its like seeing a sign for Cockerspaniel puppies - then i go in to buy one and they are poodles.
I do not like Poodles.....
buzzh58
Reply #5 Friday, July 14, 2006 9:11 PM
Reply #5 Friday, July 14, 2006 9:11 PM
You dont like Cockerspaniels either, I know you're a Chihuahah kind of fairy.
BlueDev
Reply #6 Friday, July 14, 2006 10:27 PM
Reply #6 Friday, July 14, 2006 10:27 PM
| At least separate them - as they are not widgets. They are Gadgets..... |
I agree. I don't download them anymore either. It just seems to be ripping away so much of what makes DesktopX great.
SirSmiley
Reply #7 Friday, July 14, 2006 10:36 PM
Reply #7 Friday, July 14, 2006 10:36 PM
Your point of view is kind of skewed...then again so, is mine.
For the skinning community & those more avid computer users then the desktop environment is king but, 95% of the rest of the world has no use...more apt patience for dealing with what we see as simple. They may want a few gadgets to run whenever they want to but, not all the time. The real power for gadgets is the simple development environment & potentially rapid deployment of small programs. That's my two cents.
As for the download issues Wincustomize could fix that realatively easily by only allowing objects & widgets to be loaded in their standard format. I hanker to see more complaints over that.
For the skinning community & those more avid computer users then the desktop environment is king but, 95% of the rest of the world has no use...more apt patience for dealing with what we see as simple. They may want a few gadgets to run whenever they want to but, not all the time. The real power for gadgets is the simple development environment & potentially rapid deployment of small programs. That's my two cents.
As for the download issues Wincustomize could fix that realatively easily by only allowing objects & widgets to be loaded in their standard format. I hanker to see more complaints over that.
BlueDev
Reply #8 Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:08 AM
Reply #8 Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:08 AM
| Your point of view is kind of skewed...then again so, is mine. |
Of course it is skewed. And that was the whole point of the article: For those of use who are used to these programs, and have used them a bit more, gadgets are useless and inferior to their widget companions. And I find it unfortunate that the widget gallery is getting poluted by gadgets.
I agree with the gadget benefits you highlighted. For that they are great. But for those uses, I don't see how they belong here, in the widget gallery.
thomassen
Reply #9 Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:58 AM
Reply #9 Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:58 AM
I'd quite like to see a separatio of the widgets and gadgets in the galleries.
Fairyy~
Reply #10 Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:43 PM
yeah - but I couldnt spell Chiwowwa
Reply #10 Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:43 PM
| You dont like Cockerspaniels either, I know you're a Chihuahah kind of fairy. |
yeah - but I couldnt spell Chiwowwa
starkers
Reply #11 Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:48 AM
Cheewahwah! Or is that Chewhuawah...maybe Chiwhuawaa?
Reply #11 Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:48 AM
| yeah - but I couldnt spell Chiwowwa |
Cheewahwah! Or is that Chewhuawah...maybe Chiwhuawaa?
Fairyy~
Reply #12 Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:13 AM
I dunno - just usually mis-spell it and wait for buzz to come along and fix it.
I just call them taco dogs.
Back to the Gadget issue. I think noone is saying Gadgets arent what the average person would prefer. I think what most of us would like to see is just keep them separated. I have desktopX - I cant tweak a Gadget..So dont dangle it in my face in widget gallery.
Unless DesktopX is going to be phased out?
Reply #12 Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:13 AM
| Cheewahwah! Or is that Chewhuawah...maybe Chiwhuawaa? |
I dunno - just usually mis-spell it and wait for buzz to come along and fix it.
I just call them taco dogs.
Back to the Gadget issue. I think noone is saying Gadgets arent what the average person would prefer. I think what most of us would like to see is just keep them separated. I have desktopX - I cant tweak a Gadget..So dont dangle it in my face in widget gallery.
Unless DesktopX is going to be phased out?
BlueDev
Reply #14 Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:10 PM
Reply #14 Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:10 PM
| I think noone is saying Gadgets arent what the average person would prefer. I think what most of us would like to see is just keep them separated. I have desktopX - I cant tweak a Gadget..So dont dangle it in my face in widget gallery. |
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Richard Mohler
Reply #15 Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:05 PM
Reply #15 Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:05 PM
If anybody wants to e-mail me I'll send them widget versions of my latest submissions..Email 
I usually make widgets but with this weather thing I wasn't sure about using the weather script so I made it a gadget.. As for the calendar, don't know why I made it a gadget..
I usually make widgets but with this weather thing I wasn't sure about using the weather script so I made it a gadget.. As for the calendar, don't know why I made it a gadget..
Fairyy~
Reply #16 Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:24 PM
Reply #16 Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:24 PM
Thats nice of you Richard.
Actually - I think if a Gadget was in its own gallery it would attract more attention from the people that do not have desktopX and know they can use a Gadget.
Right now there is a " Widget" newly uploaded. I just went to see it. It plainly states " You do not need desktopx to run this "
(Because it is not a widget - it is a Gadget - but nowhere does it say its a Gadget )
Right above this it says " Widgets are mini applications etc etc etc that require desktopX to run. Then gives links to desktopX to download.
I just hate when things contradict themselves.
A Gadget might in fact get 10 times the downloads as a widget would - if it were in a gallery that stated it was a Gadget. If you didnt have desktopX you wouldnt even go to widget gallery....knowing you cant run a widget without it.
Actually - I think if a Gadget was in its own gallery it would attract more attention from the people that do not have desktopX and know they can use a Gadget.
Right now there is a " Widget" newly uploaded. I just went to see it. It plainly states " You do not need desktopx to run this "
(Because it is not a widget - it is a Gadget - but nowhere does it say its a Gadget )
Right above this it says " Widgets are mini applications etc etc etc that require desktopX to run. Then gives links to desktopX to download.
I just hate when things contradict themselves.
A Gadget might in fact get 10 times the downloads as a widget would - if it were in a gallery that stated it was a Gadget. If you didnt have desktopX you wouldnt even go to widget gallery....knowing you cant run a widget without it.
Richard Mohler
Reply #17 Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:42 PM
Reply #17 Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:42 PM
Thanks I'll probably just make widgets from now on...
ZubaZ
Reply #18 Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:32 PM
I htink you should make gadgets too Richard. Just post them to DesktopGadgets.com. They can use the traffic and if it's something really great you can make a profit on them.
Again, gadgets might be good tools/toys for average users. By most measures you might want to use, folks at WC are not "average".
Reply #18 Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:32 PM
| Thanks I'll probably just make widgets from now on |
I htink you should make gadgets too Richard. Just post them to DesktopGadgets.com. They can use the traffic and if it's something really great you can make a profit on them.
Again, gadgets might be good tools/toys for average users. By most measures you might want to use, folks at WC are not "average".
RomanDA
Reply #20 Monday, July 24, 2006 2:47 PM
Reply #20 Monday, July 24, 2006 2:47 PM
The reason that one person uploads only gadget versions is that he runs things in russia and widgets he codes there seem to not work here. The reason i posted the gadget version of my Sport Strip here was because i wanted to allow people to find it and download it, and see if its worth actually purchesing. It is a trial version, but that didnt stop someone from hacking it and making a full working version out of it. I agree that there needs to be a GADGET section on here but we are going to have MAJOR issues..
1. Google GADGETS are NOT DX Gadgets and they DO require Google Desktop to use
2. Vista has some version of a GADGET as well
3. DesktopX Gadgets are not really gadgets but stand-alone program not requiring ANYTHING else to run them.
I see people getting VERY confused with Gadgets in the next few years, with MS/Google/DX all using the same name for 3 totally different things.
There is another reason people post gadget versions of things here, and that is to protect their code. I understand this completly, i have used a lot of code here (and almost ALL WITH permission) but i know there are people that make a lot of really great things and dont want someone who can make pretty drawings take their code, lets say a weather widget, and mass produce 2000 versions of it without really knowing how it works, or even what was involved in making the code. So by posting it as a gadget, they are protecting their work. I believe this is a right for every skinner.
1. Google GADGETS are NOT DX Gadgets and they DO require Google Desktop to use
2. Vista has some version of a GADGET as well
3. DesktopX Gadgets are not really gadgets but stand-alone program not requiring ANYTHING else to run them.
I see people getting VERY confused with Gadgets in the next few years, with MS/Google/DX all using the same name for 3 totally different things.
There is another reason people post gadget versions of things here, and that is to protect their code. I understand this completly, i have used a lot of code here (and almost ALL WITH permission) but i know there are people that make a lot of really great things and dont want someone who can make pretty drawings take their code, lets say a weather widget, and mass produce 2000 versions of it without really knowing how it works, or even what was involved in making the code. So by posting it as a gadget, they are protecting their work. I believe this is a right for every skinner.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Friday, July 14, 2006 10:54 AM
Because I have DXBuilder installed I also get frustrated that I can't tweak gadgets here or there. I can't write code for crap but I can figure out what's happening and make an object or widget mine.
I think the thing to remember though . . is that gadgets are not there for people like us. They are for our parents or sisters or cousins from the backwoods. They are single purpose apps that use very few resources. In that they do really well.
I think that the problem with many of the DX gadgets out now is that they are built by geeks for geeks. The market should be for mainstream users and I think Konfabulator does a better job at targeting that market.
Agree with points one and two also. But they also fall into the same problem. Mainstream users are used to installing an app and having it added to their start menu or just leave it on the desktop. You expect more because you KNOW about widgets. Most apps don't hide with a hotkey, they are always on the desktop.