Quote:
|
Am I the only one who feels "trapped in a little box" when looking at that? Look at the first link on that page. The information you actually want is less than 50% of the screen. The start menu, right panel, the blue box above it, and a filter panel to the left...
"I just want to find my C: drive!" P.S. Both clocks are ugly as heck |
Yes. It's very pretty. The main reason I haven't whacked on a load of special effects to my box is that whilst something can look awesome and pretty and etc etc for a couple of days, after a short time you get fed up with it because it's the norm. Why do you think my XP work box uses the W2K desktop view?
|
Artimus: your not alone,.... i think they made it that way so people cant open to many multiple windows (like a normal use does when playing the computer for a few hours), thus windows will crash less due to windows poor multitasking support (or support for opening windows without crashing)
|
looks good... I hope it comes with gnome!
|
It does'nt matter what longwhore looks like......it is still spyware--
just like win XP.............spyware!! |
*is not impressed at all*
|
For those of you who are interested in the eye candy side of things I suggest you look at project Looking Glass:
http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/ Click on Demo on the right then download one of the demo movies. |
The panaramic desktop is an example of eye candy that I think will be very nice to work with. I can't wait until I can get that type of desktop on my machine.
|
Quote:
|
It looks to me the side bar is Desktop Sidebar:
http://www.desktopsidebar.com/ You can change the settings to be smaller and on the desktop, not taking up so much room and have all your windows open full screen. As someone else stated above, looks like M$ is using some elses work again. Dave |
looks like a winning formula!
1) take some icon ideas from Everaldo and mix in some kde theme ideas, 2) add an oversized xclock with a cartoonish skin, 3) pack in as much DRM as will fit, 4) call it an "upgrade" and charge 100 bucks for it. :D |
why do there "upgrades" introduce more bugs then it fixed? and also why do those "upgrades" seems like downgrades all to often?
|
Quote:
Again, looking at the shots, all you could comment is "Looks good" or "Does not look good". Saying that there will be more bugs, that nothing is fixed, yadda yadda yadda is more like an anti-MS post... |
well, looking back what they call "upgrades" usually breaks packages while adding little extra security, hell, some bugs took them years to fix! it just seems like for every "security" patch they release 100 new holes emerge ... and with every OS upgrade (from win95,win98,winME,win2k,winxp) more and more computer power is needed for what most users have no need for (win95/98 i believe were the best releases from M$, since then it starts going downhill)
it seems to me with each new OS users have to buy new hardware just to run what they normally do at a desecnt rate, and with each new OS they bring out, they seems to take away the useful features (for me) and add features that i cant remove that suck up more processor power then any program that has no purpose should longhorn might be different, but judging buy M$'s resent stuff i highly doubt it, not that ill give it a try, i don't wanna pay as much money (if you include the extra money for descent programs (the "basics" that conveniently are needed to run windows, but M$ doesn't supply, or what they do is less then half assed) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM. |