GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
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...
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)
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.
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.
Originally posted by SciYro why do there "upgrades" introduce more bugs then it fixed? and also why do those "upgrades" seems like downgrades all to often?
How could you possible say that by only looking at screenshots?. Also, there has been a lot of improvements done with Windows, just compare them in order: Win3.1x to 95, to 98, to 2000. They all got much better. ME is awful though. And, although I see very few reason to upgrade from 2k to XP, they are both very solid and have good security patches as well...
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)