Microsoft... give up already

Post by **wardrich** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:31 am

Is it just me, or does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7">Windows 7</a> look like a really primitive KDE layout with an Aero theme.

Post by **dosraider** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:57 am

It's not just you, they come closer to Unix/Linux even as Unix/Linux comes closer to Win, the outcome of all will be somewhere in the middle.

Afteral it's only logical, a mouse is a mouse, a pointer a pointer, a screen a screen, you can't have several 'best' solutions, best solution is best. Period.
The only overwhelming advantage of Win7 will be as usual: it will run on whatever adequate -(read: powahful)- PC hardware even if you're a complete n00b.

Post by **wardrich** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:18 am

Yeah, true. I just have to laugh at all the people that will get it and be amazed by the "amazingly new and modern" look of the OS that looks like KDE looked back around 2002.

If they want to do things right, they really need to work on ripping off Compiz.

Post by **dosraider** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:32 am

Let's bring that back to some correcter proportions:
It may have some 'looks' from KDE, but it's far from being KDE.

Some would say that several Linux distris are beginning to look/feel as Windows -(Ubu someone?)-, but it isn't Windows, far from.

Even if Win7 kinda looks as KDE, it isn't a Unix, far from.

Post by **emmzee** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:30 am

Eh, many Linux distros have been copying Windows for years, attempting to duplicate its layout & functionality as closely as possible. If MS is trying to copy some of the functionality/usability of Linux to improve Windows, kudos to 'em, it's about time.

Post by **wardrich** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:09 am

emmzee wrote:Eh, many Linux distros have been copying Windows for years, attempting to duplicate its layout & functionality as closely as possible. If MS is trying to copy some of the functionality/usability of Linux to improve Windows, kudos to 'em, it's about time.

That's true, but that's a thing that users can pick if they'd like. You know damn well that Microsoft doesn't really like users changing the look and feel of Windows. lol.

Post by **dosraider** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:07 am

wardrich wrote:That's true, but that's a thing that users can pick if they'd like.

Let's face it, 95% of the Linux 'users' wouldn't know shit about changing something, let stand how their Linux look. Just glance on the Linux helpdesks. And I'm pretty sure that more then half, probably even more, that try Linux return to Windows shortly after.

wardrich wrote:You know damn well that Microsoft doesn't really like users changing the look and feel of Windows. lol.

Don't exaggerate, there are plenty 'looks' included in XP/Vista, and even more official ones to find online. And as much unofficial 'mods' as for Linux.

If you wanna pick on Windows, fine by me, but don't tell lies.

Post by **wardrich** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:29 am

dosraider wrote:
wardrich wrote:That's true, but that's a thing that users can pick if they'd like.
Let's face it, 95% of the Linux 'users' wouldn't know shit about changing something, let stand how their Linux look. Just glance on the Linux helpdesks. And I'm pretty sure that more then half, probably even more, that try Linux return to Windows shortly after.

Yeah, true. I used to be pretty frequent over on the mepis IRC channel, and lately I've been pretty active over on the ubu forums (mostly helping, not seeking help)

dosraider wrote:
wardrich wrote:You know damn well that Microsoft doesn't really like users changing the look and feel of Windows. lol.
Don't exaggerate, there are plenty 'looks' included in XP/Vista, and even more official ones to find online. And as much unofficial 'mods' as for Linux.

If you wanna pick on Windows, fine by me, but don't tell lies.

[/quote]
Eh, not really... unless you call Silver, Olive, and Blue different themes... I'd personally say there are 2 official themes for XP and a ton of home made ones which require a registry hack in order to use.

Post by **dosraider** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:43 am

wardrich wrote:Eh, not really... unless you call Silver, Olive, and Blue different themes... I'd personally say there are 2 official themes for XP and a ton of home made ones which require a registry hack in order to use.

Ahem ....
http://www.themexp.org/listings.php?typ ... l%20Styles

Post by **wardrich** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:45 am

dosraider wrote:
wardrich wrote:Eh, not really... unless you call Silver, Olive, and Blue different themes... I'd personally say there are 2 official themes for XP and a ton of home made ones which require a registry hack in order to use.
Ahem ....
http://www.themexp.org/listings.php?typ ... l%20Styles

Those all require something along the lines of the Neowin theme patch to install.

Post by **dosraider** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:01 am

So what? You can't say there no 'themes' around for XP/Vista, that's the point.

If they are worth something is another question of course, but the same question goes for Linux themes, also enough bad coded crap ones around for that.

cocojambo · Post by **cocojambo** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:11 pm

Most people are still on XP, leave alone Vista... and now they have 7 coming out??

Post by **wardrich** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:41 pm

cocojambo wrote:Most people are still on XP, leave alone Vista... and now they have 7 coming out??

7 is still in early development. If it's anything like Vista, it'll totally change (for the worst) when it actually gets released. When Vista was back in the Longhorn stages, it was amazing. It was a lot like XP, but with some new features (like the side bar, the scalable icons, and one or two new icon layout options). Then once they finally released it, they added in all these new "security features" and bogged it down with pointless eyecandy, and made a lot of really nice XP options hard to get to (or removed them altogether)

Post by **Wally** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:09 pm

Seriously though, an OS is more or less made just to run programs, it doesn't have to look super pretty to operate, thats what Microsoft think people want.

They wonder why people still use Windows 98.

GAMER · Post by **GAMER** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:15 am

I don't have TOO many qualms with xp.
Most of the "eyecandy" can be disabled, so that's fine.
The security is good for telling my mother not to click things...
The only thing that bugs me about xp is that i've had trouble with games saving in places they shouldn't and messing up the puter, which is probably my own fault as much as it is the OS.

I'm a regular, everyday pc user... and it suits me pretty well, isn't that the point of windows OS?

GAMER

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:18 am

Yep, that's my current issue with xp and newer (may affect all NT ones), the multi-user environment and everything saving on your Windows drive... I much preferred the Single User experience where programs and games stored stuff in there own folder. I reckon it is one of the big reasons why people stick to Windows 9x.

Like, I have a separate partition to store all my games, but all my games store there save games on my Windows partition :/ so I gotta be careful if I'm gonna reinstall Windows or something. Everything is stored in "My Documents" IIRC and I would like them to implement the ability to have legacy programs store data in there own folders.

Post by **dosraider** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:53 am

Franpa, you can easily relocate 'my documents' to another location, for example D: partition, same goes for most mail-browser-whatever-temp folders. Rightclick on the folder and you'll see. Shit here is that you must do it for every user on the PC......*sigh*

Exception is IE, that one is kinda stubborn, throws lots of crap in your system folders, needs a bit more work, but who's on IE won't be interested anyway, and they get what they deserve.