All this habla houbla with MS's GUI

[Bazoukas]

Give me a fucking brake.
Even though KDE has more eyecandy that you can handle, i use Gnome. And the way I customized Gnome beats the shit out of MS's GUI.

 FUNCTIONALITY people. Right now am doing coding under Windos (dont ask, I need to use it for VB) and I it pisses the shit out of me.

 No shading, no stackin layers, no multiple Desktops.  I realy wonder how I ever thought that Windows is a serious OS.

 Give me a fucking brake you Fisher Price generation teenagers and get a real man's/woman's
 OS.


 For Fucks sake already!!!

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]

[hm_murdock]

like Mac OS X... or even better, the classic Mac OS. it was the height of GUI functionality, no matter what appearance scheme it had... be it the old System 7 look, Apple Platinum, or any other theme, it was the best, and always will be. hands down.

OS X uses Quartz, which is the most badass fucking graphics layer on the planet. Classic Mac OS's graphics layer, QuickDraw isn't any more or less advanced than Windows' GDI... but it does show you how behind MS (and everyone else) is with something as crucial as the display framework. Quartz is device and resolution independent because it's PDF based. It could drive a 400DPI plasma display as easily as a 72DPI CRT or LCD.

let's see XP's shitty bitmapped engine do a transform on a window the way OS X does the genie, or zooms windows out of icons. let's see XP use OpenGL to render the UI, let's see XP support multiple displays simply by plugging them in. Let's see XP in major production studios like Lucasfilm, and have motion pictures like Star Wars or Moulin Rouge edited with Windows.

You won't. Windows might have a good kernel, but the rest of the OS sucks cock. From the UI implementation to the shit eater GDI layer, to the half-ass multimedia support... Windows is the worst software platform for doing video and heavy graphics. UNIX, and now primarily OS X will be the king of the hill there. Better core, and better support systems.

At school, we had both G4s and some Dells in the video lab. Which ones do you think people used first? They went to the Dells, thinking "Macs suck"... they soon realized the truth. Stuttery video with garbled sound and dropped frames isn't good for your grade. It doesn't look good, and it's not acceptable. Fuck MS and their shitty multimedia support that they stole from Apple and bastardized.

Windows Media sucks ass, GDI sucks ass, Windows XP sucks ass, NT sucks ass. Bill Gates and all his cronies like Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer all suck juicy ass goo.

Quicktime rules, Quartz rules, Mac OS X rules, UNIX rules. I rule, too because I just blew up and ranted about how much Windows sucks. You may all bow down before me now.    

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob ]

[Fett101]

Thank you for the entertainment bazoukas.

[Calum]

well for functionality i keep going back to XFce.
it has never crashed on me, like KDE and GNOME (particularly GNOME) do, and it is much easier to get your head around and customise than KDE, GNOME or even iceWM.

If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob:
like Mac OS X... or even better, the classic Mac OS. it was the height of GUI functionality, no matter what appearance scheme it had... be it the old System 7 look, Apple Platinum, or any other theme, it was the best, and always will be. hands down.

OS X uses Quartz, which is the most badass fucking graphics layer on the planet. Classic Mac OS's graphics layer, QuickDraw isn't any more or less advanced than Windows' GDI... but it does show you how behind MS (and everyone else) is with something as crucial as the display framework. Quartz is device and resolution independent because it's PDF based. It could drive a 400DPI plasma display as easily as a 72DPI CRT or LCD.

let's see XP's shitty bitmapped engine do a transform on a window the way OS X does the genie, or zooms windows out of icons. let's see XP use OpenGL to render the UI, let's see XP support multiple displays simply by plugging them in. Let's see XP in major production studios like Lucasfilm, and have motion pictures like Star Wars or Moulin Rouge edited with Windows.

You won't. Windows might have a good kernel, but the rest of the OS sucks cock. From the UI implementation to the shit eater GDI layer, to the half-ass multimedia support... Windows is the worst software platform for doing video and heavy graphics. UNIX, and now primarily OS X will be the king of the hill there. Better core, and better support systems.

At school, we had both G4s and some Dells in the video lab. Which ones do you think people used first? They went to the Dells, thinking "Macs suck"... they soon realized the truth. Stuttery video with garbled sound and dropped frames isn't good for your grade. It doesn't look good, and it's not acceptable. Fuck MS and their shitty multimedia support that they stole from Apple and bastardized.

Windows Media sucks ass, GDI sucks ass, Windows XP sucks ass, NT sucks ass. Bill Gates and all his cronies like Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer all suck juicy ass goo.

Quicktime rules, Quartz rules, Mac OS X rules, UNIX rules. I rule, too because I just blew up and ranted about how much Windows sucks. You may all bow down before me now.      

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob ]

Very well said!! I agree with you 100%!!
I bow before you!!  

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Calum-21.2:
If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?

Well, if you run OSX, you could surely run XFce on it. (provided it is compiled for PPC as oposed to x86).

You could either run it over OSX Aqua, or run it "pure" in darwin mode. I love OSX  

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by Calum-21.2:

If i got a mac, i wonder if i could run XFce on it?

Of course you can, provided that you have OS X and X Windows installed as psyjax wrote.


Go here for a list of X windows apps that you can run in OS X and X windows!

[mr_nobody]

I bow down before

The Jimmy James X 10.3.6 / Bob
Member
Member # 1563

also. I love Mac OS X too, but I wish I could use the platinum interface with it. Aqua is nice, but sometimes I feel like staring at nice, neutral grays.

Windows XP is ridiculous (my personal opinion). Microsoft's ad campaign touted it as having a completely new interface, which shows that to them this term means applying a new color scheme that resembles toys made for toddlers. Mac OS X has eye candy, too, but manages to keep the professional appearance, with more blues, whites and grays instead of huge green and orange buttons.

[rtgwbmsr]

quote:Originally posted by Panos:


Very well said!! I agree with you 100%!!
I bow before you!!      

I second that!

When I'm in Linux I prefer Enlightenment. Does anyone else here like it?

Although Enlightenment does look rather aged compared to Gnome 2 or KDE 3...

[Bazoukas]

Enlightenment is too clever for me     I get lost and am not kidding.

[voidmain]

Make liberal use of your right and middle mouse buttons in Enlightenment and older window managers.

[rtgwbmsr]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
Make liberal use of your right and middle mouse buttons in Enlightenment and older window managers.

Like I said...it is considered and "older" window manager  

[Zombie9920]

Originally posted by bazoukas:
[QB]No shading, no stackin layers, no multiple Desktops.  I realy wonder how I ever thought that Windows is a serious OS.

 
Well, it sure looks like I have multiple desktops, transparency, shadows outlining my Windows, etc in Windows XP. I also notice that the icons in my taskbar aren't all boxed up with a square outline. The only time you will ever see an ugly boxed outline around an icon or a window bar in XP is if you hover over it with your mouse(and it will unbox if the pointer leaves the icon/window bar space) or if you have the window selected. Also, I don't have a big, ugly, clunky looking clock in my taskbar(I can't stand the way icons and the clock looks in the Linux Window Managers).


I don't think my Windows VS looks like fisher price either(it looks more like Chrome ;P). BTW, you can make Windows look however you want(nobody says you have to use Windows Explorer either..you have options like LiteStep available too). Personally, I think Linux Window managers look terrible and I think the usability of the Linux Window managers is terrible compared to Windows too. Stuff that is easily done in Windows is usually a chore in Linux. It is no wonder that Lycoris and Lindows tries to imitate the feel and ease of Windows. From what I hear(I don't know if it is true though cause I've never used Redhat 8) Redhat is becoming more and more like Windows too.

Linux emulates and imitates, it doesn't innovate.

Looks pretty slick, ehhh? Also notice that I have different transparency levels for each Window(one is more transparent than the other and one of them is solid).
http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/wgui.jpg

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by mr_nobody:
also. I love Mac OS X too, but I wish I could use the platinum interface with it. Aqua is nice, but sometimes I feel like staring at nice, neutral grays.

With a program called Duality you can change the look and feel of OSX.

Go to www.resexcellence.com for all of your OSX Themes and Modifications. The customizability is endless.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax v6.9 /Dave:


With a program called Duality you can change the look and feel of OSX.

Go to www.resexcellence.com for all of your OSX Themes and Modifications. The customizability is endless.

Theres one thing I can say about OSX. I really like the way it looks, I like it's interface, etc. I just don't like the machines that I have to run it on and I don't like it's lack of mainstream games.

(edit)Back on topic...Linux looks and feels generic and shitty. =0P

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]