It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:58 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7274
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
3gengames wrote:
Cinnamon, XFCE, and MATE can all be configured to be Windows-Like. By default, they're just not.

Cinnamon is windows-like by default. The others aren't.

Quote:
Lxde and xfce can look very similar to windows when configured properly.

Quote:
Cinnamon, XFCE, and MATE can all be configured to be Windows-Like.

Sure, all those desktop environements and/or windows managers can be configured to look pretty much anthing you can imagine, however, as a user I probably do not want to spend more than a couple of minutes configuring the GUI. What I liked with Cinnamon is that it looks like windows by default - sure the colours etc... are very different, but I mean how the task bar is layed out and how things are organized.

I like the concept of a "lightweight" desktop like XFCE/LXDE but for some reason I do not like them very much, I could not tell why exactly. They are not quite windows like by default.

Quote:
Linux can be used without a desktop environment. I use Linux with a window manager but not a desktop environment.

Sure, but window managers comes without any task bar so you're back into something that is Windows3.1 like in its interface. Also, it takes hours to configure one to look half-decent, as they tend to be extremely ugly by default.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Bregalad wrote:
Cinnamon is windows-like by default. The others aren't.

Windows 8.x isn't "windows-like by default."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1518
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Bregalad wrote:
Sure, all those desktop environements and/or windows managers can be configured to look pretty much anthing you can imagine, however, as a user I probably do not want to spend more than a couple of minutes configuring the GUI.


I used Cinnamon a little bit and it similar but not quite the same as windows. It depends wich version of windows you are talking about.

If you look at the LXDE included with Fedora 23, which is the one I'm using right now, it's feels very windows like to me.

Attachment:
screenshot-lxde.jpg
screenshot-lxde.jpg [ 144.81 KiB | Viewed 1026 times ]


I included a screenshot of XFCE on Manjaro. Look quite good too. I like how much they customized it.

Attachment:
manjaro-16.06.jpg
manjaro-16.06.jpg [ 98.39 KiB | Viewed 1026 times ]


If you don't like to configure I guess your best bet is to find a distribution that configure it the way you like it.

tepples wrote:
Windows 8.x isn't "windows-like by default."


Since not many people likes it maybe we should call it Windows "hate" (we don't voice h in french so it's easy to make that mistake :lol: )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:34 pm 
Offline
Formerly 65024U

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:57 pm
Posts: 2257
The real question I always propose is, why would you want it to look like Windows by default anyway? Windows has one of the biggest waste of pixels panels and menus interfaces ever. And the menus can look different all of them point to the same crap. If you need Windows menus, you should probably just use Windows. Linux menus all do the same thing, the look is the only thing that is different. And if the look throws you off, yet not functionality, you need help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:46 pm
Posts: 932
Bregalad wrote:
Quote:
Linux can be used without a desktop environment. I use Linux with a window manager but not a desktop environment.
Sure, but window managers comes without any task bar so you're back into something that is Windows3.1 like in its interface. Also, it takes hours to configure one to look half-decent, as they tend to be extremely ugly by default.
You can use xterm to start up programs; that is what I do. Also, it looks fine if you get rid of all icons and decorations.

_________________
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 6458
Location: UK (temporarily)
(Open/flux/black)box have reasonable defaults.

I'm still inordinately fond of Windowmaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7274
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
3gengames wrote:
The real question I always propose is, why would you want it to look like Windows by default anyway?

Because desktop environment I have been used to always worked like that and I don't like change, especially if something is not broken. I'd as well use a command like rather than a desktop environment which is not comprehensible to me.¨

(Note : When I say "Widnows-like interface" I really mean "Windows 95 interface and it's derivate, not the bad turn that interfaces have taken in recent Windows releases)

Quote:
Windows has one of the biggest waste of pixels panels and menus interfaces ever. And the menus can look different all of them point to the same crap.

I do not care about your opinion about that for the mentioned reason above.

Quote:
If you need Windows menus, you should probably just use Windows.

No because I neeed Widnows 95-like menus, and they're dropping that in Windows 10 and they'll eventually stop to support 7 which is the last which have fallback to Windows 95-like graphical style. They're also droping compatibility with the older programs I use and which do not exist on **n*x.
Quote:
Linux menus all do the same thing, the look is the only thing that is different.

"Linux" itself is command line and to not have menus. You need to instal a graphical interface to get menus.

Quote:
And if the look throws you off, yet not functionality, you need help.

Since you use a graphical interface, you spend most of the time interacting your computer with your mouse and the windows and menus, so yes, how they look and how they are layed out on the screen is not only important, but also the most important thing. If that does not work, I'd rather use a command line.

In particular, I could not explain why exactly, but I much dislike the "feel" of LXDE and XFCE on their default configuration. By their default setting most Desktops add unnecessary stuff to the task bar and remove necessary stuff elsewhere such as in the start menu, but remove important stuff from the desktop icons, such as access to all disk drives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Bregalad wrote:
3gengames wrote:
Linux menus all do the same thing, the look is the only thing that is different.

"Linux" itself is command line and to not have menus. You need to instal a graphical interface to get menus.

Then let me rephrase: Major X11 desktop environments' menus all do the same thing, the look is the only thing that is different.

Bregalad wrote:
I much dislike the "feel" of LXDE and XFCE on their default configuration. By their default setting most Desktops add unnecessary stuff to the task bar and remove necessary stuff elsewhere such as in the start menu, but remove important stuff from the desktop icons, such as access to all disk drives.

Among current desktop environments that I'm aware of, Xfce actually comes closer to this feature than Windows.
  • Xfce has a separate desktop icon for each mounted removable drive, as well as "File System" for fixed disks.
  • Windows 95 (4.0) through 10 list mounted drives inside "This PC" (called "My Computer" in some editions).
  • Only OS X lists all mounted drives on the desktop. (So did Mac OS Classic and GS/OS.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7274
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
Quote:
Then let me rephrase: Major X11 desktop environments' menus all do the same thing, the look is the only thing that is different.

I perfectly understood what he meant, I just wanted to troll him. No need to rephrase what he said.

Quote:
Among current desktop environments that I'm aware of, Xfce actually comes closer to this feature than Windows.

Well, you might well be correct. But Cinnamon really "feels" more windows-like than Xfce. Also, Cinnamon do not show all the mounted drives on the desktop just like windows, but instead there is a link that allows you to open a windows that browse them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:34 am 
Offline
Formerly 65024U

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:57 pm
Posts: 2257
All major DE's show mounted drives when you go to the desktop options. I know for a fact it's on XFCE and Cinnamon, at minimum. I have it on MATE, but I don't know how I got it on here, if it was in my standard options or not. It seems you don't really have much knowledge of any basic Linux software. Maybe if you use it and got over the fear of it not working 100% like windows, you issues wouldn't exist. Because TBH, nobody cares to help with anyone's preference issues. Just use it and get over it. Nobody bitches that Mac isn't Windows, and how they wanted a Mac that works more like Windows. They just shut up and use it for 10 minutes and figure it out. Plus, it's not like they're asking to use i3 or something asinine. If you're using a DE, just stop being such a prude and get over it that different software has different things in different places. It's at most a couple minute experience to browse it all and figure it out and never have an issue again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm
Posts: 1311
I think it would be best to tone it down a little. Bregalad's interest in using a system that defaults to a configuration he's familiar with is reasonable, and the breadth of choices with constantly fighting users is one of many things that keeps the average computer user away. However, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think it is worth taking ten minutes or so to learn something that is different and configure it to your liking once. One thing that is nice about many of these environments is the ease of copying and restoring a configuration file you only have to put together one time.

My "DE" of choice is Openbox, with a minimal RC I put together for it. It gives me window-side snapping similar to Windows Aero, pressing Win+R to bring up a launcher dialogue (gmrun), and Win+E to bring up a terminal emulator (xterm). I know the latter mapping is a little odd, but it's next to R, so it's what I chose. I have Win+L lock the screen with slock at work, though at home I do not feel the need to lock my computer.

If you are interested in my configuration and would like to give it a try, it's as simple as dropping a file into a directory and running openbox. I would not mind sharing it if you would like to try it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 7274
Location: Chexbres, VD, Switzerland
3gengames wrote:
It seems you don't really have much knowledge of any basic Linux software.

I habe been using linux regularly for 7 years, although mostly at work. (I have still yet to get strong enough motivation to defintely quit windows at home.) I tried pretty much every of the most popular desktops environments out there, although none of them for a very long and extended period of time. Although all of them were satisfying, none of them was really "perfect" for me. Please don't call me a moron just because I am not feeling really confident with this large sets of available DE.

Quote:
Maybe if you use it and got over the fear of it not working 100% like windows, you issues wouldn't exist.

So linux fans constantly advertise "switch to Linux because Windows suck", but then they shout at people complaining that it is too different to the classical Windows 95 experience. WTF really ? Do you want people to "switch" or not ?

Quote:
Nobody bitches that Mac isn't Windows, and how they wanted a Mac that works more like Windows.

In this particular case, I am mostly interested in *nix because Microsoft stops to support traditional Windows 95-like desktops in their Windows operating system. Once again, this is the primary reason to "switch" to linux, keeping a traditional Windows 95-like desktop is the whole point of the "switch".

If this is not a priority for you, fine. For me it is. I am fine using a different interface now and then to play, but for everyday computer interface I badly want it Windows 95-style. That or command line.

Quote:
They just shut up and use it for 10 minutes and figure it out.

No, they don't.

Quote:
My "DE" of choice is Openbox, with a minimal RC I put together for it.

Yeah, they use that at work on shared machines. The interface is absolutely awful in my opinion, but I know it can be configured to be better by changing just a file. However one error in the file and the graphical interface won't start :)

Personally although I understand the point of window manager to be between full DEs and command line, I have to say installing a full desktop is still a nice thing to have, especially if I don't want to configure a window manager to look like a DE for hours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
If 9xtalgia is a big selling point to you, consider ReactOS. It's not Linux; it's a free Windows clone atop a free NT kernel clone. Do its screenshots look enough like Windows 9x or NT 4-5 to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1518
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
The thread is going wild! :lol: I don't mind, a lot of interesting stuff is coming out of it.

I was able to share my internet from my guest os after proper routing so I can finally start to use linux normally. The only thing is nesdev in firefox doesn't look that good compared to other platforms. I don't know why the fonts looks like that.

@Bregalad
I love win95/2000 windows style since a long time. It's my favorite one. There are some theme that change the widgets to be windows like, the redmon theme? I will try to find it again.

@3gengames

What I like with linux compared to other os is that you have the freedom to choose whatever desktop/windows manager you want and you can adapt the ui the way you want. Maybe some people prefer windows like and we should keep an open mind for that. Everyone can do whatever they want and this is what's great about it.

@Tepples

To suggest using reactOS which is in alpha stage is not a good suggestion. Yes, it's look like win9x/2000 but you cannot use this os in everday use. It's still for experimentation only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm
Posts: 1311
Font config is a messy business. There are two chief parameters that differentiate the most common OSes.

On Windows 2000 and below:
Hinting is Full.
Anti-Aliasing is None *unless set to greyscale in 2K

On Windows XP and above:
Hinting is Full.
Anti-Aliasing is Subpixel *unless disabled

On Mac OS X:
Hinting is Slight or None.
Anti-Aliasing is Subpixel or Greyscale *except for software that explicitly allows the choice.

On Linux, different distros do different things, and different applications may or may not respect font configurations. The Arch Linux fontconfig page is helpful for more experienced users, but I can understand the configuration choices being daunting for early users.

If you want a Mac-like font rendering experience, turn off hinting and crank up anti-aliasing. This seems to sate a lot of "just works" users. Personally, I loathe that style and disable AA entirely for fonts below 12pt, and enable full hinting for those fonts. That gets me neat Windows 2000-style fonts, made for a pixel grid, while larger fonts (or web fonts, which don't have hinting instructions) don't look like a mess in the web browser.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group