Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Feb 2008 21:58 UTC, submitted by Vincent
Xfce "Xfce is just as customizable as KDE or GNOME, so I set myself a goal: make Xubuntu look like Windows Vista. Though you won't be told how to achieve the exact same end result, this guide provides comprehensive instructions helping you make Xubuntu look the way you want it to. In any case, I would certainly not recommend such a setup for someone new to Xubuntu. Xubuntu is different than Windows; making it look similar is only confusing."
Order by: Score:
the goal, pfft
by maaxx on Sun 10th Feb 2008 22:15 UTC
maaxx
Member since:
2007-11-06

Quite some goal you've set for yourself.
Although the pointing out how much flexible and customizable XFCE can be is a good thing, why oh why would you want your _linux_ desktop look like Microsoft Windows?

Reply Score: 1

RE: the goal, pfft
by flanque on Sun 10th Feb 2008 22:28 UTC in reply to "the goal, pfft"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy the Windows interface.

Reply Score: 14

RE[2]: the goal, pfft
by Lousewort on Mon 11th Feb 2008 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE: the goal, pfft"
Lousewort Member since:
2006-09-12

Which Windows interface? XP or Vista? Personally, I don't see that much of a difference between XP & Vista other than the eye candy, unwanted DRM, the rather irritating "security" popup boxes, and the lamentable speed decrease from XP to Vista. Oh, yes, and the vastly increased license cost for the OS. Oh, Ah, and my old games don't work so well...

Perhaps, after all, there are some rather glaring (albeit unwanted/unneeded) differences.

Microsoft must have their marketing rather pat though, when people expend such effort trying to mimic Vista's rather lame look- probably patented to boot; careful there- don't copy it too closely.

Folks go to the store and purchase a new notebook pre-installed with Vista, since stores no longer offer XP as an alternative. "My!" they say "look how much sexier and faster Vista is than XP on my old notebook!" never stopping to think that perhaps the speed increase might have something to do with the new hardware they just purchased...

PC users are just a bunch of "Sheeple" and MS knows it.

Edited 2008-02-11 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: the goal, pfft
by stone on Mon 11th Feb 2008 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the goal, pfft"
stone Member since:
2005-07-06

PC users are just a bunch of "Sheeple" and MS knows it.


its funny how that goes for people switching to any operating system. guy right next to me at work just explained to me why osx is so much better, since his new macbook with 2gb memory is so much faster than his 4 year old 512mb windows notebook.

most all users are sheep. only some are ignorant fanboys as well to top it off.

and bashing microsoft and vista is cool these days, right?

/stone

Edited 2008-02-11 13:01 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: the goal, pfft
by optimusg4 on Mon 11th Feb 2008 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the goal, pfft"
optimusg4 Member since:
2005-07-06

"PC users are just a bunch of "Sheeple" and MS knows it.


its funny how that goes for people switching to any operating system. guy right next to me at work just explained to me why osx is so much better, since his new macbook with 2gb memory is so much faster than his 4 year old 512mb windows notebook.

most all users are sheep. only some are ignorant fanboys as well to top it off.

and bashing microsoft and vista is cool these days, right?

/stone
"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Reply Score: 1

RE: the goal, pfft
by SlackerJack on Sun 10th Feb 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "the goal, pfft"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

It's because people can and have the freedom to do so. Personally I think it shows just how customizable Linux DE's are without the need of third party utils or programs.

It helps when the Desktop Environment has a format thats standard for icons, png is good because you can make your icon or image in GIMP, rather than having to find the format or convert it. We have SVG which is a standard and great for all kinds of customization, this is one of the many reasons I love Linux DE's, Xfce is real nice BTW.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: the goal, pfft
by Doc Pain on Sun 10th Feb 2008 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE: the goal, pfft"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Personally I think it shows just how customizable Linux DE's are without the need of third party utils or programs.


In fact, it really does. I just could imagine something that's looking more appealing than "Vista", but as it has mentioned before, there are people who like this look and feel, allthough I'd have to admit that I honestly can't consider myself belonging to those people. :-) But we definitely don't need to argue about individual preferences, do we?

Xfce is real nice BTW.


XFCE 4 has developed into a very versatile, flexible, customizable and still ressource saving desktop environment that can lead you to have an "advanced interaction feeling" even on older hardware.

So, you don't need to purchase a new PC to impress your buddies you're running "Vista" now for free and legally. :-)

A final question: In the screenshots, you can see the use of this "Windows" logo, for example here in the lower left corner:

http://www.23hq.com/Vincentt/photo/2871683

and there, just on the left side:

http://www.23hq.com/Vincentt/photo/2871686

Is this allowed? I'm just asking.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: the goal, pfft
by alias on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the goal, pfft"
alias Member since:
2007-02-11

XFCE 4 has developed into a very versatile, flexible, customizable and still ressource saving desktop environment that can lead you to have an "advanced interaction feeling" even on older hardware.


Resource saving? XFCE? Yes, I remember the time when XFCE, while using GTK1.x was actually resource-saving compared to a full blown gnome desktop. Nowdays it's almost identical to gnome.

In fact, any GTK2 application, thanks to Cairo, Pango and whatever, is actually slower than any recent QT app. By an order of magnitude.

Very sad.

I've tried "xubuntu" on a 400Mhz box a couple of weeks ago, and I can assure Windows XP has an overall better responsive UI, just thanks to XFCE.

So, you don't need to purchase a new PC to impress your buddies you're running "Vista" now for free and legally. :-)


The actual buddy I tried to impress with Xubuntu and OpenOffice returned to XP with his old Office 2000. The combination was way faster that I can't blame him. Even trimming down all the eye-candy and blinking features didn't help reaching the same performance.

And I'm saying this as a GTK and OSS supporter. They should stop saying Xubuntu is a "lighter" desktop. Xubuntu is just an alternative desktop.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[4]: the goal, pfft
by flashog on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the goal, pfft"
RE[5]: the goal, pfft
by alias on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: the goal, pfft"
alias Member since:
2007-02-11

No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.

Consider that the last version of enlightenment is considerably faster than just xfwm4 alone while having ten times as eye candy. And I don't consider enlightenment a good example of "conservative design".

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: the goal, pfft
by flashog on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the goal, pfft"
flashog Member since:
2007-07-25

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but if you have any data showing that XFCE4.4 is more resource demanding than Windows Vista, or even XP, on any comtemporary Linux distribution, I sure would like to see it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: the goal, pfft
by Soulbender on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the goal, pfft"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Consider that the last version of enlightenment is considerably faster than just xfwm4 alone while having ten times as eye candy.


How do you measure "fast"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: the goal, pfft
by autumnlover on Mon 11th Feb 2008 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the goal, pfft"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

No, I'm just concluding that XFCE is not "resource saving": neither compared to other Linux dekstop alternatives, nor to a bloated version of Windows like XP. It used to be yers ago; it's time to stop spreading this rumor now.


In my humble opinion I agree. Canonical should move their attention from Xubuntu to Fluxbuntu. I tried Xubuntu 7.04 on system equipped with Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM and old PCI Virge DX card. Result was disastrous. Even XP was a little bit faster on that system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: the goal, pfft
by Doc Pain on Mon 11th Feb 2008 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the goal, pfft"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Resource saving? XFCE? Yes, I remember the time when XFCE, while using GTK1.x was actually resource-saving compared to a full blown gnome desktop. Nowdays it's almost identical to gnome.


Sadly, this is true. I've experienced this fact when trying XFCE based Linux distros on older hardware. Sadly, that's something I've noticed with most Linux distros. They are not aimed at speed anymore, they seem to want to benefit from the new possibilites of modern hardware. Don't get me wrong, that's nothing bad per se, but if you intend to use hardware that's not up to date, you will need to use older software of tailor a system by yourself.

In fact, any GTK2 application, thanks to Cairo, Pango and whatever, is actually slower than any recent QT app. By an order of magnitude.


That's impressing. Allthough I prefer Gnome over KDE (allthough I don't use neither of them regularly), KDE seems to be more responsive in some cases, as you mentioned. But on the other hand, that's just my individual feeling.

The actual buddy I tried to impress with Xubuntu and OpenOffice returned to XP with his old Office 2000. The combination was way faster that I can't blame him. Even trimming down all the eye-candy and blinking features didn't help reaching the same performance.


Maybe geubuntu (using Enlightenment, as far as I remember) could be an alternative. I tried it on a 300 MHz P2 from the live system CD. The impression sentence would be like: "Hey, this is Mac OS X!" :-)

On the other hand, a "self made" FreeBSD with XFCE 3 and OpenOffice 1.1.4 gave a good solution. Together with XMMS and mplayer, even multimedia playback wasn't any problematic. And the XFCE 3 desktop (btw, using "simple old" GTK), was very easy to use, and this was the impression of a very computer illiterate person. I would not dare to try the same with "Windows"...

An earlier XFCE 4, such as the one from the FreeSBIE 1.1 live system CD, could be a solution, too.

And I'm saying this as a GTK and OSS supporter. They should stop saying Xubuntu is a "lighter" desktop. Xubuntu is just an alternative desktop.


Okay, maybe it'sn not because of XFCE itself, it seems to be the problem of the many stuff GTK2 involves which makes the environment heavy (but still alternative). XFCE is a viable desktop alternative to KDE and Gnome, but sadly, I think you gonna pay for this amount of funtions with response speed. :-(

Edited 2008-02-11 19:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: the goal, pfft
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 11th Feb 2008 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the goal, pfft"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"Resource saving? XFCE? Yes, I remember the time when XFCE, while using GTK1.x was actually resource-saving compared to a full blown gnome desktop. Nowdays it's almost identical to gnome."

Huh? I've had the complete opposite experience. Xfce is relatively lightweight, quite full-featured, and fast. Certainly much less resource-hungry than Gnome, and faster. Much, much faster and less resource hungry. Comparing it with Gnome is just... wrong.

"I've tried "xubuntu" on a 400Mhz box a couple of weeks ago, and I can assure Windows XP has an overall better responsive UI, just thanks to XFCE."

Ah-ha. That's your problem. (Tries to hold laugh...) Xubuntu... that distro is the bloated, huge, might-as-well-be-Gnome disgrace to Xfce that you're talking about. Try to use a REAL Xfce distro, one that doesn't neuter the desktop environment by making it try to be Gnome (both in look and feel, and sluggishness) or something else it's not. I would recommend KateOS, Zenwalk or the Xfce install disc of Debian if you want a good representative of the Xfce4.

Kwort also seems to be very nice, although at this point it seems to be too young and slow-moving in terms of releases for me to recommend it. VectorLinux is also a speedy distro using Xfce, although its GUI is modified to look more like Windows'... it's one of the fastest distros out there.

SAM Linux is similar in its desktop layout to VectorLinux, but it's based on PCLinuxOS, and is of course an installable live CD as a result (though Vector has a live CD as well).I'm not a fan of PCLOS or SAM, but they are pretty decent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: the goal, pfft
by flanque on Sun 10th Feb 2008 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: the goal, pfft"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I think the reason why he did it can be summarised into the first sentence he wrote:

Xfce is just as customizable as KDE or GNOME, so I set myself a goal: make Xubuntu look like Windows Vista. Why? Because I can. ;)


Gets no simplier than that.

Edited 2008-02-10 23:47 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: the goal, pfft
by pseudocode on Mon 11th Feb 2008 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the goal, pfft"
pseudocode Member since:
2007-05-30

on the other hand:

make Windows Vista look like Ubuntu: No ! Why? Are you serious !? ;)


Edited 2008-02-11 16:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: the goal, pfft
by Luminair on Mon 11th Feb 2008 01:59 UTC in reply to "the goal, pfft"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Instead you should ask yourself why every gnu/linux desktop wants to look like windows.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: the goal, pfft
by dimitar on Mon 11th Feb 2008 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE: the goal, pfft"
dimitar Member since:
2007-10-19

I think that few people use the Windows and OSX themed Linux desktops.. but they are really good for showing off. They serve as demonstration of functionality - I don't suppose you can make Windows look like OSX or GNOME :-) (WindowBlinds and etc. don't count, I am talking about explorer.exe - the Windows Shell)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: the goal, pfft
by OSGuy on Mon 11th Feb 2008 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE: the goal, pfft"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Instead you should ask yourself why every gnu/linux desktop wants to look like windows

That is a very good question, has anyone thought about it seriously? Perhaps, there is something that MS does right and people like it or quickly get used to it...

Edited 2008-02-11 07:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: the goal, pfft
by flashog on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the goal, pfft"
flashog Member since:
2007-07-25

Well, many people are more or less forced to get used to it, since it comes with their new computer, or they have to use it at their workplace. This does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't like, or be able to get used to other DEs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: the goal, pfft
by stestagg on Mon 11th Feb 2008 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the goal, pfft"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Erm, says who?

Sure, every Linux DE has users who want to make it look like Windows. But I see no proof that this is a common overall aspiration for any Window Manager/DE.

Reply Score: 4

sledgehammer89
Member since:
2006-02-02

Sad. And XFCE needs a lot of memory if I have some goodies placed on the panel. So I use a "full" desktop like Gnome instead. ~40MB isn't that much with 512MB.

The developers should tweak _much_ _much_ more and make it bugfree (exo-eject if I press the eject button... knock knock knock hint hint hint...)

Reply Score: 4

GNOME vs. customization
by usr0 on Mon 11th Feb 2008 02:25 UTC
usr0
Member since:
2006-10-27

You cannot catenate KDE and Gnome with an "or" if you speak about customization. In Gnome you even cannot delete a file in an "Open Dialog" much less get its properties from the file context menu in this dialog. And this behavior was hardcoded by people who think that "functionality could confuse users".

Reply Score: 6

RE: GNOME vs. customization
by Soulbender on Mon 11th Feb 2008 02:55 UTC in reply to "GNOME vs. customization"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You cannot catenate KDE and Gnome with an "or" if you speak about customization.


Your opinion does not qualify as a fact.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization
by usr0 on Mon 11th Feb 2008 03:12 UTC in reply to "RE: GNOME vs. customization"
usr0 Member since:
2006-10-27

Your opinion does not qualify as a fact.


My opinion? It is obvious that GNOME is not as customizable as KDE and I mentioned an example for my "opinion" which makes it a fact. Ok, I understand that if somebody uses GNOME, he do not like to hear such "opinions".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: GNOME vs. customization
by Soulbender on Mon 11th Feb 2008 04:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

My opinion?


Yes.

It is obvious that GNOME is not as customizable as KDE


Yes, but your statement was:

You cannot catenate KDE and Gnome with an "or" if you speak about customization.


Which is wrong. It's perfectly possible to catenate them. "Or" does not mean they're equal.
You're also off-topic since this is not about KDE vs GNOME but about making XFCE look like Windows.

Edited 2008-02-11 04:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: GNOME vs. customization
by axel on Mon 11th Feb 2008 03:21 UTC in reply to "GNOME vs. customization"
axel Member since:
2006-02-04

In Gnome you even cannot delete a file in an "Open Dialog" much less get its properties from the file context menu in this dialog.


while kde is better than gnome about it, nothing is quite as nice as windows, the file chooser (both save and open) gives you the full context menu, I can zip, unzip, cut, paste, rename, make shortcuts, launch files in other applications, start programs, check properties, whatever.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization
by bogomipz on Mon 11th Feb 2008 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE: GNOME vs. customization"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

The really, really, astonishingly sad part is that we're still stuck with open/save dialogs in mainstream systems after all these years. Being forced to work with this mini-filer while preparing the place to save your document is just so very backwards.

According to this comment; http://osnews.com/thread?42369 the reason why we have to put up with this is that the first few versions of the Macintosh System Software didn't support multitasking. If it did, they would probably have let you use Finder as the open/save "dialog". This is quite doable, but nobody dared to change much in the "feel" part of "look and feel" over the past 20 years.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization
by wirespot on Mon 11th Feb 2008 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: GNOME vs. customization"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If you want a full file manager as your open/save dialog than go ahead, there are Linux desktops that offer that possibility. Gnome states that an open/save dialog should be just that: a way to choose a file or a location to save a file. Period. Do one thing and do it well, sound familiar?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GNOME vs. customization
by axel on Mon 11th Feb 2008 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization"
axel Member since:
2006-02-04

If you want a full file manager as your open/save dialog than go ahead, there are Linux desktops that offer that possibility.


actually, no, there isn't

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GNOME vs. customization
by RawMustard on Tue 12th Feb 2008 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GNOME vs. customization"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

Gnome states that an open/save dialog should be just that: a way to choose a file or a location to save a file. Period. Do one thing and do it well, sound familiar?


But what happened to the bit about doing it well?
It's got its hands tied behind its back by a bunch of loonies that think everyone is a fool!

Edited 2008-02-12 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Meh
by Xaero_Vincent on Mon 11th Feb 2008 02:47 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

I've made Gnome appear much to Windows Vista Aero than that. I've also customized Gnome to appear as an almost perfect replica of OS X Leopard. It really showcases the customizing power of Unix desktop environments with free tools.

In the end, though, I like my desktop to take on a unique identity--not shamelessly mimic some other OS's GUI.

Reply Score: 4

Its quite amazing.
by autumnlover on Mon 11th Feb 2008 03:18 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

Maybe some day I will try to do similar stunt myself ;) Last time I checked "vistaish makeup" on the net for Gnome there were some "basic-mode" gadgets available and no how-to about Aero imitations.

Reply Score: 1

fvwm
by trenchsol on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:22 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

A friend of mine is using fvwm. He says that it is possible to do absolutely anything with it. I remember early RedHat was supplying Afterstep which was tweaked fvwm in fact. My friend created a clone of CDE with it.

A bad thing is that configuration files for fvwm are very confusing. One has to dig deep to understand them.

DG

Reply Score: 3

XFCE is not light weight?
by bb_matt on Mon 11th Feb 2008 08:44 UTC
bb_matt
Member since:
2006-01-04

Hmm, well excuse me for being fooled.
The implementation I have at work is certainly a great deal faster than both KDE and Gnome, unless I'm imagining that it starts faster, launches apps faster etc.?

Perhaps someone needs to benchmark it to get the real story?

Reply Score: 2

RE: XFCE is not light weight?
by SlackerJack on Mon 11th Feb 2008 14:07 UTC in reply to "XFCE is not light weight?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I dont see how xfce can launch apps faster unless you have not much ram and KDE/GNOME tips it over that, then xfce would be faster.

A while back I was able to use xfce on a P266 with 96mb of ram laptop(last version) and it ran great. XFCE was made for that in the first place, other DE's(Like KDE/GNOME) openly admit that they need 256mb to run optimally, so there's a difference.

Reply Score: 2

mallard
Member since:
2006-01-06

Seriously, this is:
a) Not "design your own desktop" it's "copy someone else's desktop".
b)Lame. Anybody who uses XFCE knows that it's customisable. Making Linux look like something else is not new.

Now if this article was about some new desktop theme system in XFCE then it would be cool, but no, it's just another "make Linux look like something else" tutorial. Linux is not Windows. Linux is not Mac OS X. If you want to use those systems, use them. Making Linux look like them is like putting a bodykit on a Ferrari.

Reply Score: 3

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

You've missed the point of the article haven't you, I'll elaborate.

It's not about how to get your xfce desktop to look like Windows/Vista, it's a test of how customizable xfce is, they just happen to pick Vista because it's quiet a tall order for customizing since the layout and look are much different.

Reply Score: 3