Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 4th Jan 2002 19:17 UTC, submitted by BeAdingo
X11, Window Managers XPwm is an X11 window manager and a desktop that emulates the behaviour of Windows XP. XPwm (which is an evolution of the W2Kwm, both written in Kylix) tries to be an "exact" copy of the Windows XP Interface (except the registered logos), including menu fading/dissolving and taking care of "every pixel" of each element. The author is looking for feedback and bug reports.
Order by: Score:
by Jeremy on Fri 4th Jan 2002 20:15 UTC

interesting, if they can copy the windows interface, and replce all the windows applets with Linux applets, but with windows Icons, this could be a realy nice WM.....the only thing they need to do, is come up with a good control pannel implementation, control center and tool box are POSs.

by lu_zero on Fri 4th Jan 2002 20:19 UTC

hmm to be sincere I just HATE the win32 interface in fact I use litestep when I have to use win2k anyway that is a nice way to let win32 user get accustomed to GNU

by stew on Fri 4th Jan 2002 20:32 UTC

I wonder how they accomplished the transparency effect. FYI, the fading menus in KDE do /not/ use XRender, they just use screenshots.

by OS junkie on Fri 4th Jan 2002 22:00 UTC

Wake me up when they have an EXACT copy of the BeOS interface. Maybe I can sitch to new hardware then ;)

Huh? Why?
by Anonymous on Fri 4th Jan 2002 22:56 UTC

Why would anyone want this?

"I hate Windows, but I run XPwm on now it looks like I have Windows..that's SOOO cool."

Seems like a case of circular-reasoning going on.

by mlk on Fri 4th Jan 2002 23:13 UTC

> "I hate Windows, but I run XPwm on now it looks like I have Windows..that's SOOO cool."

> Seems like a case of circular-reasoning going on.

Not really, the WinXP kernel/M$/price (Delete as appropriate) sucks[1], however the the Win2K/XP l&f is great[1, 2].


[1] Apparently.
[2] Personally I disagree, LWM forever ;)

re: huh? why?
by Mike on Fri 4th Jan 2002 23:46 UTC

A windows-like desktop for linux is not for power users, or anti-MS users or whatever. It _can_ be a good thing if you want a company to switch to linux and they are worried about the new training. With a similar interface to xp, they don't have to learn much(in relation to the layout).

by OS Junkie II on Sat 5th Jan 2002 01:44 UTC

> Wake me up when they have an EXACT copy of the BeOS interface. Maybe I can sitch to new hardware then ;)

Wake me then too

by WorknMan on Sat 5th Jan 2002 02:23 UTC

Personally, I like the Win32 interface better than anything I've used on Linux. This is NOT to say that it's better than anything on Linux, it's just want I am used to.
When I am using Linux and I click the upper right hand corner button (the maximize button in Windows) and the window just rolls up, I HATE that!!!!!
At least this way, I can use Linux and have it somewhat similar to what I am used to - anything to help ease the transition ;)

by Kon on Sat 5th Jan 2002 03:26 UTC

Litestep is the interface of choice for Windows users who are too scared to switch to *nix - but in the same breath bash Windows and praise *nix. Makes you wonder. Personally, I favour getting real work done vs staring at pretty windows and manipulating the size and color of a scroll bar (talk about wasting your time). So give me XP, or give me BlackBox/textmode on *nix.

I do love the screenshots on though. Notice how 99% do not display any windows apps running in the screenshots, since the windows widgets give the act away pretty quickly, no matter how you dress up the windows borders or hid the titlebar and replace it with VB applets (ack, ack).

by mlk on Sat 5th Jan 2002 03:45 UTC

is also for the few of us that are stuck at work w/ a Windows box, but crave the niceness of a UNIX.

That said, when using Win2K[1] I end up with a BASH[2], and the normal Win32 l&f/shell, as Litestep/WindowBlinds don't seam to work well with everything.


[1] Quite a lot now-a-days. It works[3] (unlike pre-2K windows)
[2] Thank (new java.util.Random()).nextDiety() for Cygwin.
[3] If you ignore the small problem[4] with DirectX on my box...
[4] It does not work.

Desktop Environment?
by Dude on Sat 5th Jan 2002 12:17 UTC

Is this a desktop environment? It looks like by the look of it.

by Zsolt Marx on Sat 5th Jan 2002 18:39 UTC

It's a pity that there is no screenshot of xpwm on the site.

Windows Desktop Environment
by Dano on Sun 6th Jan 2002 17:23 UTC

I personally also think that Windows XP is a great desktop environment that
you can get work done in. Although I use Linux at work for MySQL, I would
love to work in a windows environment that has a uniform control panel,
as mentioned in earlier posts. It seems to me that most Linux distributions
either have configuration utilities that do not make sense, do not work
together or the distribution installs like 3 control utilities that have
overlapping functions. The controls in Linux often don't even work right.
Not only with this interfae make more people comfortable, especially when
coming over from Windows to use *nix more and more, but it amazes me how people
criticize the author, despite the fact that the author explains that this
is not a plot to make *nix like Windows. I think if people spent the time to
appreciate how much work this project took, and that the author is using this
work as a learning experience...that people may not criticize the new desktop
and compare it with other desktops, even before the beta is finished.
Lastly, let it be known that all of the different desktops and lack
of desktops standards is one of the biggest weaknesses that prevents Linux from
doing well as a Desktop OS. How can anyone claim that the OS is built for
the desktop when you have to ask....which desktop? Why do GNOME and KDE and
all of these other desktop authors just get together and lay down a good
working standard? Everyone knows that Explorer is the desktop for windows
and all developers for Windows are familiar with the Windows desktop
menu standards....

Best Wishes,