Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Mar 2007 22:10 UTC, submitted by martini
Permalink for comment 218648
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
@rcsteiner
Strangely enough, WarpSans on the GUI and and OS/2's VIO font series in text windows are two of the reasons that I still prefer OS/2. I can actually READ those fonts for long periods of time without eyestrain. :-)
The system font from 3.0 was much better. IMO Warp 4 was such a step back, UI wise. As for VIO, I prefer the old DOS ISO.CPL.
While the world has certainly "moved on" in terms of OS desktop aesthetics, and eye candy rules today, I still tend to wonder if any real progress has been made on the OS front over the past 10 years in terms of actual kernel and UI functionality.
Then that would be no. Nothing has improved on the desktop in terms of something significant.
There are so many little things in OS/2's WorkPlace Shell which you STILL can't find in KDE, GNOME, or Windows. Why not?
I am curious. What would those be? I can't think of any. The only feature I can think of is Shadow.