Linked by Neven Bijelic on Wed 24th Nov 2004 08:45 UTC
Xfce No doubt, all of you have heard of Xfce and those who haven't will hear about it soon anyway. I remember trying out Xfce for the first time back on SuSE 9.0. I am not sure if it came with the distrobution or if I downloaded it. At the time 9.0 came out I remember thinking to myself "nice, good potential, could be eyecandy, fast..." but I still logged into KDE upon booting. Sure I tried Gnome but somehow for a windows-commer KDE was more user friendly at the time. Update: More screenshots of XFce.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not to be rude
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 17:44 UTC

But Gnome/KDE/Windows/XFCE and most of the others look the same or the same but handicapped.

OSX and BeOS is the ONLY 2 actually being different, having a very different way to think of your desktop. Hell I'd even say Litestep is more "different" and have more "personality" than any of the setups shown on any screenshots with Any *nix window manager.

Howabout really trying to be creative like for instance
Relation between screensize and how your eye prefers to read would imply it's a MUCH wiser choice to put menu items on the right/left side of the window rather than above, yes this would also account for menus.

ALL uses Minimize/Maximise/Close, geee that's creative. Howabout having Tiling built in or something or maybe Resize to fit content on screen, SOMETHING different. Yet the so called differentiation is nothing but minor issues.

I'd even question why windows has to be squared/rectangular. IS this truly necessary? Would it improve to have them rounded for instance?

I'm not necessarily saying any of my above issues are good, I'm just saying that comparing differences between window managers is not comparing apples with pears, it's comparing the apple red delicious with golden delicious... same same but different, NOT different.