To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.
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 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.
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)
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





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?