XP look-alike interface?

The place to bring up any design issues, or post your own creations

Moderator: Moderator Team

Would you like to "keep with the times" by implementing an XP-style interface for ReactOS?

Yes
119
56%
No
92
44%
 
Total votes: 211

etko
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by etko »

I am for Windows Classic look, which is best windows GUI designed ever and should stay like that. I don't know whether this look can benefit from HW acceleration but I believe it can. No transparent controls, no fluffy webby bullshit, just pure power of triliards of pixels pushed onto the double buffered screen without wallpaper with single colour background.

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat »

Classic windows look is an oxymoron.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

Harteex
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Harteex »

The classic window look is easily my favourite, it's perfect.

But I wouldn't really mind if there were another default look (like Luna) if I just can change it back to classic. :P

counting_pine
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Fallowfield

Post by counting_pine »

MadRat wrote:Classic windows look is an oxymoron.
What do you mean?

User avatar
Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

It's amazing...

Post by Jaix »

I find it amazing how much interest there is in changing GUI for ROS, and that so many of you guys don't get that it is out of the question, ROS will be a Windows look-alike with the same possibilities to change GUI that Windows have, but ROS will never have another default GUI, this is up to all the tweaker and distro guys around the world.
ReactOS will in time support all the GUI replacements that Windows does but here there is mainly a question about changing the one that we have, or fixing errors in it.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

Jaix Please. You just don't get it.

We are here because we are sick of some of the faults in the GUI of windows.

Considing change working out what is best is the objective.

Windows Interfaces are everything from 3.11 style threw to Vista style. Now what one suits our users.

If we are going to build a better windows we need a better GUI as well.

It not like that Windows GUI does not have its defects.

A better GUI does not have to be majorly different. Minor changes Tabed Windows Explorer for one. Tabs added to the way the control panel works. Partical windows prevented from hidding in the background. How often do you disconnect from the internet only to find the Message you have connect to the internet still displaying.

Function the same maybe one to two extra features. Internet Explorer has added Tabed browsering . We just added it every where it helps user.

Ie person switch to reactos gets use to the extra features of reactos. Get annoyed returning to windows. Ie market share we need it to live long term.

Final note reactos explorer is already non standard it supports multi desktops. So we might as well go for it.

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat »

counting_pine wrote:
MadRat wrote:Classic windows look is an oxymoron.
What do you mean?
Before I answer that question take a quick look at the Windows timeline:

1981 Sept. Interface Manager
1983 Windows® wird erstmals vorgestellt
1985 Nov. Windows 1.0 für 8088 CPUs
1987 Dec. Windows 2.0 für 386 CPUs bis zu 16 MByte RAM adressierbar
1988/89 Windows 2.1 für 286/386
1990 Windows 3.0
1992 April 3.1 (janus) inkl. MS-DOS 5.0
1993 Nov. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (snowball) rudimentär netzwerkfähig
1995 Aug. Windows 95 4.0 Codename "Chicago" wurde veröffentlicht
1996 Feb. Windows 95 Version A (OSR1)
1996 Aug. Windows 95 (detroit) Version B (OSR2) erstmals FAT-32 Unterstützung
1997 April Windows 95 Version B (OSR2.1)
1997 Nov. Windows 95 Version C (OSR2.5)
1998 Jun. Windows 98 (memphis) ca. 5.000 Bugs behoben
1999 May Windows 98 SE (Second Edition)
2000 Sep. Windows Me (Millenium)
1980 Aug. XENIX OS Koproduktion mit SCO
1982 Feb. XENIX 2.3 Koproduktion mit SCO
1983 April XENIX 3.0 Koproduktion mit SCO
1987 MS OS/2 1.0 Koproduktion mit IBM
1988 OS/2 1.1 Koproduktion mit IBM
1991 OS/2 1.3 Koproduktion mit IBM
1992 OS/2 2.0 Koproduktion mit IBM
1993 July Windows NT 3.1 & Advanced Server; 3,1 Millionen Codezeilen
1994 Sept. Windows NT 3.5 (daytona); 9 Millionen Codezeilen
1995 May Windows NT 3.51 unterstützt HPFS auch für Power-PCs
1996 Aug. Windows NT 4.0 (cairo) 16 Millionen Codezeilen
1996 Windows NT Terminal Server Edition (hydra)
1997 Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition
1998 Windows NT Server 4.0 Terminal Server Edition
2000 Feb. Windows 2000; 30 Millionen Codezeilen ca. 10.000 Bugs behoben
2000 Sep. 2000 Datacenter Server
2001 Oct. Windows XP (whistler)
2002 Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
2003 April Windows Server 2003 (whistler server)
2006 Windows Vista Codename Longhorn (Client)
2007 Windows Codename Longhorn (Server)


Now, figure out what is the "classic" look of Windows. It changes quite a bit from generation to generation. My personal favourite is the NT 4.0 look because I've worked that one inside and out for so long. But then again I also like XP. I can honestly say that 2000 feels like its caught in No Man's land, ackwardly spanning the NT and XP and looks as if the development team got caught up in a quagmire of ugly hacks to satisfy their timeline. XP is beautiful in comparison to 2000, while NT 4.0 is absolutely my idea of what a stellar utilitarian journey in GUI useability and simplicity were meant to be.

*rant* Perhaps you mean that the "classic" look is the 95 version? When 95 came out it was neat compared to 3.1x, but it had some graphical annoyances with different videocards at the time that weren't a problem for me when switching to NT or 98. The fact that it would switch to 640x480 for absolutely no reason (spontaneous video driver crashes associated with my ati-monster card combination) really screwed with my icon positions. I also never cared for the Explorer "quicklaunch" Toolbar added into 98/2000, but after using it with XP (and since the Office Toolbar disappeared) I've grown attached to it. I'd rather use a Office Toolbar than the "quicklaunch" any day. Sure it had problems with rogue windows appearing underneath it, but they were always solved by a few quick keystrokes. */rant*

Lineback has done a nice job of capturing the look & feel of the Windows GUI from generation to generation.
Click the image link to see what he has:

[ external image ]
*************************************
Go Huskers!

counting_pine
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Fallowfield

Post by counting_pine »

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a long reply. Nice use of colour by the way.
I wouldn't call "Classic windows look" an oxymoron though. I wouldn't even call it a contradiction in terms. (After looking it up, it turns out that CITs are only oxymorons if they're intentional.)

Technically, "classic" can mean "Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles." In this case, I guess "classic" would mean that it conforms to the definition of "Windows Classic" that's defined in XP.

Maybe it's strange, but I've actually always liked the QuickLaunch toolbars. Back in the days when I used Windows 95 and NT4, I'd install the IE4 desktop update in order to have access to the added features in Explorer.

etko
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by etko »

I was referring to the name used in Windows XP, as most of us exactly know what "Windows Classic" that means.

Yes I like the most GUI of Windows NT but there are some useful widgets in most recent versions of Windows which fit into the NT look nicely and increase it's usability.

I think that best look for ReactOS would be something like Windows NT on steroids ;).

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat »

"Classic Start Menu" mode is the only one I use in XP, too. Glad to see I'm not the only one to look at the newer start menu and to think WTF is that? However, I gotta say that Longhorn/Vista is moving into a nice direction, too.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

SpoonmAn
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:09 pm

Post by SpoonmAn »

i prefere the new start menue, because its much more handy to me, but i still think that at the moment there are other goals that seem to me much more important than to make the gui functional. once ROS runs most of the standard windows apps the design and functionality should come to focus...

Disease
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:23 am

XP

Post by Disease »

ReactOS having a XP-themed layout makes it more like a Windows clone I guess. (don't get me wrong, I would love a similar and function layout but I'm just saying)

Coviti
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:26 am

Post by Coviti »

I think that a Luna style interface would appeal to some users who are scared off by the very idea that ROS is not made by MS. This would give them some familiarity with it and would allow them to feel more comfortable switching from MS.

Of course, this would be very low-priority, since functionality should always come first!

Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

Coviti wrote:I think that a Luna style interface would appeal to some users who are scared off by the very idea that ROS is not made by MS.
Well, why would we want somebody to use ReactOS if they're already scared by the fact that it's not made by Microsoft?
nick_emblow wrote:I say this is the worste aspect because, there are patents on gradients, colours, fonts, probably even button order that ms could use to shut down ros.
That's rubbish. You can't patent designs, you can only copyright them. In fact, Luna has been copied already and no one has been sued yet.

Coviti
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:26 am

Post by Coviti »

Coviti wrote:
I think that a Luna style interface would appeal to some users who are scared off by the very idea that ROS is not made by MS.

Well, why would we want somebody to use ReactOS if they're already scared by the fact that it's not made by Microsoft?
Perhaps that wasn't the clearest way to state it. Most users think "Open Source = Garbage". I know because I used to be one of them (Gosh, have I changed since I first got internet!). However, if one of these people come across a screenshot of a free operating system that looks exactly (or almost exactly) like their current OS, guess what -- they might try it, and take away some of MS's valuable business.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest