Would simply including the choice for the GUI design at the login screen make all this talk about skins and whatnot relatively a nonissue? People that like the Win9X look could have it there way, the XP crowd could have it there way, the Enlighten crowd there way, etc.
Here is an example under PCLinux and how they handle the option to choose different GUI's: http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slide ... 14&slide=3
Clicking the "Session Type" allows the user to chose common desktops like KDE, Gnome, IceWM, Enlighten, Blackbox, etc.
Would a GUI selector on login solve all the quibbles?
Moderator: Moderator Team
Would a GUI selector on login solve all the quibbles?
*************************************
Go Huskers!
Go Huskers!
Heck no. We will endup with a KDE and Gnome fight.
We don't need that.
I think I have found one way of proving a lot of flex.
We don't want to split the development teams unless there is no other option.
I think I have found one way of proving a lot of flex.
We don't want to split the development teams unless there is no other option.
-
michael79
GUI selector
I think this should not take part of ReactOS developement.
Anybody can replace the login manager. This is also possible
on Windows NT.
Anybody can replace the login manager. This is also possible
on Windows NT.
Hi.
I wanted to answer YES but finally decided for don't care. I wish to
argument about that. I think we need at some point the possibility
to change the gui. What will be possible, albeit harder than it should,
under NT could be made simpler if the planning was done beforehand
in ROS. This can give a guideline for the interested folks to follow and
ensure no major difference exist. The "standard" ROS shell can be the
explorer and people could the change it, hence the interest of a console
only mode which already exist. One could imagine a standard setup and
an option in the end to configure the gui if needed, once the other part
is done like networking, etc... This exist in Linux for different window
managers and the clear separation between the program and the visual
interface could be a line to follow, maybe.
I wanted to answer YES but finally decided for don't care. I wish to
argument about that. I think we need at some point the possibility
to change the gui. What will be possible, albeit harder than it should,
under NT could be made simpler if the planning was done beforehand
in ROS. This can give a guideline for the interested folks to follow and
ensure no major difference exist. The "standard" ROS shell can be the
explorer and people could the change it, hence the interest of a console
only mode which already exist. One could imagine a standard setup and
an option in the end to configure the gui if needed, once the other part
is done like networking, etc... This exist in Linux for different window
managers and the clear separation between the program and the visual
interface could be a line to follow, maybe.
I have a feeling it is the ability to run different X windows based GUIs that has appealed to so many Linux users. I know I've appreciated being able to select IceWM at time when KDE was such a big hog of resources and I wanted the extra power to visually see the files on the disk in a timelier manner. Being able to run an even more simplistic GUI is what seems to appeal to FVWM and blackbox users. If ROS took a page from their book then perhaps the options could be:
1. Select a Customized GUI for ROS (add only the elements you want)
2. Beuna Vista ROS (comparable to VISTA shell)
3. XPerience ROS (comparable to XP shell)
4. Lite 90's ROS (comparable to 98SE shell)
5. Box ROS (minimalistic blackbox-like shell)
6. CLI mode (the command line only)
Development could work from last to first, making the eventual target a customizeable match of elements from a VISTA lookalike all the way down to CLI. It might sound difficult, but its probably easier to do if planned out right.
* Box ROS would not have the all of the basic Windows features like the taskbar, systray, start menu, etc.
* Lite 90's could have the "Classic Windows" style available in XP, and minus all of the fancy folder views of the XP default.
* XPerience could have all of the current default elements found in XP, including the dorked up folder views.
* VISTA would add whatever crowning improvements they eventually decide upon.
By allowing the elements to be either chosen or turned on and off would provide the customized view. So basically by starting out with the intention of modules would provide all of the GUI options one could want and then some.
1. Select a Customized GUI for ROS (add only the elements you want)
2. Beuna Vista ROS (comparable to VISTA shell)
3. XPerience ROS (comparable to XP shell)
4. Lite 90's ROS (comparable to 98SE shell)
5. Box ROS (minimalistic blackbox-like shell)
6. CLI mode (the command line only)
Development could work from last to first, making the eventual target a customizeable match of elements from a VISTA lookalike all the way down to CLI. It might sound difficult, but its probably easier to do if planned out right.
* Box ROS would not have the all of the basic Windows features like the taskbar, systray, start menu, etc.
* Lite 90's could have the "Classic Windows" style available in XP, and minus all of the fancy folder views of the XP default.
* XPerience could have all of the current default elements found in XP, including the dorked up folder views.
* VISTA would add whatever crowning improvements they eventually decide upon.
By allowing the elements to be either chosen or turned on and off would provide the customized view. So basically by starting out with the intention of modules would provide all of the GUI options one could want and then some.
*************************************
Go Huskers!
Go Huskers!
-
Blackcrack
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:55 pm
- Contact:
)) i be every open to customizing a Win32-System 
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests