Aqua Dock 1.0 Style

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

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
punth
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:18 am

Aqua Dock 1.0 Style

Post by punth »

Have anybody try Aqua Dock 1.0 ? It's free, very useful and small application. This software look like OS x Style taskbar but it runs on windows.

I think if we ask the developer to join with us to design this function and add on ReactOS.
Maybe we can add right click on taskbar to chang style of reactos task look like Mac os but we just design a new function look easier or more beautiful in style or anypeople can remember the style of ReactOS.
hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

Maybe you can make wiki page for your own (and other's) ideas.
They will be buried on this forum.
PLowran
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Nashville
Contact:

Post by PLowran »

Now I have a better Idea, At Install the installer should ask you what you would like to use as your desktop a Windows Clone or a OSX Clone, then upon choice it would install the design you want...
I have always like what they are doin with this OS but its just ugly, they need to go and use Icons from www.KDE-LOOK.org the people make them for free use, and just make it a sharp OS, you will not get Respect with the cartoonish Icons and GUI it seem to have at this moment.
Also, If you have a video card Object Dock is a nice OSX bar clone.
Peace
PLowran
walter
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: north italy

Post by walter »

it could also have a selector at the login, like old linux mandrake had (i switched between kde and gnome as i needed)
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

ROS' objective is to provide a generic Windows-like environment. It is not trying to copy a few dozen different GUI shell styles from everything else. Since everything that installs on Windows will theoretically install on ReactOS, and since the original suggestion was basically a Windows application, it would more or less be duplication of effort making the ReactOS GUI into a Mac style desktop. Also, ReactOS doesn't need modification to its default desktop environment. The user can change it to their heart's content after the fact, but if ReactOS tried to cram in every suggestion that's been made about its desktop, it would become bloated and contradictory.

Unlike many Linux distros, where applications may need to be tweaked to work properly, ReactOS should be compatible with Windows applications without the need to modify anything. Thus any functionality one wants doesn't need to be rebuilt, since it already exists.
.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

Yeah... but what about multiple desktops idea, package manager?
I think that in orgins ReactOS effort was to estabilish an OS that gets everything good from other OS'es based on Windows'es ease.
There was a POSIX subsystem etc.
Why don't get some nice ideas from other desktops and put them into the ReactOS?
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

Because most of those other desktop ideas have already been implemented in third party applications. A POSIX subsystem is trickier to use with a third party because a third party subsystem will probably go deeper, which they very well may need to do, in order to operate correctly. Again ReactOS can't guarantee it's identical to Windows if a program goes too low. Multiple desktops do exist on Windows, it's one of the power tools Microsoft releases.

The package manager I see as having the potential to get around certain user rights problems Windows has always had. Such as packages in the repository can be installed even by a regular user, not an admin. Or at least updating.

The point I'm trying to make is for desktop modifications, those are easy to come by because we're talking about a Windows compatible system here. In a corporate environment, there really isn't a need for anything more than what the current desktop is. Even as a home user, a lot of people transitioning from Windows won't even know what to do with the multiple desktops.

It's much easier to add things on than to take them away. Personally I want ReactOS to be as lean as possible. Thus when it comes to eye candy and GUI modifications, I believe that is best left to third party apps. It's best to avoid the mistake Linux distros have been making, in cramming too many things in.
.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

Respect, I just have other opinion

IMHO kernel is one, but there should be maximally functional desktop in ROS, see, MS is adding many features to their Windows so why ROS cannot make its own?
I think that ROS as Windows clone itself cannot be as popular. We have to be better, because if I have Windows and it is as functional as ROS so why i'd want to change (i'm not talking about piracy etc.).
ReactOS should be modern and provide some extra features to make people changing thaeir systems to ROS.
IMHO!

Sh*t im looking too further in my posts last time :P
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

Hmm. In reality, I would not "change" if I have a legal and functioning copy of Windows. ReactOS would be useful to me so that I don't have to buy more copies of Windows if I decided to build a machine or something. And it would certainly save my school money if they didn't have to pay for Windows upgrades. The greatest thing I can see about ReactOS is that it can run on older hardware, which would save a lot of money. I don't view ReactOS as an absolute replacement for existing Windows systems, I view it as an alternative when choosing for new systems.
punth
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:18 am

We not need to follow windows every ways.

Post by punth »

We not need to follow windows every ways. Because we have this forum and can change a new idea. One day this React OS may be advance than windows. OH ! we can't predict the future !
.aart3k
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:21 am

Post by .aart3k »

ReactOS does not aim to be an another alternative os...
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

Umm, how is it not an alternative OS? We have Windows, we have the I don't even know how many version of Linux, and we have the BSDs (I'm counting Mac OS X as a BSD). There's also a few others but those are the major ones. ReactOS joins those ranks as a variant of Windows perhaps, but it's still an "alternative" choice.

As to ReactOS' objective, it's aiming to be a viable alternative to not just powerusers but also corporate users and home users In fact, it could be said ReactOS' primary target is corporate and home users. Each one of those have a different set of priorities. Home and corporate users don't want any hassle while powerusers are generally willing or able to tweak their OS. And since power users are in the minority, it's usually the wants of home and especially corporate users that get put in at the end.

I'm assuming most people here are at the least powerusers. Thus if we want something, it isn't too hard for us to get it. If we're handed a rather bare OS in terms of a desktop, how long would it take to download and install the things we wanted? Not long. ReactOS is Windows compatible. A lot of the suggestions (not just this one) are saying, we should get this, or we should port that, even though there's already a Windows version out there. If it's something you want, just install it yourself.

Sorry for the rant, but while I'm not an old timer on this board, I have seen several suggestions like this before pop up. As far as I know, all of them are either ignored by the developers or a developer states that they won't include such a thing. As far as I can tell, they seem to be following the Windows example, in that they supply an OS with the Windows GUI and let users do any modifications after the fact.
PUOjACKz
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:52 pm

Post by PUOjACKz »

Z98 wrote:The greatest thing I can see about ReactOS is that it can run on older hardware, which would save a lot of money. I don't view ReactOS as an absolute replacement for existing Windows systems, I view it as an alternative when choosing for new systems.
Keep in mind that, make an OS, only to go to your friend and say "ROS could be executed on old hardware, not only linux", is a stupid thing.
Be honest, old hardware:

1) Is not so easy to find out in the market
2) Is not an advice for firms and business

You said that ROS has the objective to let the programs for Vista, XP and so on, work, without using that OS. Ok.
There's a little problem: the newest version of the application continue to use even more resources that the early one. You could use an OS even in a 486, but, executing what? Office97? AutoCad 13?

The PC architecture continue to evolve because there's program that request even more resources, and this is the mentality in the world today.

Use an old PC, in a mission-critical enviroment, is bad, because, you won't have support, neither hardware parts, in case of a hardware fault.
IMHO, the backward support of ROS should be seen in the fact that, an old program could be used, thing that was not possible with Microsoft OS, due to their enviroment decision about the OS architecture, or, because, the OS that let that program work, isn't supported, in hardware, any longer (as it happend to me, with Win98, in an entirely Intel machine).

And think about another thing, a Windows clone, has no sense. The linux community continue to fuss, about ROS project, saying that, an user, has no reason to past from a windows system to another one. More better past to linux and use Wine. This is quite incorrect, because Wine is Wine, and ROS is ROS, but this is what they say about us.
We not need to follow windows every ways.
We shouldn't follow them in the particular, but we need them for the OS compatibility.
ROS could be a great opportunity to make the people know about the opensource alternative of the programs that, in the great piece of the case, is pirated.
And no one could say anything against to us. We are reducing the piracy, with this project and what is related to it.
Ged
Developer
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ged »

Z98 wrote:]As far as I can tell, they seem to be following the Windows example, in that they supply an OS with the Windows GUI and let users do any modifications after the fact.
Bingo.

My mother understands how to use Windows, and navigate the Windows desktop. I want her to be able to switch to ROS overnight when the time comes. I _don't_ want to have teach her how to use a new environment.
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 »

Everything you say holds true, but they only hold true for home users. Small businesses, schools, large businesses, their hardware can range from old Pentium Is to new Pentium IVs. This I know from personal experience. Newer processors are probably filtering in now. However, upgrading hardware is expensive. If the hardware still works and the applications can still run on it, the need to upgrade is removed. While users might complain about its speed and responsiveness, if an organization doesn't have the money to upgrade, they won't. Thus we're stuck with old hardware. Given the alternative, I'd rather be using a stable ReactOS on that old hardware then the OS that came with it, which is likely to be Windows 98 or NT4.

As far as mission critical, here's an example. There's an old SCSI harddrive, I believe it's specifically 2.9 or 3.9 GB. The point is, these are on Ebay all the time and the bidding can get into hundreds of dollars. Why? Telecommunications companies often run extremely old hardware in their mission critical sections. However, when faced with the decision to either upgrade the entire server for a few thousand, or even tens of thousands of dollars, or pay a few hundred to get a new harddrive to expand the capacity of the system a little bit more, they're more likely to opt for getting a new HD. Companies move extremely conservatively when it comes to getting new systems.

Compatibility is an extraordinarily tricky issue. Many older applications may depend on inherently insecure methodology. Do we break backwards compatibility in order to ensure a secure operating system? Or do we sacrifice security for backwards compatibility? That's what Microsoft is dealing with, and what ReactOS will have to deal with as well.

The point I'm trying to make is about flexibility. Certain parts of the free software community allow ideology to get in the way of flexibility. ReactOS is small enough that this isn't a problem. But we are susceptible to feature creep. Besides the basics, we don't need anything else because it's already out there.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest