-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Apps
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

What´s the most modern GUI?


Posted by  on Jun 27 2002

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home
KDE 3.047%47%47% 47%
GNOME 2.08%8%8% 8%
Win XP9%9%9% 9%
Mac OS X34%34%34% 34%
other2%2%2% 2%
Votes: 4004
goto page:  1  2  3 

-
.

 I like KDE...

 
 by Deviant on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

As much as I do like KDE, I simply won't be able to call it the most modern GUI.

Why?

Well, lets put KDE up versus Mac OS X or Windows XP. KDE is actually very close to those two other GUI's, but what is missing, why are Windows XP or Mac OS X still more modern GUI's than KDE? Something simply missing, what really should be on place is the damn fonts. The font handling is wrong, and antialiased fonts really look very odd and bad indeed. I know this isn't a direct problem with KDE itself, but a problem with X. But it still hits KDE, and it is really a shame... Another thing. Both Windows XP and OS X have *real transparency*, while KDE only have fake transparency. Again, KDE developers can't fix this without X being fixed. But the problem still bugs KDE, and makes KDE lose in 'moderness' to Windows XP and OS X.

While Windows XP have transparency and great font antialiasing, it loses against OS X. OS X is the most consistent and professionally done GUI, while built on top of a modern unix system. Nothing can beat that.

So I voted for Mac OS X. I would really like some arguments for voting on KDE. Don't get me wrong, I love KDE, but I must admit that I don't feel it is the most modern GUI. It just isn't...

What can we learn from this? Well, if KDE is to beat Windows XP or Mac OS X, some changes would have to be done not to KDE, but to X itself. Someone would have to add real good looking quality fonts, and impliment a real transparency server for X. Or just drop X, and reimpliment the whole thing for framebuffer, and port KDE to it.

Work must be moved onto the real problem of Linux, and that is X. When X have either been enchanted, or the whole thing have been moved onto framebuuffer or something else, the look and feel of KDE would be able to be greatly improved 10 times over what it is now.

It would make KDE able to beat Windows XP, and even the exceptional Mac OS X.

A couple of years, and we will be there...


Reply to this

-
.

 ...

 
 by secretmethod70 on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

AMEN!


Reply to this

-
.

 I agree, too

 
 by mathjazz on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

We need this things, indeed! BUT this is not enough. We need something new. Something that osx and xp don't have. But what is this ...?


Reply to this

-
.

 YEAH

 
 by nemo84 on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

you're right! Why don't you move KDE to DirectFB, if I'm not in error, it's got real trasparency and is faster than X. Maybe I'm telling nonsenses, I'm not a programmer, but why don't you evaluate this, whatch if it's possible to do?
I really like KDE and I want it to be the best... GOOD WORK KDE TEAM!
Ciao!


Reply to this

-
.

 X apps wont run.

 
 by Spiral Man on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

There are several things that DirectFB doesnt have. First, networking. It is great to be able to run prog -display [someip] on some headless or remote computer and have the window(s) pop up right on my desktop, without any special VNC software. DirectFB took this out (rather, didnt put it in) because it slows drawing down.

Second: NVidia cards. There are quite a few people with nvidia cards who would like to have good drivers for them, so they stick with X (this is more nvidia's fault than the directFB people's)

Third: Apllications. If you switch to DirectFB, you wont be able to run any applications except ones written for it. This means that all those old (or new) X apps (and there are thousands of them) wont work without a rather major port. That really isnt any fun.

As far as a better X server, well there is one in the works. Its refered to as the "XRender Server" or some such, and it allows XRenders across windows, whereas currently you can only do "real" transparency (ie, hardware blending with the XRender extension) within your own window.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: X apps wont run.

 
 by mortehu on: Jul 1 2002
 
Score 50%

Yes they will; you will run a rootless X-server inside your DirectFB environment. You would gain speed for local applications at the cost of speed for remote applications. I could live with that.


Reply to this

-
.

 Why?

 
 by mortehu on: Jul 1 2002
 
Score 50%

Because:

- Konsole is by far superior to all other terminal emulators I've tried. I own a PowerMac and have tried the MacOS X ones, and they all suck in comparasion. gnome-terminal is a joke too. It may not support "true transparency" (like there's such a thing), but I wouldn't want that anyway (I keep my terminals on a separate desktop, not overlapping other windows)

- Kmail is decidedly the best mail client I've ever tried. It's what Outlook should have been (everybody knows Outlook is a joke in terms of security, and it lacks kmail's powerful filters)

- Kdevelop is the best IDE I've tried (beats MS Visual Studio IMHO). Its support for the GNU autotools and CVS rocks.

- KDE's binary themeability lets me vary my desktop look to such wonderful widget sets as Keramik and Liquid. I also like the themeable icons.

- Konqueror now beats Internet Explorer, but maybe Gecko still is better than KHTML (haven't tried Gecko out in a while -- KHTML works splendidly for all my tasks)

- KDE is fast enough (starts way faster than Aqua)

- I can at any submit patches (which I do several times a week), download the newest version and discuss with the actual developers

- The fuzzy clock is extremely cool

There might be shortcomings elsewhere, but they don't affect my daily work.


Reply to this

-
.

 Kmail??????

 
 by eyz on: Jul 1 2002
 
Score 50%

Correct me if I'm wrong.

KMail can't even handle text auto-wrapping. It adds a hard carriage return at a user-specified width. Isn't that a pre-history behavior?

KMail doesn't know how to subscribe or unsubscribe IMAP folders.


Reply to this

-
.

 Line wrapping

 
 by mortehu on: Jul 2 2002
 
Score 50%

Hard linebreaks is the correct way.

Mail clients can determine what's supposed to be a continous paragraph by checking whether or not the line ends with a space.

You can turn of this feature, but you don't want to.


Reply to this

-

 Sooooory...

 
 by antialias on: Jul 2 2002
 
Score 50%

but you don't know what you are talking about :(

1. Antialiased fonts are better then in WinXP. You probably don't know how to choose right fonts and configure them. Don't blame KDE for it.

2. True transparency is a part of a GUI (a little and not important part). Flexibility to change your GUI on a fly is a real thing. Try to change your MacOSX GUI to something which is not Aqua-like and then tell me which GUI is better.

3. MacOSX runs only on a specific hardware, and if LINUX and X and KDE were coded only for a specific hardware it would be much easier to solve a minor cosmetic thing like a true transparency.

4. Someone has to define a word 'modern GUI' but for you it is probably aqua-crystal look&feel of GUI. MacOSX is only one GUI, and KDE is a sample of GUI-s, as much modern as your creativity can do it modern. Fexibility and usability = modern.

5. The only thing I miss on KDE desktop is fixed icon sizes 16x16, 22x22, 32x32, 48x48 & 64x64 rectangles, which unables you to give more streamlined look & feel to KDE toolbars and Kicker. And that should be fixed.


Reply to this

-
.

 Just eye candy !

 
 by bela on: Jul 3 2002
 
Score 50%

Don't judge a GUI being "modern" by irrelevant features. I'm largely bored by the monotonuous ranting about transparency and such on this site.
Usability should be the focus for GUIs nothing else. And while MacOS always had the lead in this aspect (compare the broken mime type handling in KDE3 to what OSX provides...) its exactly the eye candy that turns out as a usability drawback for MacOS !

Cheers!


Reply to this

-
.

 I agree...

 
 by Goamaus on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

fully 100%! You are right and you say, what many others think.


Reply to this

-
.

 Deviant

 
 by Deviant on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

Yes. I really feel that for KDE to be complete and to be the best, many changes in KDE itself isn't needed anymore. KDE have gotten a great GUI with the work of great artists like Everaldo, but the look of the fonts and lack of real transparency kills...

The only things I think KDE is missing as itself is improved theme-ability of kicker, and better html rendering with Konqueror (this may again have something to do with X fonts?).

How long will it take before X is fixed, or before KDE is moved into framebuffer? It will take years, I guess! The X project is advancing so slow... And I think moving into framebuffer is a huge and difficult project... It is really a shame. I love KDE, I think it has potential. I want to see KDE win!


Reply to this

-
.

 hmm

 
 by yurkjes on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

Unfortunately X will never be fixed. At least it appears so from their past and present actions (politics and other actual programming stuffs).

X has taken a lot of heat in the area of performance in the past and has made good progress. In fact most of what KDE has to do through X is quite acceptable speed wise and technology wise. One area which does suck is pure drawing power. One easy example is to try resizing a window(even with a simple window decoration) and watch X scramble to catch up. If that isnt X's fault then we sould rightly shift the blame on something else. All I know is that modern to me means fast and useable and not having the interface 'smear' around the screen while working with tons of windows. (while being sophisticated in the graphics dept. of course) This middleman needs help in this area so ...

DirectFB is of course an option but is very unlikely in the very near future(1 year) for 2 very big reasons: 1) The restructuring of all of QT's and KDE's calls to X in the libraries would be a nightmare, and fixing/finding all the Xish hacks that had to be put into place would take several armies of programmers to fix. This is all on trolltech here and their priorities are not 100% on kde(thats fine really) 2) The absence of a networking protocol. This has been X's strongest advantages and is probably the only reason it still even exists today. Without this, say goodbye to almost anything in the area of say running a gkrellm on your friends machine and having it on your desktop...

one could wonder too if that stupid X clipboard is taken away ... can KDE's actually work :)


Reply to this

-
.

 Thats the problem...

 
 by Deviant on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

KDE will never beat OS X or Windows XP unless X is fixed, or KDE/Qt is ported to framebuffer! But for this to happen, there is need of:

Initative
Lots of work

And I think the first one is almost as bad as the last! Who will come with the initiative to jump into a huge project like this? Noone have done it yet... Noone knows what is supposed to happen in the future.

So it all seems pretty stuck here... :-(


Reply to this

-

 Another problem...

 
 by trythil on: Jun 28 2002
 
Score 50%

...is industry support.

KDE sells itself not only as a desktop environment, but also as a programming environment. That includes commercial developers. Indeed, IIRC, part of KDE's mission is to bring more commercial support to the UNIX desktop.

The X Window System is already well-known to UNIX developers, and it's got the advantage of being the most feature-rich windowing system out there. (Just to give an example: what other windowing system supports hardware-accelerated OpenGL on the same range as XFree86?) It may not be the fastest at what it does, but it works.

Now, on the other hand, try finding commercial developers who will bet on an embryonic, unproven system like DirectFB or Berlin. Network transparency and features aren't X's only asset -- there's also the fact that X has been proven to work. Maybe it's not the fastest or the best, but it's been _proven to work_. It's been proving that for more than a decade now.

There aren't just technical reasons why the switch would be difficult: changing as something as basic to KDE as the underlying graphical technology also runs into serious philosophical clashes as well.


Reply to this

-
.

 x clipboard

 
 by sampowers on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

your assertion about x's "clipboard" is a little bit wrong. the situation isn't as bad as you think it is, if you learn a little about it. read http://www.jwz.org/doc/x-cut-and-paste.html

Basically, when you select something, that's not the same "clipboard" as when you use ctrl-c in a kde app.


Reply to this

-

 Fonts

 
 by voz on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

Ok, so you think fonts look bad because X sucks. Well, it's not that simple. First of all it's up to the font itself. Secondly it's up to the font rendering.

Now, take the fonts included in Windows for example, they are very expensive fonts, from Agfa Monotype mostly. They're exceptionally well hinted. If X included such fonts life would be better, but unfortunately they aren't free.

So, if a font aren't extremely well hinted you need a hinting procedure. There is one called "bytecode interpreter", but guess what, Apple has patented it. The patent is only valid in the US at the moment, but that's enough for the major distributors to disable bytecode interpretation in XFree86. They fear Apple's lawyers.

So, X is capable of producing very nice fonts, but the lack of good GPL fonts and Apple's damn patents cause us to have the worst fonts in class.


Reply to this

-
.

 Im sorry...

 
 by Deviant on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

But using FreeType2 compiled with the bytecode and using Microsoft Fonts in X, they are still better rendered in Windows XP /w cleartype tech.


Reply to this

-

 cleartype

 
 by voz on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

Well, I don't like cleartype at all. To me it's a mystery why people want cleartype or anti-aliasing on fonts


Reply to this

-

 cleartype (cont.)

 
 by voz on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

My message got chopped off. What I was going to say is that I don't like cleartype or anti-aliasing on fonts less than 15 pixels in size. When using 1024x768 or higher the pixels are small enough to render sharp and smooth fonts anyway. IMHO.


Reply to this

-

 Still...

 
 by Deviant on: Jun 29 2002
 
Score 50%

Most people consider X's font redering/antialiasing inferior to Windows XP's/Mac OS X's font redering/antialiasing.


Reply to this

-
.

 come on...

 
 by mathjazz on: Jun 30 2002
 
Score 50%

1.kde3
2.macosx
3.gnome2
4.xp

What is this??? Gnome better than winxp? And kde SO MUCH BETTER than xp and gnome? And kde even better than macosx? I don't get it...


Reply to this

-

 take it easy

 
 by eyz on: Jul 1 2002
 
Score 50%

I've learned never to be serious about whatever being said in this community. In Gnome forums, many people do believe "Gnome 2 is much better than Mac OS X". What can I say?! If one day Microsoft releases all the source codes for Windows XP, will the Linux community still think Windows XP is the worst OS??????????


Reply to this

-
.

 None of these.

 
 by pimeys on: Jun 30 2002
 
Score 50%

The winner is Fluxbox.


Reply to this

goto page:  1  2  3 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-
-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore
 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Apps
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add App
Public API
About KDE-Apps.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2003-2014 KDE-Apps.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Apps.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.