If you want a pretty OS...

i dont get what you mean...

but still, consider this;
- web cams tend to provide maybe 640*480 images
- I run my desktop at 1920*1200

Something in my head tells me your idea is insane..

oh, and even the software drivers with the Dec Vista CTP seemed to perform fine on my machine and looked good (infact unlike Win2K -> XP UI switch I like the Vista one) but then again i'm running an 2.2Ghz X2 chip, maybe it helps.. if only I could get Vista drivers for the rest of my system and the ATI ones to work, I might have checked it out more.. ah well..

if you think vista and OSX are bad you've obviously never heard of looking glass

I think it might be an interesting idea, though it might not be practical because of the small screen size from the webcam (like Phantom said), and if you did increase the size then you might run into performance problems.

People who like taking screenshots of their desktop would probably want some way to turn it off. [grin]

Looking Glass is just insane... I don't see how anyone could use that and not go crazy...

I must be the only person alive that likes a good looking OS! Seriously, I love all the flashy stuff(as long as it doesnt slow down my system much, which OS X really doesn't). If I'm spending at least 2 or 3 (often more) hours a day at my computer I don't want some cruddy looking gray OS to look at! I want something cool and insperational! Vista looks awesom, its too bad I ahven't had a chance to use it yet. [sad]

Quote:

Original post by lethalhamster I must be the only person alive that likes a good looking OS! Seriously, I love all the flashy stuff(as long as it doesnt slow down my system much, which OS X really doesn't). If I'm spending at least 2 or 3 (often more) hours a day at my computer I don't want some cruddy looking gray OS to look at! I want something cool and insperational! Vista looks awesom, its too bad I ahven't had a chance to use it yet. [sad]

I'm with you there. I don't know how people can bear to look at the Windows Classic themes...

Quote:

Original post by Oberon_Command I'm with you there. I don't know how people can bear to look at the Windows Classic themes...

The XP theme isn't too ugly.

Quote:

Original post by Servant of the Lord Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command I'm with you there. I don't know how people can bear to look at the Windows Classic themes... The XP theme isn't too ugly.

That's why I use it. :P [lol]

The current rumour is that Apple is going to do just this for 10.5 with the built-in iSight in the newest Macs and Core Image (pixel-shader support).

I doubt it will actually happen.

I have mine set back to as close to Win95 as I can get, but honestly, I'm starting to hate this system.

I want something that lets me get work DONE, not something that looks 'pretty' and slows my work down. There was a time when I would use the mouse for everything and that, clicking menus. However, now I'm noticing that on any system, there is a small delay between clicking, and the whole menu appearing. Now, to some that minor delay is nothing, however when I'm doing stuff I start to notice it.

Hopefully in a few years, after I get into linux programing more, I hope to come out with something that while looking 'good' lets you get work done quicker.

I find it rather sad that the OS alone can't even be run on the first computer I had (old 100mhz box) Why is this sad? Because there is no REAL ADVANCEMENT! I'm on a computer that is so much 'better' than that old thing, but I'm not actually getting work done faster. It doesn't let me type reports faster, it doesn't really let me browse the web faster. Why aren't all these smart people working on our OS stuff actually working to make them BETTER!!!

Quote:

Original post by TalrothWhy aren't all these smart people working on our OS stuff actually working to make them BETTER!!!

Because it's hard to show the speed of an OS in a few screenshots.

Plus, the average consumer doesn't care about speed, they care about eye-candy, so nowadays eye-candy is the pretty much only way to attract the average computer user (read: non-geeks).

Though, there are exceptions to this rule: most of the non-geeks I know set their desktop resolutions quite low (or change the sizes of their icons and fonts), for some reason, and the geeks I know usually use maximum resolution (I consider desktop resolution to be eye-candy, I don't know if anyone else will). Anyone know why this is?

Oh, and also, the eye-candy is a way of showing progress. People wouldn't consider it progress if the latest and greatest OS running on the best and newest hardware looked exactly like it's predecessors from the late 90s.

Desktop resolution provides more workspace... I don't consider it eye candy.

Trust me, if you don't have a dinosaur of a computer you will be able to run any os without much of an issue..

Do you think microsoft or any os developer is stupid enough to eliminate millions of users from their marketbase because they want to give us a pretty os?

I don't think so..

Though they might come out with a downgraded version for that market :D

I was hoping this thread was gonna give me steps to make my OS pretty... [depressed]

I don't get it. Please elaborate on what, exactly, the webcam is supposed to do in this theoretical scenario. As best I can figure, it's supposed to put a picture of my room on a button.

CM

Quote:

Original post by Thevenin I was hoping this thread was gonna give me steps to make my OS pretty... [depressed]

Eh, I don't see why not. Teh Awesomeness that is XPero. And it's free!

Quote:

Original post by Talroth I find it rather sad that the OS alone can't even be run on the first computer I had (old 100mhz box) Why is this sad? Because there is no REAL ADVANCEMENT! I'm on a computer that is so much 'better' than that old thing, but I'm not actually getting work done faster. It doesn't let me type reports faster, it doesn't really let me browse the web faster. Why aren't all these smart people working on our OS stuff actually working to make them BETTER!!!

We call this the 90/10 rule. Move to NT4? It's more secure and stable? But it looks exactly the same as Win95...

That is, 90% of the work impresses 10% of the people, and 10% of the work (the shiny, or ugly, GUI) impresses 90% of the people.

Quote:

Original post by BBB Quote: Original post by Servant of the Lord The XP theme isn't too ugly. Yes it is. Slimegreen start-button on annoying blue taskbar, hello?

Yes, the Blue theme is ugly, but the Silver theme is quite nice. It should have been the default, but taking 10 seconds to switch to it doesn't hurt that much.

I believe I had this idea when I was about ten years old, actually, only for sphere maps in games rather than in operating systems.

That aside, I'm all for having a good-looking skin. I always like to have some kind of really weird theme or another. Lately I've been going for more minimalist themes, but I still can't stand any of the built-in themes (Mac OS X has the only one I find tolerable, but I even got bored with that pretty quickly.)

Quote:

I want something that lets me get work DONE, not something that looks 'pretty' and slows my work down. There was a time when I would use the mouse for everything and that, clicking menus. However, now I'm noticing that on any system, there is a small delay between clicking, and the whole menu appearing. Now, to some that minor delay is nothing, however when I'm doing stuff I start to notice it.

Why do so many people assume that a pretty GUI and a functional GUI are exclusive? Windows XP is just as efficient to work in as Windows 95 was, despite looking better. If the pause before a menu shows up bothers you, then don't use menus. God hated that pause too, that's why he invented keyboard shortcuts. Navigating Windows Explorer takes too long? Type your destination directly into the address bar. There are one or two places its taken steps back [search dog, I'm looking at you], but otherwise its exactly the same.

Quote:

I find it rather sad that the OS alone can't even be run on the first computer I had (old 100mhz box) Why is this sad? Because there is no REAL ADVANCEMENT! I'm on a computer that is so much 'better' than that old thing, but I'm not actually getting work done faster. It doesn't let me type reports faster, it doesn't really let me browse the web faster. Why aren't all these smart people working on our OS stuff actually working to make them BETTER!!!

What do you want it to do? Last I checked, the speed of browsing the web depended on your internet browser, and report writing was a function of the author. Windows has improved things like its scheduler so that multiple threads run better, but you don't notice that when writing reports because you're the bottleneck, not the scheduler.

CM