Windows 95 UI has more features than GNOME 3 23 years later

>Windows 95 UI has more features than GNOME 3 23 years later
Amazing.

Attached: win95.png (640x480, 9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/01/gnome-desktop-icons-removed-3-28
gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/nautilus/issues/309
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I want Windows XP WM and DE on Linux. How do I disassemble explorer.exe and other parts of ui?

What exactly am I looking at here? Unless I'm missing something, it's just a file explorer. GNOME has that, with all the features listed, and you can install any file manager you want if you don't like the default GNOME file manager.

nostalgia is weird, this genuinely looks beautiful

Look at the picture once more.
It has the features GNOME lacks today.

The xp wm was truely horseshit.
No alt+dragging of windows.
No alt+resize
No quick tiling
No send to next monitor hotkeys
It could barely alt+tab.
It was shit

And? Who use gnome except winfags in deny?

Desktop icons? Start menu?

>And? Who use gnome except winfags in deny?
ESLfaggots need to be banned

Two more features, one isn't showed here, though.

>No alt+dragging of windows.
not an issue

>No alt+resize
unlike nearly all Linux WMs, Windows doesn't expect its users to aim for that 1 pixel that allows you to grab the window border

>No quick tiling
>No send to next monitor hotkeys
I don't think anybody cared for these features back when XP was new

>It could barely alt+tab.
what

I like Gnome for how minimalist and clean it is.

Although I did install an extension or two.

Both those features exist in Gnome. But please do tell what is missing.

>literally just replies missing features aren't an issue in a thread he himself made about missing features

But Windows 7 wm is bloated as a fuck.

Windows 2000 wm was ideal.

>minimalist
>gnome
>extensions

Attached: 1300044776986.jpg (250x250, 17K)

>he thinks I'm OP

>clear labels for windows and executed foreground tasks
>clear indication for unpressed and pressed buttons
>consistent spacing for all elements, with slight space provided between close button to avoid accidental clicks
>easy access menus for tasks and commands
>skeuomorphic buttons for common tasks
>crisp text
>uniform yet easily identifiable icons
>simple, logically set out interface
>familiar desktop paradigm
>minimal icon tray with only clock and volume
>no clutter, everything has purpose
This was the best GUI.

Desktop icons and Start menu with groups and subgroups, which don't take the whole screen, exist in GNOME?
Recent news were Desktop icons are removed. omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/01/gnome-desktop-icons-removed-3-28
All right, I'll tell you what features GNOME misses. Status icons and tasks list, accessible at 0 (zero) clicks and 0 (zero) seconds delay.

>crisp text
Disable font smoothing, enable full hinting and voila, crisp text is back.

>Windows 95 UI has more features than Windows 10 23 years later
fixed

I just use terminus systemwide, including the browser.
Love seeing the bewildered looks on normie faces when they see my screen.

It will be crippled text, because smoothing fonts are looking shit without aa.

Well, you should install old Windows fonts as well.

gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/nautilus/issues/309

Attached: 1520116846423.jpg (519x533, 73K)

I think I should.
Why GNUTards can't buy proprietary fonts?

IIRC Red Hat bought one font family for free use.

>not an issue
I had XP spawn windows partially or entirely off screen so regularly that I still have a muscle memory for "alt-space, m, down arrow, move mouse, click". Such a simple and intuitive way to move a window you can't see the title bar of, especially how it gives you no feedback whatsoever until you get to the mouse move part, then your window just materializes out of nowhere.

A lot of people wouldn't have had this problem. It happened to me because I had an XP laptop and always used it with a secondary monitor off to the side at home, but without when away from home. So programs would often try to spawn on that screen when it wasn't there, and XP doesn't seem to do anything about offscreen windows.

It was also more stable than KDE

>DOS-based Windows
>stable
pick one

The glorious ahk masterrace were doing all of those things on xp.

It was a unstable mess, but KDE is even worse

windows 3.1 has more features than gnome 4

Norton Commander has more features than GNOME 5

DOS has more features than GNOME Sex

le file picker maymay
epic.

>uniform icons

Attached: aaaa.png (232x482, 3K)

Q4OS

You're welcome.

Attached: image2.jpg (1152x768, 287K)

>Q4OS
at least post a good looking setup

Attached: 1519854154229.png (1280x770, 81K)

Attached: 1516326535228.jpg (1152x864, 130K)

> user talks 'bout the WinXP desktop
> Then (You), came and post the one that mimics the Win2k one.

Also fuck you.

The back of the house was missing on it as well.

Attached: lulzsec.jpg (340x331, 36K)

>it's just a file explorer. GNOME has that, with all the features listed
The screenshot shows a folder tree view which is missing in Nautilus.

Nautilus has folder tree, is in the options.

also crashes less than KDE

GNOME 2 UI had more features then Win95 UI or GNOME 3 UI.

It's based on the GIMP toolkit. Photoshop 3 has more features than GIMP. It's unsurprising.

Windows 95 was also the first (and last) time MS spent significant time trying to ensure that the UI was clean and easy to work with.
they haven't put as much time or testing into their interfaces since (largely because things haven't changed too much, and even Windows 10 hasn't entirely eroded away all of the aspect of 95's design)

no alt+drag is a bonafide issue, and X11 WMs traditionally had quite thick window borders, thin border area is a fairly recent issue

had a problem like that too
always wondered why the move option required an arrow key input first

this
GNOME 3 was an absurd step down.

what is this post lol

>what is this post lol
GNOME uses gtk which is the GIMP toolkit.

Windows 2000 was the best nt ever
thoughts?

Attached: 5lpJWEj.png (1920x1080, 65K)

Deliberate design choices!?
Sorry to tell you, Gnome was never intended to be a copy of Windows.

Noice shilling m8.

>System desktop icons in "/opt/trinity/share/apps/kdesktop/Desktop/"

kde? = Into the bin.

win2k3 server.

>1 pixel
gnome has more than that, it's the whole shadow around the window

windows 95 only took up to 1GB
Its one of the reasons I would like old 2006 laptops to run on 95 it uniroically uses less than 16KB for every day OS ram useage and can leave more ram
for internet but alas because of drivers and no sata or SSD support its never going to happen

you tell a winbabby that linux isn't actually supposed to be a copy of windows and they lose their fucking minds, they don't only abandon it but the butthurt transcends this; they must endlessly shitpost on the internet about it. An undesirable mental state for sure.

enjoy your overheats and shit drivers

Attached: win 98.jpg (1152x864, 111K)

>overheats
What?
>shit drivers
Don't use Linux on walled garden hardware for little bitches that need a leash to not run out into the street and kill themselves like AMD or NVIDIA

Have you ever wondered why GNOME logo is a foot without anything?
GNOME is full of amputee fags. At first they amputated legs (foot shows it), later - hands, and their ultimate goal is to amputate brains.
That's why GNOME 3 has such brainlet design.

Attached: 1513426492687.png (702x526, 385K)

Is there anyone unironically using GNOME?

also linax is a piece of horse shit
you are a fucking communist

Attached: 3snapshot_11.35.png (1920x1080, 3.32M)

Linux Desktop is in deep stagnation, because current situation is nowhere near like it was 10 years ago, when there were considered only two major DEs, GNOME 2 and KDE. Now we have at least five widely considered DEs, one of them being GNOME 2 on steroids and one of them being what GNOME 3 should have at least become.
Imagine how many resources are dispersed to fight against GNOME decisions to drop traditional Desktop paradigm, which was cemented by countless operating systems. Divide and conquer, as Romans said. As you may remember, Unity DE was also developed against GNOME 3. Now Unity is ded, precious hours of development, which could were spent for wider hardware compatibility, for better Linux friendliness, are spent to fight against GNOME. And even now, Ubuntu still fights against GNOME, because GNOME dropped one more feature of Desktop paradigm.
If it's not diversion against Desktop Linux, what is GNOME 3+ then?

Attached: 1517737353398.jpg (600x800, 132K)

No, I consider myself a capitalist consumer, that is where I'm comfortable politically. I love the US and its founding ideas.
Free market dictates you can't sell painted rocks except to stupid people. As in, you can't fancy up something just as good freely available and expect anyone with half a brain to PAY for it.
This is why I choose GNU/Linux

Macintosh System 1 back in 1984 had more features than GNOME 3.

Why would anyone support GNOME developers is beyond comprehension.

lipstick on a pig.

Microsoft truly was ahead of its time tbҺ fαm.

>tweaking Lunix to look like 95 or XP

NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU FAGGOTS TRY.

Attached: Starship_Voyeur.jpg (320x240, 20K)

Not even Windows looks like Windows 95 now.

Is that a 21" crt?

nigga wat?? windows 95 used less than 150mb of space

Ubuntu 18.04 is going to ship that horse shit called Gnome by default.

Is there a way to replace Linux shell with Wine? I mean, if I boot my linux it just straight into wine desktop.

yes, you could have nothing but a wine virtual desktop running on X

just use fvwm95

No, I don't like linux ""windows"" theme

You wouldn't like it if it was 1:1 anyway.

>Why would anyone support GNOME developers is beyond comprehension.
Because is the best Linux DE

Yes, the mayority of productive Linux users.
Don't you get tired of being a samefag?

>implying there's only one man who thinks that GNOME is shit

>made countless forks after switch to the third version
>best

God damn I miss bitmap fonts. So easy on the eyes. I fucking hate the blurry fonts I have to deal with now.

But bitmap fonts look like they're on a computer screen, while aliased fonts look like they're on a Rich User Experience Interface.

One is blurry and one is not. Do people seriously not give a shit about their eye sight?

Oh, and how do you expect me to look at a document as if its paper, without a bright white screen shining in my face with hard-to-focus-on fonts between the glare?

Yea, and truth be told, Windows 95 was a vastly superior OS than Windows 10. Thanks, shitskin cocksuckers.

What? A UI is not a document or even supposed to resemble anything like type on a printed paper. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

>or even supposed to resemble anything like type on a printed paper
Explain WYSIWYG then.

>Implying there are many NEETs like him

Absolutly, that is why is the standard Linux DE

>WYSIWYG
That's easy. It's for word processing programs where you are trying to write a document and you want to make sure it looks the same as on paper. That has NOTHING to do with a UI.

>Desktop icons
Wrong. In fact everything you stated is wrong.

Attached: lies.png (902x250, 26K)

Do you actually go around printing your screen and saying "Yep, that UI looks the same!"

It also misses font settings.

Wrong.

Show me.

Before you install GNOME Tweak Tool, show me how you change the fonts in the TOP PANEL without downloading a third-party plugin or opening up a text editor.

What's version of GNOME? :^)

Look at It's clearly listed on the left between extensions and Keyboard/mouse. I honestly don't know where you guys get your facts, but if it's reddit, I suggest you stop. Repeating things ad-nauseaum, will not make them true.

I'm on Arch, so it's the latest, whatever that is.

>Before you install GNOME Tweak Tool
Dconf?

Exactly. looks like GNOME is too advanced for those n00bs