Thinking About Desktop Eyecandy 338
An anonymous reader writes "This article ponders over whether excess eye candy and special effects being incorporated on the desktop is a good trend after all? The author explains why he thinks the users are taken for a ride by the OS companies in compelling them to upgrade their hardware in order to enable these processor intensive and memory hungry special effects."
Fat Eye (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No shit (Score:2, Funny)
#>
Re:Removing it is always the first thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't underestimate the value of feedback (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah.. tell that to clippy.
Re:All Candy is Fine - In Moderation (Score:2, Funny)
On a Linux desktop, i was always very much in favor of WindowMaker, as it had just enough chrome to be attractive, but then got out of the way.
Since what we're really talking about here is WindowsTNG (or whatever Vista will be when it ships), then I would say, "NO!" to more eyecandy. I would only think they neede to do more if the first step is they fire whoever the designer in charge currently is, and subcontract the design to the Gnomes at IKEA.
Just think; a Windows Desktop in tasteful, understated, blond wood veneer.
Re:Don't underestimate the value of feedback (Score:5, Funny)
Of course that means a program crashed, its like word association. Beach ball - ball park - giant hotdogs - thirst - cold beer - expensive ballpark beer - beer empty - gag at refill price - hotdogs stuck in throat - call ambulance - hospital room visit - wheeled into ER on crash cart
see its completely intuative
Here at the Gnome Community... (Score:1, Funny)
Thank you for your support.
Hard to say...matter of taste (Score:3, Funny)
YMMV.