Slashdot Mirror

Second, my list. Almost all of my favorite programs are already mentioned in the +5 posts, so I won't list them all (there are a lot). Here's what's left of my top 25 or so programs I definitely install on a fresh Windows reinstall, in no particular order. Everything is free, unless otherwise noted. I don't think any of these are open-sourced, though.

• ObjectDock - OS X's sexy toolbar that expands when you mouseover is now available for windows, too. Tons of useful plugins available, such as a weather tracker and system monitor.
  
• Yz's dock - no link for this one because Apple killed it with a C&D letter. Same basic concept as ObjectDock; marginally better IMHO. If you really want it, google for yz_dck0083.zip.
  
• StyleXP - I can't believe no one's mentioned this one yet. Windows skinning, anyone?
  
• Crimson Editor - yet another lightweight (i.e., fast) file editor with extended functionality such as automatically coloring source code files.
  
• MetaPad - extremely lightweight file editor, a replacement for notepad.exe.
  
• Sothink SWF Decompiler - good for when I want to grab an image or sound out of a flash file.
  
• Google Toolbar - yes, it's created by Google, the next Big Brother, but I like the pop-up blocker, and the privacy issues are moot if you take the time to uncheck one box.
  
• Middle Man - for people like me who still use AOL's bread-and-butter AIM client, this is a great unofficial plug-in. Removes ads and adds a ton of new functionality.
  
• Peer Guardian - another biggie that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned before. Blocks the RIAA and its ilk from connecting to your machine.
• Total Recorder - (shareware/demo) captures all audio output and logs it to a wav or mp3 file. Good for stream ripping.
  
• NetLimiter - (shareware/demo) limit your maximum upload/download speeds, optionally on a program by program basis. Some firewalls already have this functionality, though... but not all.
  

You could always try using DesktopX. It'll do the trick for skinning and chroming, while supporting PNGs and scripting for all desktop objects. Answer your phone, it's ringing...

Might be a good transitional tool for Windows users looking not wanting to give up their eye-candy interface initially.
I'm not sure that's the salient issue. Windows user who are savvy to Linux know about the great eye candy that is available for Linux. Frankly, if it came down to eye candy, projects like Enlightenment offer no advantage over ObjectDesktop, WindowsBlinds, and StyleXP. And so far, Microsoft's ClearType anti-aliasing technology is subjectively better than anything I've seen on MacOS or Linux. Note, this is an admittedly subjective evaluation. I found a Q&A that speaks to the technical quality of ClearType that is beyond my comprehension. The fact is, my eyes have never been happier! I work heavily with numbers and text. Show me how to anti-alias old Linux apps like xv and rxvt, and I'm yours!

As a longtime Windows user who does appreciate Linux, what keeps me from making the switch are three common issues that I and the thousands of Linux advocates and zealots still haven't resolved:

1. I, like most Windows users, spend a lot on Windows software. Windows software typically costs about $40-80 online or in stores. That's quite an investment. In order to let go of Windows I would have to write off my investment in software as a sunk cost. But what if I want to keep using that software? What do I do, toss it out? Maybe I should sell it all off on eBay? This is why Linux is an easier sell to first time computer users; there isn't an established dependency. There is a good amount of good software that doesn't run on WINE or any of the WINE spinoffs. Testing to see if my apps will work under Linux can require that I pay good money for Win4Lin or VMWare. WINEX is a gamble since I have to pay before I can try it out, and according to the site, none of what I run works!

2. I like my a Windows apps. I don't abandon my apps just because there's a new operating system in town. I still use a few DOS and Windows 3.1 apps. I also have MacOS and Amiga apps sitting around. Why should I abandon my favorite apps like MS Office XP or The Sims (I've bought all the expansions) just because there are shiny new alternatives available on Linux? At the end of the day, I bought my computer in order to compute, not so that I can fight a revolution. Being a Stallmanista is kinda cool too, but I want to use what I want to use... ultimately isn't Linux and open-source about freedom of choice?

3. I need to use specialized proprietary applications like SPSS, and I happen to use some hardware that isn't support under anything but Windows. For some apps, I just can't use an alternative. And for the hardware, I'm not talking about winmodems, I''m talking about video capture devices and software that rely on the current DirectX and DirectShow. It doesn't matter whether an alternative exists, I won't use it for reasons other than stubborness.

So far, the only solution has been dual-booting, which has its own problems, and purchasing a second computer.

Might be a good transitional tool for Windows users looking not wanting to give up their eye-candy interface initially.
I'm not sure that's the salient issue. Windows user who are savvy to Linux know about the great eye candy that is available for Linux. Frankly, if it came down to eye candy, projects like Enlightenment offer no advantage over ObjectDesktop, WindowsBlinds, and StyleXP. And so far, Microsoft's ClearType anti-aliasing technology is subjectively better than anything I've seen on MacOS or Linux. Note, this is an admittedly subjective evaluation. I found a Q&A that speaks to the technical quality of ClearType that is beyond my comprehension. The fact is, my eyes have never been happier! I work heavily with numbers and text. Show me how to anti-alias old Linux apps like xv and rxvt, and I'm yours!

As a longtime Windows user who does appreciate Linux, what keeps me from making the switch are three common issues that I and the thousands of Linux advocates and zealots still haven't resolved:

1. I, like most Windows users, spend a lot on Windows software. Windows software typically costs about $40-80 online or in stores. That's quite an investment. In order to let go of Windows I would have to write off my investment in software as a sunk cost. But what if I want to keep using that software? What do I do, toss it out? Maybe I should sell it all off on eBay? This is why Linux is an easier sell to first time computer users; there isn't an established dependency. There is a good amount of good software that doesn't run on WINE or any of the WINE spinoffs. Testing to see if my apps will work under Linux can require that I pay good money for Win4Lin or VMWare. WINEX is a gamble since I have to pay before I can try it out, and according to the site, none of what I run works!

2. I like my a Windows apps. I don't abandon my apps just because there's a new operating system in town. I still use a few DOS and Windows 3.1 apps. I also have MacOS and Amiga apps sitting around. Why should I abandon my favorite apps like MS Office XP or The Sims (I've bought all the expansions) just because there are shiny new alternatives available on Linux? At the end of the day, I bought my computer in order to compute, not so that I can fight a revolution. Being a Stallmanista is kinda cool too, but I want to use what I want to use... ultimately isn't Linux and open-source about freedom of choice?

3. I need to use specialized proprietary applications like SPSS, and I happen to use some hardware that isn't support under anything but Windows. For some apps, I just can't use an alternative. And for the hardware, I'm not talking about winmodems, I''m talking about video capture devices and software that rely on the current DirectX and DirectShow. It doesn't matter whether an alternative exists, I won't use it for reasons other than stubborness.

So far, the only solution has been dual-booting, which has its own problems, and purchasing a second computer.

StarDock's WindowBlinds and its related FX software can 'shrink' a window to the desktop. You are supposed to soon be able to hold a shift key and shrink the window while keeping the content interactive.

Unfortunately I can't find a link describing that part of the software right now. It hasn't been put out as a full release yet.

I find that more useful than turning a window on its side. But not useful enough I actually use it.

He should junk the Windows XP shell and add ObjectDock, which does a pretty fair job of emulating the feel of the OS X dock. That'd really throw people for a a loop when they saw it...

I use ObjectBar, a little taskbar reskinning program by Stardock. Its part of a greater suit of programs called ObjectDesktop, that basically includes a whole bunch of Windows-skinning programs. I don't use them though, they're kind of resource intensive. Object Bar is bad enough, but the functionality it gives me is irreplacable.

What I did for myself was take an existing theme (Developer link and orignal shot), and rework it to what I liked. Its quite nice IMO Combined with sysmetrix (system data program), it gives me pretty much everything I need. I've got a thin bar at the bottom with Sysmetrix stacked ontop (and skinned to match seamlessly). On that bar, I've got 4 menus: System (Run, Find, Regedit, Console, Logoff, Reboot, Shutdown, etc), Settings (Win Update, Add/Remove progs, Display and System properties, Control panel shortcut, etc), Drives (HDs, CDs, floppies, MyDocs, etc, all with popup lists of their content), and LAN (network settings and access to other comps on the network). I've also got two shortcuts I use a lot (My Computer and Firebird), and the local time.
Of course, above this I have sysmetrix which i've tricked out to the nuts. It gives me CPU usage, CPU speed, RAM load, swap/virt mem loads, temperatures (CPU, CPU diode, case, outside), HD space, Network load (plus transfer rate and total data transfered), one click mail (checks for me every 10 min) and trash access, Win Uptime, and longformat date with three different timezones (GMT/EST/PST - i'm MST, which is on the bar below) and more!
Then i've got my popup sidebar, which shows pretty much everything else. Its got the systray and current applications (since its vertical, I can stack tons more programs into it. Plus, the width of the bar scales with program names, to a point). Then i've got a section with personalized shortcut menus, that I absolutely love. Its got primary menus (Games, Media, Utility, etc) that slide out into sub categories (Unreal Tournament, Media, Utilities, etc) that have drop down lists of commonly used programs. It gives me access to pretty much any program on my HD, but its sorted by program type rather than name, which is something I hate about the start menu. Speaking of which, the start menu popup sits above my own menus, just incase I ever need it (which isn't often). The best thing about the menu though, is that I can change anything I want. Sometimes, if i'm working on a project, i'll give it its own shortcut or side menu. I can drop in links to relevant programs, have popups to certain folders on my HD, etc. Very handy, and it only takes a few minutes to set up (templates are your friend!)

The thing I find lacking about traditional "Start" menus or other pre-defined ways of accessing a system is that they're made by someone else. The best system will always be one made by you, because you know what information you need at your fingertips. So all you really need to do is find a customizable way of organizing things (for your OS), and then go crazy. Yeah, it can take a while to get everything working just right, but the end result is so worth it. Not having to deal with the hassles and frustrations of finding a program or piece of info is priceless IMO, so I look at any time customizing my desktop as an investment. :)


That said, alternative interfaces would be pretty damned cool. I know it was mentioned in a previous post, but the way Minority Report worked (hand gestures) was very, very cool. I think adding more physical interfaces to our computers will be the next big step. Hell, i'm already addicted to mouse gestures in Fir

I use ObjectBar, a little taskbar reskinning program by Stardock. Its part of a greater suit of programs called ObjectDesktop, that basically includes a whole bunch of Windows-skinning programs. I don't use them though, they're kind of resource intensive. Object Bar is bad enough, but the functionality it gives me is irreplacable.

What I did for myself was take an existing theme (Developer link and orignal shot), and rework it to what I liked. Its quite nice IMO Combined with sysmetrix (system data program), it gives me pretty much everything I need. I've got a thin bar at the bottom with Sysmetrix stacked ontop (and skinned to match seamlessly). On that bar, I've got 4 menus: System (Run, Find, Regedit, Console, Logoff, Reboot, Shutdown, etc), Settings (Win Update, Add/Remove progs, Display and System properties, Control panel shortcut, etc), Drives (HDs, CDs, floppies, MyDocs, etc, all with popup lists of their content), and LAN (network settings and access to other comps on the network). I've also got two shortcuts I use a lot (My Computer and Firebird), and the local time.
Of course, above this I have sysmetrix which i've tricked out to the nuts. It gives me CPU usage, CPU speed, RAM load, swap/virt mem loads, temperatures (CPU, CPU diode, case, outside), HD space, Network load (plus transfer rate and total data transfered), one click mail (checks for me every 10 min) and trash access, Win Uptime, and longformat date with three different timezones (GMT/EST/PST - i'm MST, which is on the bar below) and more!
Then i've got my popup sidebar, which shows pretty much everything else. Its got the systray and current applications (since its vertical, I can stack tons more programs into it. Plus, the width of the bar scales with program names, to a point). Then i've got a section with personalized shortcut menus, that I absolutely love. Its got primary menus (Games, Media, Utility, etc) that slide out into sub categories (Unreal Tournament, Media, Utilities, etc) that have drop down lists of commonly used programs. It gives me access to pretty much any program on my HD, but its sorted by program type rather than name, which is something I hate about the start menu. Speaking of which, the start menu popup sits above my own menus, just incase I ever need it (which isn't often). The best thing about the menu though, is that I can change anything I want. Sometimes, if i'm working on a project, i'll give it its own shortcut or side menu. I can drop in links to relevant programs, have popups to certain folders on my HD, etc. Very handy, and it only takes a few minutes to set up (templates are your friend!)

The thing I find lacking about traditional "Start" menus or other pre-defined ways of accessing a system is that they're made by someone else. The best system will always be one made by you, because you know what information you need at your fingertips. So all you really need to do is find a customizable way of organizing things (for your OS), and then go crazy. Yeah, it can take a while to get everything working just right, but the end result is so worth it. Not having to deal with the hassles and frustrations of finding a program or piece of info is priceless IMO, so I look at any time customizing my desktop as an investment. :)


That said, alternative interfaces would be pretty damned cool. I know it was mentioned in a previous post, but the way Minority Report worked (hand gestures) was very, very cool. I think adding more physical interfaces to our computers will be the next big step. Hell, i'm already addicted to mouse gestures in Fir

I use ObjectBar, a little taskbar reskinning program by Stardock. Its part of a greater suit of programs called ObjectDesktop, that basically includes a whole bunch of Windows-skinning programs. I don't use them though, they're kind of resource intensive. Object Bar is bad enough, but the functionality it gives me is irreplacable.

What I did for myself was take an existing theme (Developer link and orignal shot), and rework it to what I liked. Its quite nice IMO Combined with sysmetrix (system data program), it gives me pretty much everything I need. I've got a thin bar at the bottom with Sysmetrix stacked ontop (and skinned to match seamlessly). On that bar, I've got 4 menus: System (Run, Find, Regedit, Console, Logoff, Reboot, Shutdown, etc), Settings (Win Update, Add/Remove progs, Display and System properties, Control panel shortcut, etc), Drives (HDs, CDs, floppies, MyDocs, etc, all with popup lists of their content), and LAN (network settings and access to other comps on the network). I've also got two shortcuts I use a lot (My Computer and Firebird), and the local time.
Of course, above this I have sysmetrix which i've tricked out to the nuts. It gives me CPU usage, CPU speed, RAM load, swap/virt mem loads, temperatures (CPU, CPU diode, case, outside), HD space, Network load (plus transfer rate and total data transfered), one click mail (checks for me every 10 min) and trash access, Win Uptime, and longformat date with three different timezones (GMT/EST/PST - i'm MST, which is on the bar below) and more!
Then i've got my popup sidebar, which shows pretty much everything else. Its got the systray and current applications (since its vertical, I can stack tons more programs into it. Plus, the width of the bar scales with program names, to a point). Then i've got a section with personalized shortcut menus, that I absolutely love. Its got primary menus (Games, Media, Utility, etc) that slide out into sub categories (Unreal Tournament, Media, Utilities, etc) that have drop down lists of commonly used programs. It gives me access to pretty much any program on my HD, but its sorted by program type rather than name, which is something I hate about the start menu. Speaking of which, the start menu popup sits above my own menus, just incase I ever need it (which isn't often). The best thing about the menu though, is that I can change anything I want. Sometimes, if i'm working on a project, i'll give it its own shortcut or side menu. I can drop in links to relevant programs, have popups to certain folders on my HD, etc. Very handy, and it only takes a few minutes to set up (templates are your friend!)

The thing I find lacking about traditional "Start" menus or other pre-defined ways of accessing a system is that they're made by someone else. The best system will always be one made by you, because you know what information you need at your fingertips. So all you really need to do is find a customizable way of organizing things (for your OS), and then go crazy. Yeah, it can take a while to get everything working just right, but the end result is so worth it. Not having to deal with the hassles and frustrations of finding a program or piece of info is priceless IMO, so I look at any time customizing my desktop as an investment. :)


That said, alternative interfaces would be pretty damned cool. I know it was mentioned in a previous post, but the way Minority Report worked (hand gestures) was very, very cool. I think adding more physical interfaces to our computers will be the next big step. Hell, i'm already addicted to mouse gestures in Fir

http://www.stardock.com/products/polmachine/

However, you have to remember that Hollywood tends to use macintoshes. It's considered chic, so all the rich folks use'um. Plus, film editors almost always use macs. Hollywood and designers were, for a long time, the great macintosh hold-outs.

Now Linux is a different story. Sometimes they use Linux/Unix to add authenticity. Another reason is sometimes the computer-prop-guys are geeks (read /. and such). Another reason is that the interface is skinnable, so if the director says, "I want it to look like..." whatever, it's easier.

Now, one of the reasons you almost never see Windows running in movies is because it's considered boring and uninteresting. In fact, when they use Windows, they'll use Stardock's products (or something similar) to make it look like it's not Windows.

and that's part of the reason you rarely see Windows in movies. You do see it, it just doesn't look like Windows at the time.

I wonder if Stardock is going to have issues with the name?

And if you are on windows checkout the new version of DesktopX by Stardock It provides an easy means to do the same kind of stuff in Windows AND unlike version 1.0.. it doesn't hijack your desktop and hog all the resources.

Mac OS X is 3D.

No it's not. If it was 3D I could move my orientation around 3 axis, as in Quake. Doom wasn't 3D, even though it could give the impression of depth.

The frontmost app's windows are closer to you than all the other windows. All the background windows are stacked on each other and everything casts a shadow of the right depth.

The front-most window has a slightly deeper shadow, true. But I'm just having a really hard time believing that all OS's have been needing are drop shadows in place of thicker bars.

The key is that it's not a trick.

Of course it is. That's like saying anti-aliased text isn't tricking your mind into thinking the text is smooth, or that TV's updating faster than your eye can see aren't tricking it. Just about everything you see on a computer is using tricks to give an impression. If you can honestly tell me that the drop shadow under the menu bar isn't there to give an illusion of depth just as a drop shadow on my company's logo on my webpage isn't made to do the same thing, then well you have bigger fish to fry. I mean you don't think iTunes is really made out of metal, do you? Or that when you minimize a window, that the genie effect is a real 3D window being transformed?

It's not a mock up made by an artist in Photoshop, or a black line drawn along the bottom and right side of a window as a faux-shadow.

Que? I can't imagine anyone thinking that all the screenshots they've seen of OSX are photoshop mockups... As for the drop-shadow versus the thicker bar to denote some depth... the drop shadow is of course going to be more natural at conveying it, but it doesn't mean it will be always be as successful. A good case can be made against OSX that without those window bars (and just the drop shadows) the UI has a tendancy to "blur together" rather than have distinctive windows.

The interface is drawn using OpenGL and the huge NVIDIA or ATI graphics processor in every Mac.

*shakes head* No it's not. The interface is drawn by the window manager, and then it hands the views to the hardware (if it is AGP2x, and has 16megs of video ram... this covers current mac models but not even the original 500MHz and 550MHz tiBooks and iBooks) and the hardware then composites those views together. Those drop-shadows you're so hot on are drawn in software, but with QE hardware is able to composite that drop shadow over the other views. When you minimize a window with the genie-effect, the window manager has to calculate how each frame of the animation will look, and then has to generate that view- QE just slaps that overtop the other windows saving CPU time.

Understand that you are not seeing an OS being generated in 3D but presented in a 2D metaphor- you're seeing openGL composite 2D windows as views. That's it.

The shadows and textures are done in real-time.

Wait a minute... so the crutch is that in order for windows to have a "3D interface" and all the goodness you think it entails, it has to have shadows around the windows that are generated in real-time? Look here... Drop-shadowy alpha-blended windows goodness. The only difference between it and OSX is that OSX is able to offload the compositing of its shadows to the GPU.

It's not 3D like zooming around in a video game; it's 3D like a trophy case.

Kinda like, "He's not deaf, she just can't hear"? One nonsensical statement deserves another...

It's tall and wide and deep and it has objects in it. It's not infinitely deep; it's only a few inches deep. So your display may be 14" wide and 10" tall and 3" deep. You end up thinking of your desktop as a glass box. If you could reach in you would expect your hand to find the Dock right up against the glass, and the desktop a ways back from that.

Um, perhaps if there were more variations in the sizes of the drop shadows... but I'm not seeing

• added library (complete with media database, shoutcast listing, playlist editing, CD listing, mass tag editting, plugin API for portable devices, and more!)

they didn't have to do nearly the work to come up with the Linux product as Microsoft had to to develop Windows XP.

Honestly, the amount you get by paying 99 dollars for a commercial Linux distro is MUCH MUCH more than what you would get from a Windows box. In fact, most modern Linux distros (not server editions, of course) cost only about 30 - 50 bucks, depending on the distro and your location. Also, you get a LOT for what you pay. Moreover, almost all versions of these distros (in most circumstances, i.e.) can be downloaded free of cost. What about the documentation? It's available in pdf/html format. One of the main reasons Distro companies charge for their OS is due to the cost of packaging, printing books, etc. The amount these companies ship in one box without paying over 30 - 50 bucks is amazing. Most distros offer good tech support, including speaking on the phone with customer service. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had experience with Microsoft tech support, and it certainly could be better. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have to pay to speak to them?

And, if you say, "Well these distros don't have to do nearly the amount of work Microsoft has to.", each distribution offers a HUGE number of customized features in order to attract users. Although some people are against Red Hat, let me use it as an example. Red Hat recently included its own interface/theme known as BlueCurve. As soon as you look at it, it's quite clear that they put a lot of work into it. In fact, I speak from experience. Due to BlueCurve, GNOME applications run wonderfully on KDE, and vice versa. Also, the interface changes are minimalized. Hence, users can switch between the two without having to adapt to too many changes. Trust me, and if you're interested, check it out. In fact, when you buy a distro, you get basically everything you'll ever need for your work. Don't tell me that that's the case with any of Microsoft's Windows products.

As for IE, I am certainly not going to go back to Windows 95, as I know it's not a strong point. But however, remember that a significant part of the population still uses 95/98/Me, where IE isn't great. Also, to tell you the truth, I run Windows 2000 on another partition, and I have had quite a number of experiences where IE has crashed to my disappointment. It usually happens when I try to access an FTP server that's down (not online, whatever). I see a message, "Server name could not be resolved, then IE stops responding. Obviously, I have no other option other than giving the three-finger salute (Ctrl-Alt-Del :-) (And yes, if you want to know if I keep my system up2date, yes.) Anyway, that was only one instance where IE repeatedly succeeds to crash.

Coming back to the main point about IE, I don't mind most users liking IE, or using it. I was only talking about the problem of most users using a browser that isn't standard-compliant and what that does to the web and standards in general. In fact, integration of the browser is not a bad idea, and I agree with you on that point. (If you're familiar with KDE, it does sound a bit like Konqueror being both a file manager and a browser, right? :-)

Maybe you're right about the upgrade price for the Home edition not being too expensive. But take Windows XP Professional itself as an example. The full version, here in Canada, costs us 450 - 499 CAD (you could convert that I guess :-) I am just not able to justify that price for what you really get along with the OS. In fact, whether you accept it or not, one of the main reasons why Windows XP is so popular is 1. Stability has certainly been improved 2. Games run better and crash less frequently and 3. (most importantly) the interface looks much nicer compared to the previous versions of the OS.

However, if you as a user are only interested in having a better interface, he/she can check out Object Desktop. A

I mean I guess the task bar is close but that interface sucks...when will we get a mini thumbnail in the tab?

IIRC, OS X has this. You can get ObjectDock to have the same effect in windows.

As for BeOS--I keep meaning to give it a try, but I'm not sure it'll be worth it.

--windows xp/2000 pros:

its a happy medium; it's GUI is not quite as dumbed down as a Mac (pre-OSX) that you'd *need* the mouse to do everything, but for grandma its plenty simple (so long as grandma doesn't have admin privs and messes with c:\windows). Keyboard shortcuts are fairly consistent across the board, default widgets are fairly well thought out (with one exxception, see macOS commments below). Fairly zippy wrt to speed/responsiveness. Reasonably stable. Bboatloads of apps available.

--win xp/2000 cons:

not Free. Not highly configurable GUI (at least, not without 3rd party apps). lots of dumbass developers who don't use default OS widgets and create confusion in the app's UI (see: Windows Media Player 9).

--MacOs pros:

Since my experience has been mostly in a biology lab where we have tons of legacy apps that run only on MacOS classic, this is where most of my Mac experience lies. Not that many pros, really :P I really *really* like the MacOS widget that resizes windows exactly as big as they need to be, no more no less. I wish windows and/or linux had this functionality...highly consistent interface from app to app.

--MacOS cons:

ridiculously unstable, no protected memory, no preemptive multitasking. next to impossible keyboard navigation of filesystem, making mouse a necessity. System extensions are IMO worse than dll hell in windows, I support Mac and Windows computers in the lab and windows machines are by far easier to handle. I could go on and on bitching about MacOS classic....dunno about OSX, will try it some day when DNA Strider and OpenLab are ported to OSX and our lab upgrades our mac hardware :P

--GNNU/Linux systems pros (both GNOME and LINUX):

Free as in speech and beer. Highly configurable. boatloads of apps. more or less free community support.

--cons:

support is only free if your time is worthless. many things that you install yourself (i.e. did not come packaged with distro) almost never work out of the box and require mucking around with (also see first point). Inconsistent interface from app to app (emacs vs vi, anyone?) From my perspective, no hardware support for scientific hardware (e.g. high speed CCD cameras, digital frame grabbers, automatic confocal microscopes, high resolution image analysis, etc etc.....in other words, its a great system if you are a hacker but if you want to get REAL work done you'll spend too much time trying to get it to work. People would rather put up with a crappy OS and get things done.

Personally, from an end user's point of view I wouldn't mind if Linux developers developed only for RedHat Linux and RedHat decided to stick with either GNOME or KDe and stuck with it. At least then there would be no confusion and things would be consistent. I also wouldn't mind if they packaged their distro by picking one tool for one type of job and ditch all the redundant apps. While cutting down on choice, at least nonhacker people could get things to actually *work* and not have to muck around too much...

For anyone who wants to get a feel for how a game of Galactic Civilization might go, you can check out two gameplay transcripts that the game's creator made to demonstrate it. They include screenshots and are fairly interesting, especially since in the first game the creator of the game unexpectedly is outwitted by the AI that he wrote! Check them out:

First game

Second game

For anyone who wants to get a feel for how a game of Galactic Civilization might go, you can check out two gameplay transcripts that the game's creator made to demonstrate it. They include screenshots and are fairly interesting, especially since in the first game the creator of the game unexpectedly is outwitted by the AI that he wrote! Check them out:

First game

Second game

Take a look at this gameplay summary (with screenshots) that the creator of the game wrote up to demonstrate gameplay. He is handily winning and is confident he'll dominate soon, but he ends up losing due to an extremely long-term computer AI strategy. Good read.

There is also a second gameplay report where he does win. :)

Take a look at this gameplay summary (with screenshots) that the creator of the game wrote up to demonstrate gameplay. He is handily winning and is confident he'll dominate soon, but he ends up losing due to an extremely long-term computer AI strategy. Good read.

There is also a second gameplay report where he does win. :)

And their page seems to be blanked out...

Anyone else heard of/played this game? I'd love to try it again..

Stardock released a number of OS/2 games/applications. Galactic Civilizations came out in 1994 and Galactic Civilizations II in 1996.

Stardock published "Avarice" (developed by a third party), the OS/2 game mentioned previously.

It appears that Stardock has been taking some fairly successful ideas from their OS/2 days and reworking them as Windows applications. Object Desktop and GalCiv are the most obvious examples.

Go read the OS/2 history page on Stardock's site for all this and more.

The game was Avarice. Unfortunately it was before it's time (or perhaps after it - the OS/2 market was dwindling to nothing by then).

I've been a Stardock follower for quite a while now. See, I tried out some of their software quite a while back, and I found a rather nasty bug in their window skinning product, WindowBlinds. So I decided to go report it.

Most companies would simply have acknowledged the bug, maybe offering a simple thank-you. Their response was to give me a registered copy of the software and encourage me to submit more bugs.

(disclaimer: this approach may not work for everyone :-)

Stardock are good. They don't mess their customers around - they might not always do what some of them want, but hey, that's true of any company, and at least they explain why ;-). They go the extra mile to help - almost every member of the company is available on IRC, from the CEO downwards. They have a dedicated community on the Stardock newsgroups and over at WinCustomize, who helped them transition from OS/2 to Windows - people bought Object Desktop subscriptions a year before it was officially out, because they trusted Stardock to deliver.

Heck, they even had a positive cashflow throughout the dot-com era, because they didn't rely on stupid business plans and massive investment. Just on listening to their customers, making a good product and shipping it.

GalCiv is one of those products. It's got a solid AI, and more gameplay than you can shake a stick at. And the price is right. So go get it now.

And no, I don't get paid for this. ;-)

No no no. The parent troll was talking about truly meaningful things. Here are some examples:

- Reaching 1 giga-fps in Halflife. Now try again in millions of colors!
- Finally hooking up with that hot Sim next door, and you SimMom says you are finally old enough to start SimDating!
- Downoading 4 hours of that God damn "lightning bolt!" video playing over and over again because someone told you it was Harry Potter (luckily it was a .wmv file so you couldn't preview it you had all 1.2GB)
- Spending a weekend learning about and disabling 72 Windows services that no one besides Microsoft would ever need you to have (dang, OS X only has like, what, 8 services? oh wait...)
- Fighting tooth and nail to keep the latest and greatest intrusive advertisement from taking over your desktop.
- And last, but most certainly not least, let us not forget the hardest meaningful thing to do on a Mac: making it look like a poor Aqua rip-off.

i have no sig.

You can get multiple desktops on Windows 95/98/NT/2000 with Control Center from Stardock's Object Desktop suite. Stardock's "virtual desktops" were first available in Object Desktop for OS/2, circa 1995.

Back in our school, there's a general thing that the last day of term is pretty much a 'free' day. It wasn't uncommon for a few kids to bring in their Playstation, and the IT room was pretty much free to play games.

The games available were limited by what people could bring in and what would run on the computers, then P133s. Despite the high age rating, multiplayer matches of Duke Nukem were common. Quake was available, but ran relatively slowly. Having said this, the whole event was unofficial so nobody ever checked into the legality of installing one copy of a game onto 20 computers or allowing minors to play 15-rated and 18-rated games.

What you allow at an organised event is pretty much up to yourself. Notably, any easy-to-play multiplayer games that appeal to a wide audience are good choices. Stardock's Stellar Frontier is an easily recommended choice, since it's free to download (registration required if you want access to lasers and similar in-game weapons).

If you really gotta have that cool interface and only want to pay half the cost (assuming you already are running Windows), just buy Object Desktop ($50) or Window Blinds ($20) from Stardock.

"I also doubt that anyone but an extremly small minority would go through the trouble of changing the Window UI for something else."

Actually, you're mistaken. There's a fairly sizable Windows shell replacement community. In fact, there's at least one company, Stradock, that makes their living at it. For a ton of links to replacement shell sites check out Desktopian.

I do agree that it's not something the core Gnome team should be thinking about, though.

Stardock, Inc. seems to have successfully done this. They provide excellent feedback channels (primarily in the form of newsgroups) and communicate daily with their customers. They incorporate suggestions and requests and fix bugs found by these users (one user has even become a company standard for releasing product; "if it'll run on his machine, we're good".)

As for your don't-pay-for-crap point; I didn't. I tried Stardock's shareware releases off and on for two or three years before I felt they had a product worth my money. So now you know somebody ;-)

It's rather cool, but not free, in either sense of the word.

It's rather cool, but not free, in either sense of the word.

Finally, do these usibility experts actually watch people work? One of the most useful UI features is the idea of "Virtual Screens" (as implemented by Unix window managers). Each virtual screen keeps the context of a particular task and makes it easy for me to switch between them. Why hasn't this become a standard feature of Windows is beyond me!?

It's really not a standard feature of 'X' either. If you want virtual desktops on windoze, just replace the interface with something like this

They have hardly made a "major change" to the user interface. It's basically plain ol' Win2k with a WindowBlinds theme slapped on top. If you are not familiar with WindowBlinds, check out Stardock's website. If I recall, WindowBlinds worked merely by covering up the existing titlebar and buttons on each window. I believe that the "old-school" Windows interface is still drawn and then WindowBlinds slaps another layer on top of it. I was HORRIFIED when I first installed Windows XP RC2. The "improved" interface looked like a big blue and green crap. Luckily, it's easy to defeat. There will be more themes available in the near future, but so what? It's nothing like Apple's beautifully done OS X. Apple completely redesigned everything, obviously spending alot of time. Win XP's "new" interface was a quick and dirty hack, started years ago by the creators of WindowBlinds. It's no surprise really that even Microsoft's latest and greatest OS uses technology taken from someone else. Hopefully they paid more for it than they paid for DOS.

WindowBlinds from Stardock has updated their program to take advantage of the WinXP theme engine.

Have fun!

Y'know, when I installed W2K I thought Microsoft finally made an operating system that was "Good Enough". It was reasonably stable, and it did what I needed. Video games, development, office apps. It was as easy to use as Win95 (What the hell do you mean, "Robin Drive failed?") and as stable as NT4.

And I could make it as pretty as I wanted, with Windowblinds without giving up a nice bash prompt and emacs.

I swore I'd never upgrade Windows again. Now they have Windows XP. New technology, multi-user, blablabla. I thought nothing short of support for ext2fs would make me upgrade. I was wrong.

ONE new feature that is absolutely essential if you have an LCD screen. (ie. a laptop) Cleartype filtering. So much nicer on the eyes. Text has never looked so good.

Overview of Cleartype & Links
Some samples

MS made the gui skinnable (almost exactly like windows blinds)

Without a third party skinning tool (like WindowBlinds) the only skins that are going to be available are going to be color variations of the included style. See http://www.stardock.com/ for a news blurb about how Stardock (the makers of WindowBlinds) are going to be launching WB 3 from Microsoft. XP's theme format may be cracked, but it has not happened yet and as .msstyles have to be digitally signed probably won't be happening.

If you're a linux zealot that hates microsoft then don't bother reading and just moderate away as Troll, save yourself a few minutes.

The article looked reasonable until I read this:

He can do this by releasing a new operating system even more bloated, slow and enormous than his current excrescences, thus requiring a general round of expensive and pointless consumer hardware upgrading-pointless for the consumers

What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on /. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product. Quite a lot, I might add, that customers have been bitching about for years and years. For starters, they finally got rid of the hideous Win3.11/Win9X codebase, which BTW they have been trying to do since Windows95 came out. Windows 98 was supposed to be based on the NT kernel, but there was far too much resistance from the consumer base who was claiming that their legacy applications would not run, thus MS had to release another version off their 3.11 base. Windows98SE was supposed to be an indication that they wanted to stop yet again, and WinME was supposed to be called Win98TE (third edition) but marketing thought that it would be a very bad idea to do that again.

In any case, they have finally released a product that is, IMO, much more user friendly, finally away from the Win3.1/9x codebase, which is what people have been asking for for years. Sure, it does take a bit more processing power, however I noticed that on a fresh install, NOT ONLY does it boot in less time than linux does (30s from POWER ON to completely logged in. It's insanely fast), but it also takes LESS memory on boot than W2K did. MS did extensive user testing on their new modifications to their interface to make it much more friendly for Mom&Pop and the traditional Win9X user base, and included the options to turn this off so that you can go back to the W2K style interface. They have also abstracted the user interface layer sufficiently so that it is possible to create your own user interface entirely, as these people have done to give you whatever type of interface you want. They have made the system much more robust and fault tolerant, indeed even more than W2K. They've added driver rollback, system restore and numerous other features to save people from their own mistakes, they've implemented a much more rigerous testing plan to ensure that drivers can't cause a system problem, they've implemented a system where drivers that are known to cause system problems will have the user warned prior to installing (and before you scream foul here, you can not only disable this, but you can edit the list yourself. It will not prohibit you from installing anything that you are determined to install). They have made it very simple to use webcams and cameras and scanners and other devices with very very little effort at all, they have given simple file sharing and networking and firewall and routing capabilities for home networks, and countless other features designed to be nice to the users. Indeed this is one of the largest changes that has happened for the average user since the Windows 95 release.

In addition, the hardware requirements are negligably higher than that of W2K. The memory has been doubled under the "Recommended" arena from 64MB to 128MB, but at $20USD for 128MB who cares? I'm glad they did this too because the memory management algorithms in W2K were far too old and based upon the premise of never having enough memory so swapping was agressive.

My system is much faster now than it was running Windows 2000.

They've added in many new support features like (Essentially) a built in high efficiency PCAnywhere/VNC based on the terminal server system that is fast, and designed in this case to allow other users to connect to your desktop to interface with you and help you out to configure that printer that you just bought and can't figure out how to setup. There's numerous other enchancements that I won't bother to go.

So how do the users respond? Actually most of them like it, but there's always the super-linux-rulez-MS-sucks crowd that is impossible to please and screams foul when MS does what they've been asked to. There is no winning no matter what they do.

Part of it (IBM's decision to abandon OS/2) was definitely Microsoft related -- MS didn't grant them the OEM license for Win95 until very late in the game, largely due to the fact that they had a competing OS. However, IBM politics also played a big role, and Tom Nadeau has a rant on the subject which tells a lot about it. (Brad Wardell has a column on the same subject somewhere on stardock.com (hey! I just said that!), but I don't have a direct link.

- Mark

By the same token, I think that we'll probably see MS making their UI/Windowing System skinnable in the not-too-distant future ala Windowblinds to compete...

C) Develop for Windows where our limit to growth would always be Microsoft coming in and competing with anything worthwhile we might create.
If you're a commercial software developer, the choices were pretty grim. So we chose the least of the 3 evils -- C. We designed our primary product to be delivered as a subscription in which new features could be introduced into it immediately rather than havign to wait for the next major version. Thus, if Microsoft or Symantec or Mijenix (now Ontrack) or some other large utility vendor decided to compete with us, we could stay ahead of them. So we adopted the slogan "Innovation on demand" and went forward.

Remove your IE style desktop windows and install netscape style windows.

Stardock is already doing something like that. I've already tried WindowBlinds - it worked for nearly everything. (That was way back when it was sort of unstable.) Their latest is DesktopX. You can make your desktop look and act like a Mac. Does anybody out there know of a good impartial review on it?

As far as I know, you can run Object Desktop as your Window Manager on NT.

...Entrepreneur from Stardock.

For business strategy students, you might want to try out a game more like what course they're in, instead of a general RTS like StarCraft.

StarDock also has a demo of their sequel for Entrepreneur called The Corporate Machine.

I'm working on a games review site - Meltdown Gaming - (yes, that was a plug), and of the games we've been reviewing, I'd think something more along the lines of Airport Tycoon or maybe Stardock's The Corporate Machine excellent business sim would be more along the lines to judge dollars and sense.

Or, just put them out on the streets, with a copy of Dope Wars. (for Win95, now! whoo!) :)

For even more fun, pit the CS students against the business majors - have one semester's class project be to write a business sim the next semester's class has to successfully complette in order to pass... *evil grin*

Or even better - have them attempt to start thier own successful dotcom...or is that already an accepted practice?


Yert

I'm working on a games review site - Meltdown Gaming - (yes, that was a plug), and of the games we've been reviewing, I'd think something more along the lines of Airport Tycoon or maybe Stardock's The Corporate Machine excellent business sim would be more along the lines to judge dollars and sense.

Or, just put them out on the streets, with a copy of Dope Wars. (for Win95, now! whoo!) :)

For even more fun, pit the CS students against the business majors - have one semester's class project be to write a business sim the next semester's class has to successfully complette in order to pass... *evil grin*

Or even better - have them attempt to start thier own successful dotcom...or is that already an accepted practice?


Yert

The problem with windows is that it has no decent window manager. I simply cannot get anything done on windows.

Have you looked at Object Desktop? It's very good. http://www.stardock.com