Slashdot Mirror
Making Ubuntu Look Like Windows 7
DeviceGuru writes "Although it won't help Linux run Windows-specific software applications, this easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web. The process installs a Windows 7-like GNOME theme on an otherwise standard Ubuntu 10.04 installation, although it might work on other Linux distros with GNOME and appropriate other packages installed. Naturally all this begs the question: why would anybody want to do this? Why indeed!" People have been doing this sort of look-and-feel swap-out for years; it seems best to me as a practical joke.
Naturally all this begs the question
No, it doesn't. Proper use of "begging the question.
So one one partition, boot Ubuntu that looks like Windows 7, and on the other partion, boot Windows with an Ubuntu theme? Ah, those would be the days...
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
I'm sure it's better to have something behaving differently actually look different.
...Gnome I'm not.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
Why couldn't they just switch back to the default theme?
I think a more interesting thing here would be to share desktops in (hopefully) a one-click magical and revolutionary solution. Idea 105's time has come.
it could be to ease the transition from windows to *nix for those that are unaccustomed to the rapid OS changes we /. users are.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
One problem I've had with showing some people (especially older folks, or folks who are very set in their ways) a linux desktop is that they get bogged down fairly quick when they see something that doesn't look "right." Having a Windows-esque desktop could be helpful in transitioning people over.
Actually, I sort of like it. My friend, and her 4 year old can now both use her windows 7 machine, or my linux machine equally as easy. Win - win.
last minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
...people will use Linux is if it looks like Windows, I don't think we'll be seeing the Year of the Linux Desktop anytime soon.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
"Why wouldn't I just use Windows 7 then?"
Sent from your iPad.
I'd really rather have a Windows 7 theme that works like standard Gnome on Ubuntu 10.04, please. Cue (perhaps) irate responses, but I work with both and I prefer Gnome. Add a proper terminal and sudo rather than uac, and my life as a developer would be significantly easier. Oh, and a decent package manager. I have one on my phone, it shouldn't be too hard.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The window buttons are on the top right again. Yay!
Next week we feature: Make your Ferrari look like a Ford Escort.
The end user just needs to Feel comfortable. Once a user gets into a web browser, they don't really care about the OS. Something like this would be great for hotel lobbies (with free internet), libraries, and other public access sites.
My wife (a linux hater) used it in a hotel lobby to print out some airline tickets. She had no idea it was Linux, but I noticed the differences. She had a great experience (managed to get her items printed out without an issue), and just assumed it was a windows machine.
Her view of the hotel improved because of a simple amenity that helped her out. The hotel had a PC without a costly OS, saving them money. I can easily see the value in something like this.
I agree that the Windows 7 GUI is abysmal, but I have to use it.
The alternate GUI for Linux is not for experienced Linux users but new converts from Windows might find it useful. Certainly it helps to lessen the learning curve. Once the newcomer becomes experienced with Linux he might learn that there are better GIUs out there.
for a hundred bucks I'll answer your question
Ubuntu is not Linux. Ubuntu is not GNOME. This is not Ubuntu specific and it should not be posted as such.
Also, scripts like this have existed for months and even years. I remember a recent story about getting GNOME to look like Windows XP as well. Exactly how is this news, and even if it is news, how is it Slashdot-worthy?
It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web.
Exactly how is Windows more usable than GNOME? Yes, more people are used to Windows than GNOME and GNOME-based operating systems, but I find GNOME to be much, much, much more usable than Windows has ever been to me for various reasons. Also, how exactly do these activities benefit from a windows-like visual environment? They're just as easy to do in vanilla GNOME (if not easier) compared to Windows. As the great Wikipedia has often said, [citation needed], and I'm saying this to the original article, not the poster himself.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
The basic idea of a theme isn't new. A friend of mine had an XP theme on his desktop, and had a guest at his home using his computer for over half an hour without noticing anything. He asked "Do you find my Linux computer easy to use?" and the guest hadn't even realized it wasn't Windows XP.
That sort of thing is mainly useful as evidence to counter the idea that a Linux desktop is "hard to use".
The major new thing with Windows 7 is its dock. I have never much been interested in docks but it seems like they are popular. Do you use a dock in Linux? If so, could you please answer these questions:
0) Which dock do you use?
1) Why do you prefer your dock to others you have tried?
2) Is your dock similar to the one in Windows 7?
I know someone who uses Gnome Do and Docky, so I'm interested in those, but I know there are others around.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Because with lucid, Ubuntu's interface is already on the way to looking like Windows Vista.
Because if you want to ask someone to try out Linux, you are better off showing them something like what they are used to. And, increasingly, that's Windows Seven.
Ubuntu (and its variant, Mint) were what got Linux in my household, and I suspect that is true of many people. Ubuntu made an experience that is similar enough to Windows XP that my wife could easily switch to it. It has a start-ish sort of button, a notification-ish sort of tray, a favorite-ish sort of quicklaunchy area, boxes that show what windows you have open that allow you to click on them to go to them, and even a clock in approximately the right place and (up until recently), an underscore, minimize/restore, and "Big X" in the right places. It made it a lot easier to transition my wife to Linux when I could just install Mint and have her do very basic operations pretty much the same way she used to in XP. Later, I showed her the package manager so she could "add/remove programs", etc.
The layout, while by no means identical to Windows XP, is similar enough that people won't have their brains go boom. Try them out in KDE, IceWM, or XFCE, and their brains asplode. And I don't blame them. You can also easily configure Gnome to be all but unrecognizable to a Windows XP user, and for advanced users who want things to work a certain way, that's marvelous. But for someone who has used Windows for years, it's good to minimize the changes they'll need to go through to accept Linux as a substitute.
When I show Mint to people running Windows Seven, especially those for whom Seven is most of their Windows exposure, they get confused. Probably about as confused as I get trying to figure out how to help people do things in Windows Seven, since I use Windows XP when I use Windows. It takes me a bit longer to do things in Seven. Not that Seven is bad, it's just not what I use daily, and I'm not used to it.
I, for one, welcome a "Windows Seven"-ish variant of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is "training wheels for Linux", even though it's still a serious and solid distro that is well-supported. It's arguably the one that most people will tend to recommend to a newbie at the moment. If there's an easy way to make it look like what your newbie has already used, I'm all for it.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Move to linux if you like freedom and privacy, don't if you don't. But "it looks like windows" ???? sheesh, how 1995 can you get.
Is there something that I can load on a Windows box that will make it look like Ubuntu?
One really great use for a theme like this is hiding your "frowned upon" use of non-standard software if you work in a corporate environment with locked-down computers. Thankfully, hacking Window$ permissions locally is easier than quieting a toddler with tranquilizer laced candy. Once through MS$ tissue security, VirtualBox , a lot of ram, and one of these theme packages will allow running the Nix flavor of choice without alerting passers by. Best of all, all the corporate installed default software can stay intact.
Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't. :)
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Question is: Why?
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows. For years and years, the Linux community members have assumed that Average Joes are simply mis- and uninformed about the alternative. Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say. But it works. It's something that people got accustomed to, and if you want them to switch, then you need to offer them similar appearance , at least.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that. They don't want more efficient guts, they want the pretty. And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc. and make a webpage where people can sort them in order (drag and drop would rule!) from most attractive to least attractive. Ithink we all expect no surprises in what would be on top of the preferences.
Now getting back to your comment, you mentioned usability, speed and features. They are important. To you and a very small community (weighted in size against the mass of regular users). They don't matter AT ALL to anyone else. What matters to them is design. That's exactly why Apple products sell like... well, Apple products
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
One problem I've had with showing some people (especially older folks, or folks who are very set in their ways) a linux desktop is that they get bogged down fairly quick when they see something that doesn't look "right." Having a Windows-esque desktop could be helpful in transitioning people over.
I'm not sure. Once they get past the initial superficial impression of "looking right" they may quickly fall into this "acts wrong". Acting wrong is probably a greater negative than looking wrong. Especially since the words "right" and "wrong" are being overloaded here. Looking wrong is more synonymous with looking different but acting wrong is more synonymous with being defective.
There is also a "false advertising" aspect, the look gave the expectation of certain behavior. With a different look the different behavior is far more acceptable.
Windows 7 doesn't (by default) use dark UI elements, there's no transparency for the task/menu bar,
Win7 Grue edition?
use Microsoft powershell then, once you get to know it's oo model, it is stronger than bash
Because a user who has used Windows all their professional life won't whine as much if they know where crap is to click on.
After reading Slashdot for a decade I've finally got Linux on my home desktop and I'm very happy with it, I have it playing my movies and songs, interfacing with my iPhone, and playing World of Warcraft under Wine and connecting to Ventrilo with Mangler. I just installed a native version of Google Chrome a couple of days ago! None of this requiring text editing, and I got a default desktop that looks very pretty with the nVidia proprietary drivers. I'm running legal when there was no way I was going to pay for a Windows retail package.
So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..
On the other hand, if anyone wants to point me to how to move the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top right hand side of windows I'd appreciate it
Or, like how Apple made such an effort to have Mac OS X look and feel like Windows, they hyped that as a sell-point in their switch campaign... or not.
I know you'll just make some remark about how snobby Apple users are, but honestly I think that attempting to emulate the user experience of another product beyond instances where form follows function is just asinine. It lulls people into a false sense of security, and then when things don't work the way they expect, then all of a sudden its "X's fault that it doesn't do Y like Z," rather than "X isn't Z, so Y probably works differently."
It's not about being a snob. It's about acknowledging reality. But then again, I don't really have any political Free Software motivations and don't give a crap if people use Linux or not. I barely use Linux, but when I do, I'm not going to spend my time trying to make it look like Windows. Why bother?
Looking at the screenshots, it seems they made Gnome look like KDE 4!!
Then use Services for Unix or PowerShell. Problem solved 11 years and 6 years ago respectively.
Realistically this would be helpfull for installing Linux for friends and family. Looking and working exactly like Windows 7 which my aging parents use, is a huge selling point. Especially since they only do basic web, email, the OS choice matters little, only the interface needs only to be familiar and just work. While my dad has expressed interest in linux (use ubuntu happily on occasion) I don't want to go through the trauma of re-training my mother to use a different interface, in this case she would honestly not pick the difference.
Unfortunatley desktop linux has yet to catch up on some of the usability smarts Windows 7. One killer redeeming feature of 7 is the way the start menu search feature includes a lot of administrative functions. I recall a phone conversation with my dad:
Dad: "How do I change my account password?"
Me: "Click on start menu and type 'password' in the box you see there"
Dad: "Oh there it is, change password, it came up before I finished typing, I click on that ja?"
This is refreshingly easy and saves me time - he'll likely remember the trick for other tasks, and not call back.
In gnome or something else it would be several layers deep under a drop down menu that isn't even categorized correctly, and I'd likely have to boot up one of my gnome machines to talk him through it.
It's perhaps unfair to beat up on gnome over it's infamously poor menu system, it's an easy targt.
Needless to say I'm not into supporting novices in linux in the same way i'm not into plucking hairs individually with tweasers.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory.
You mean like "cleave" and other contronyms?
Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't.
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows.
There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.
Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.
Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz. It's also why every window manager or desktop environment out there has extensive theming abilities. Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that.
There's a phrase for this, "casting pearls before swine".
And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
That's simply not the case. I've had numerous comments, from artsy female types even, about how nice my Cthulhain themed Fluxbox desktop looks. Now they'd never be able to use it, but it's certainly not ugly.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I realize that it's fashionable to hate Microsoft...
But, they do spend a lot of time and money on usability testing.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not just a bunch of morons throwing crap on the screen either.
I remember seeing the presentation they posted on the development of the ribbon. Seems like smart people doing reasonable things.
Yeah, copying Windows is such a wonderful idea. If you work really really hard at it you'll get... a "Windows clone". Yeah, not exactly earth-shattering. But what you'll most likely end up with instead is a "half-assed Windows clone", which is as bad as it sounds.
And worrying about home users is an utter waste of time if you care about adoption rates, as Apple has shown for the past two decades. Face it, 'shiny' may attract you and a very small community, but what most people care about is being able to reliably run the apps they need for their day-to-day activities, and a shiny new UI won't do a thing for that.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I've never understood why there is so much focus on getting Windows users to comfortably switch. I see no inherent value in making an OS that makes Windows users feel at home because there is already an OS that does that. It's called Windows. If Windows users really want something that they find extremely familiar, they can buy another copy of Windows. Frankly, I think that the basic assumption that attracting Windows users is inherently valuable has been harmful to the Linux community because it basically implies an effort to spend time and effort creating something worse that would be created if most people just said "F- Windows. Let's just create something awesome without regard for familiarity for users of some other software in some other conceptual ecosystem." Obviously, if whoever made the Win7 theme in the article thinks it's cool, then more power to him. The Open Source Way is alla bout people doing stuff they find interesting. OTOH, I think that the KDE project with their "parts" and whatnot have been trying to invent some reallyc ool stuff that I personally find much more interesting.
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Um, I have no idea who Taylor Swift is, and I heard of Jay leno. Never watched his shows.
You seem to make a confusion between what's popular in the US and what's globally popular. But I got your idea. However, again you seem to misunderstand the difference between quality that makes you think and quality that makes life easy.
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.
That thing is ugly as hell.
1. Fonts are ugly.
2. Windows title bar text is almost unreadable.
3. Top-left window: has 2 panes instead of tabs.
4. Middle Window: why on Earth would you care what the HDDs full names are? Why would you put the Temp folder as Favorite?
5. All windows: the menu button and the close/maximize/minimze buttons are reversed, compared to Windows. This is a major issue for a Windows user who is interested in switching.
6. The gizmo on the lower right side looks like a patch of some sort and the text on it is barely readable.
7. I don't care about desktops depictions/thumbnails on the left, I only care where my open programs are. A list of open programs (similar to Windows Taskbar) is a lot more helpful then going through 6 desktops in my quest for the "You-Name-It" program that I remember to have had open somewhere.
All of these in just one screenshot. And I looked at it for like 2 minutes.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
You pick anything you'd like, man, I just threw some random examples. :)
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
See, that I can agree with.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Organization. Give each desktop a purpose, and you can switch between tasks much easier. Say I have a bunch of PDFs open on one desktop and I get a notification that a download has completed. I don't have to search around for whatever window in my task bar. I just go to the torrent desktop and it has the client right there and a terminal open in the relevant directory where i left it.
I don't know how people can get along without this, minimizing and maximizing all the time, just letting windows pile up, or even closing apps. With virtual desktops I can come back to a project days later, after all sorts of casual computer use, and pick right up where I left off.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
> I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
You can use them to organize desktop clutter, like any other desktop container.
You don't need a 2nd and 3rd monitor just to have things sorted and nicely laid out and handy.
If you do anything but use your machine as an xbox or a web kiosk, the extra real estate and organization is very handy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Two responses to that.
1. Have you ever had more than >5 windows open while working on >1 project?
2. You are the only person I have ever heard say that ever. Virtual desktops are always the #1 "oooh" feature every time I've ever shown someone a free desktop.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!