View Full Version : How important is eyecandy to you?

February 7th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Do you consider lots of bells and whistles important? Lots of pretty images and stunning desktops?

Personally I've never been a big fan of all the fanciness. I just want the computer to work and work right. For example, when Windows NT was in its prime, I was a big fan. Basic, simple desktop. Even now on my Windows XP setup, I've got it set to the "Classic Windows" theme with no background and all the other bells and whistles turned off. Same with my Ubuntu and SUSE setups.

Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers to this. I'm just curious how much importance everyone places on all the eyecandy that is available to different OS's out there.

February 7th, 2006, 01:53 AM
I like the option... I did the same when I had windows XP but I was just trying to squeeze every ounce of performance out of it.

I believe there are quite a few topics on eye candy, you should check those out as a lot of people have already voiced their opinion on eye candy.

February 7th, 2006, 02:31 AM
yeah this is another redone thread, but im really more about function than form. i like my computer to be the most efficient possible. i have 1 GB of memory, so i could run that stuff with no problems, but i just prefer to not have my laptop crank the fans on all the time (which is a problem this has, 686-smp made it better but not best). i use XFCE and the only eye candy i use is a wallpaper every once in a while, which isnt even "eye candy" at all,

Artificial Intelligence
February 7th, 2006, 02:36 AM
A bit. But not über important, mostly the eyecandy I use I set it up so I get an easier desktop which fits my needs.

February 7th, 2006, 02:38 AM
Very important as it makes computing a more enjoyable experiance often.

But each to their own.

February 7th, 2006, 02:41 AM
Although I like eyecandy, I choose speed and functionality over eyecandy. Unfortunately, to me, a fully functional desktop means using Gnome, which isn't the speediest DE around :/.

February 7th, 2006, 02:45 AM
Depending, laptop has no eyecandy cuz I want it to be as cool as possible and have the most battery life. Plus I never see the screen if I'm not working on it.
Desktop I like to have eyecandy on cuz I will see the monitor when I'm not working on it. Even more important if you use dual head.

February 7th, 2006, 03:18 AM
Very much. I want my desktop to look cool.

Master Shake
February 7th, 2006, 03:24 AM
I try to strike a fine balance between eye-candy and usefulness.

THat's why I use XFCE :D

February 7th, 2006, 03:56 AM
It depends. If it's eyecandy that makes interfaces look weird (like an alien console out of a sci-fi movie), buttons unlabled and moved around, I'm totally against it.

If it makes things less snappy, I greatly dislike that.

Like the animations in clearlooks (if you are in dapper and enable it on).
I don't mind the bar animation (i.e. volume bar), the animation I dislike is the fade in and out of checks in the checkbox.
I click it twice thinking my first click missed. Anything like this, fades, delays, that make things seem slower, boo.

As for stuff that looks cool, I guess it's neat to have but if it visibily lowers performance (or eats a lot of juice on a laptop let's say), I may prefer to do without it.

As for the other stuff, if it aids usuability I'd be interested. If someone can mention what aids usuability...

For some of the eyecandy I like, I guess it would be transparency. It may sort of benefit usuability, perhaps having tvtime transparent while I surf... Currently I move the little "tv box" around if it covers a link or "x" button =)

February 7th, 2006, 04:03 AM
I like eyecandy but I much rather the app to work fully.

February 7th, 2006, 04:10 AM
If it doesn't decrease STABLILITY, and I have the option to turn it down/off if it slows my pc down, YES!

February 7th, 2006, 04:18 AM
even though i'm currently infatuated with ratpoison and elinks, i have a wallpaper and i love the way the tinted terminal looks with all the white print on it. this setup may not be everyone's idea of eye candy, but if i didn't like the way it looked, i wouldn't use it.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/944/fishlinks9zo.th.jpg (http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fishlinks9zo.jpg)

February 7th, 2006, 04:34 AM
Everyone has their own different definition of eye candy.

Here's My Definition. (http://alt1040.com/uploads/dashboard.jpg) :D

Not to mention this, too. (http://www.jakejarvis.com/images/vista_search.jpg) :)

February 7th, 2006, 04:38 AM
I say it's important. Basic functionality is present no matter what OS we're using. Stuff is in square windows and you click stuff. Joe Schmoe doesn't care that GTK+ is using cairo. Joe Schmoe does care when I show him luminocity or those XGL videos. He says I envy you rotarychainsaw, please show me the linux way.

Basically what I'm saying is that you don't really wow people with a well thought out design or a good underlying architecture. You get new users by offering something that is totally cool. If something cool is a well thought out design, then thats a bonus.

Of course the issue may not be getting new users. Word of mouth about stability and whatever has gotten linux where it is today. But I know that there are plenty of windows users who are still on windows just because it's good enough. They have there theme switchers and docks, but that is all you can really do. If we could offer them something crazy like XGL they'd come in droves.

*I'm tired so if this doesn't make sense...

February 7th, 2006, 06:00 PM
It is very important to me.

It is why i chose Kubuntu over Ubuntu when i first got here last fall. I believe the primary distros have to at least match OSX/Vista in looking good if they ever want to really break through.

February 7th, 2006, 07:13 PM
some visual effects are very useful.

every modern desktop has some sort of button pressing visual change so that you can see the button be pressed.

content updating as you resize a window.

drop shadows are good for making windows look distinct from each other. its more natural than a thick black border.

a minimisation animation shows you where the window has gone.

the wobbly windows trick seems to make the windows look more like physical objects.

icons that expand when you move towards (mac os x dock) them makes them easier targets. have you had a play with dasher (its in the repos), it lets you write with the mouse using a similar principal.

it would be a shame to make everything painfully slow to get these effects, but if the desktop can be drawn using graphics acceleration then you can get all these effects almost for free.

have you seen the novell videos (http://cto.secs.oakland.edu/~castro/NLD10video/)? that is far snappier than any desktop i have seen. the effects are quite exagerated, but things like there app switcher is very cool.

one thing i'd like to see is a terminal with a semi transparent background, but completely opaque (and maybe slightly dropshadowed) text. anyone know if this exists outside of mac os x?

just spotted this site http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/ has better videos

Stormy Eyes
February 7th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Do you consider lots of bells and whistles important?

They don't make my weener bigger, so why bother?

February 7th, 2006, 07:33 PM
I hate eyecandy, I like my desktop to be simple! I use a simple xfce setup, and at work I use the old windows themes not the ugly new ones!

Stormy Eyes
February 7th, 2006, 07:35 PM
I hate eyecandy, I like my desktop to be simple!

I prefer simplicity myself. My wallpaper is usually the fanciest part; I like to take sexy photos of my wife, GIMP them up so they look like vintage pr0n, and use the resulting images. Other than that, I feel cramped if I have more than a clock, a pager and a tray on my desktop.

February 7th, 2006, 07:36 PM
I don't like eyecandy much. I like playing around with themes etc, but my ideal desktop is:
1. the picture of my dog
2. shortcut to most frequently used folders
3. conky for monitoring computer & network

February 7th, 2006, 10:57 PM
To me, my desktop must look good and have a sleek feeling to it. It must not be all squares and text and "unrefined". However, what annoys me is when there is too much eyecandy that it actually slows down performance. eye candy should enhance a system, not hinder it.

February 9th, 2006, 10:19 AM
0% for me hehe
I use ratpoison so you can imagine :p
if i have to choose between speed and eyecandy i choose speed :)

February 9th, 2006, 05:37 PM
I well-nigh can't stand a bad-looking desktop, but I only play around with eyecandy. I don't actually use it to any extent (Except for Cairo :))

February 9th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Very important to me, love my desktop looking good

February 9th, 2006, 06:57 PM
It is an absolute requirement that my desktop looks beutiful. If it is an ugly eyesore then it ruins my concentration and mood to stare at it. But mindless use of special effects doesn't make it beutiful. It is all about elegant design and pleasing harmony. Environments and themes that find that balance are just as rare among the eye candy bombs as it is among the simplistic ones. What really matters is not the amount of special effects, it is the artistic talant of the theme or user interface designer.

February 9th, 2006, 07:17 PM
Eye Candy is very important. Personally I prefer the simple, but want the ability to set my PC as I please and should that include all the fluff...sobeit. One of the best things about Linux I enjoy, being a not-to-new newbie, is the customization not offered in Windows. So, bring on all the eye-candy fluff and I'll have fun playing with it, and ultimatly get rid of it.

February 9th, 2006, 10:29 PM
I go back and forth. I was accustomed to turning everything off in Windows so I could get its best performance. Now I'm starting to fancy all the transparencies and glitter I see here and there. I have to keep reminding myself that I don't have to run a stripped-down desktop just to get the performance level I want.

February 9th, 2006, 10:33 PM
I go back and forth. I was accustomed to turning everything off in Windows so I could get its best performance. Now I'm starting to fancy all the transparencies and glitter I see here and there. I have to keep reminding myself that I don't have to run a stripped-down desktop just to get the performance level I want.

The beautiful thing is if you want more performance temporarily you just turn it off until you are done and then turn it right back on again.

February 9th, 2006, 10:37 PM
The beautiful thing is if you want more performance temporarily you just turn it off until you are done and then turn it right back on again.
This is true. ...

February 9th, 2006, 11:31 PM
I think one thing is sexier than eyecandy:

Speed and technology. When my windowmanager and X does this too, it's of course a super combination, but I can't lose too much stability.

Things like initng that seem to be just cool and fast impress on me. I'd like an initng for my gnome-session login -- that would be nifty.

Titus A Duxass
February 10th, 2006, 07:18 AM
I don't do eye candy.

February 10th, 2006, 07:28 AM
I *heart* eye-candy. It depends on the person, but I love it... as long as it doesn't introduce stability problems.

Josef K.
February 10th, 2006, 10:00 AM
if your computer is used for work (means programming\administrating not write an email!) or gaming :rolleyes: you need performance and security

otherwise you need eyecandys, because every timewaster that take a look to your desktop will bother you with their new fancy tool in windows :evil:

February 10th, 2006, 03:14 PM
yes. yes. and yes. i wuv eye-candy. it makes my desktop prettier. and i love being able to customize everything about it.

i _do_ try to keep my desktop clean though.

(the plus, plus-side: when my windows-using friends see it, they go ... 'WOW! i want the pretty desktop! can you move me to Linux too?')

February 10th, 2006, 03:24 PM
It's the one of the most important thing for me, i wouldn't use a computer with an ugly desktop.
That's why i'm waiting for compiz ;)

February 10th, 2006, 03:47 PM
A time ago I used ubuntu with a composite manager, so dropshadows and fade'ins were activated. I stopped using it and turned back to windows. After a few months I started again with ubuntu and it just didn't satisfy me. When I turned on composite manager again I realised that I was missing the smooth feeling/experience of faded in windows etc. If you have experience with this, you almost can't do without it anymore.

Yes, compiz is great! I hope to get it running in a few days.