PDA

View Full Version : Does Gnome/XFCE need to modernise?



oxymoron
July 19th, 2010, 11:04 AM
With more monitors being developed using the 16:9 aspect ratio will desktop environments such as Gnome and XFCE need to modernise the default layout to use valuable screen space better?

The two menu bars on my new 16:9 monitor make applications really squeshed.

So much si I have had to delete then and install DockbarX, may as well use Win7 :p

Lucradia
July 19th, 2010, 11:12 AM
I don't use Gnome/XFCE, I use openbox, stalonetray, etc.

No need for docks to be honest.

Seeing as GNOME 3 (Shell) doesn't technically have a dock system either... just goes to show you that it'sthe way of the future, from the past!

Paqman
July 19th, 2010, 11:34 AM
The two menu bars on my new 16:9 monitor make applications really squeshed.


So move them to the sides. Or get rid of one of them. Or start using a dock that hides or runs down the side.

You don't have to use your desktop in the default configuration if it doesn't suit you.

TyrantWave
July 19th, 2010, 11:45 AM
So move them to the sides. Or get rid of one of them. Or start using a dock that hides or runs down the side.

You don't have to use your desktop in the default configuration if it doesn't suit you.


Exactly. I use a top panel (Menu, desktop viewports, and system tray), and a custom AWN dock on the bottom right that has my running applications/quick lunch, it autohides. Works great on my 1440x900 laptop :3

Image scaled down to attach.

Lucradia
July 19th, 2010, 11:46 AM
GNOME Shell has notification area in the lower right though, near where your custom AWN is. (system tray still being in the upper right, clock being in upper middle, none of which are movable.)

oxymoron
July 19th, 2010, 12:02 PM
You don't have to use your desktop in the default configuration if it doesn't suit you.




So much si I have had to delete then and install DockbarX, may as well use Win7 :p

I already have changed it, just asking do people feel it's time they freshed the default GUI up for WS, and especially the move towards 16:9

Paqman
July 19th, 2010, 01:00 PM
I already have changed it, just asking do people feel it's time they freshed the default GUI up for WS, and especially the move towards 16:9

I don't think it's a case of an inevitable shift from one to the other. Just looking at the resolution stats on an old site of mine, only 37% of people were using a widescreen resolution.

TyrantWave
July 19th, 2010, 11:29 PM
GNOME Shell has notification area in the lower right though, near where your custom AWN is. (system tray still being in the upper right, clock being in upper middle, none of which are movable.)

Then I'd just put AWN on the bottom left =p. Doesn't bother me really, having these on the right is just an aesthetic preference of mine.

BuffaloX
July 19th, 2010, 11:48 PM
I never understood why anyone would want two bars, even on old 4/3 screens.

Maybe they think two bars are twice as good as one?
Then I would suggest 4 bars, which should be 4 times better. :biggrin:

Gnome waste a lot of screen real estate, and for widescreen monitors a vertical bar would make a lot more sense, but that doesn't work so well.

Maybe Gnome 3 will fix these issues?

Legendary_Bibo
July 19th, 2010, 11:48 PM
I used to leave my gnome panels at 36 pixels in height each on my 1440x900 laptop. Now I've deleted the bottom panel. Moved Deskbar to the top right and put that open windows applet thing on the top, and installed Cairo dock. It looks much nicer, more organized, and more clean. The gnome shell look very functional, but takes up a lot of screen space. I hope they don't push it on people and there's actually more changes to gnome 3.0 then just the shell/unity thing.

murderslastcrow
July 20th, 2010, 12:05 AM
You do realize that 1. Windows 7's bar is, by default, quite a bit thicker than the two Gnome/Xfce panels put together? Also, are you telling OS X users to switch just to get a little extra vertical space?

Also, there's this thing called auto-hiding and customization. There's a reason why Gnome and Xfce have the desktop metaphors they do- it's about design and consistency. I think that's more modern than what you're jokingly referring to.

That said, I use KDE exclusively these days, so I guess I'm not one to talk. Choose what works best for you, but please don't think Windows is the only place you can get a singular taskbar! D: For shame! XD

But yeah, Gnome and Xfce, or GTK in general, needs to modernize a bit of its engines and rendering methods to squeeze that little bit more out of the memory available on lower systems. Also, Gnome is a bit slower than necessary at times, although they're starting to prioritize speed more. I'm not talking about memory requirements- I mean the speed you get regardless of the amount of processing power you have available. If you have enough RAM things should be about instantaneous- this isn't the case, unfortunately, which implies there are optimizations to be done.

However, if you use Xfce4.6, you're pretty much set on speed. In fact, if Xfce4 got rounded corners on their menus as an option, I'd say they're ahead of Gnome despite Gnome's widespread use. They're really not all that different, except that Gnome is older and one of the original DEs, so I guess there's the loyalty factor.

However, if something QT-based came along that could do all KDE 4 does with half the memory, I think it's pretty obvious what I would do. I mean, c'mon people, FLUXBOX has an option for round menus. What's taking so long?

cdekter
July 20th, 2010, 03:34 AM
However, if something QT-based came along that could do all KDE 4 does with half the memory, I think it's pretty obvious what I would do. I mean, c'mon people, FLUXBOX has an option for round menus. What's taking so long?

Actually the memory usage myth about KDE 4 has been disproven many times over (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005070/kde-uses-less-memory).

murderslastcrow
July 20th, 2010, 04:29 AM
Ah yes, it does use less memory than KDE 3.5! Especially if you're planning not to use compositing. I'm well aware of this.

However, it does take up a few megabytes more than Gnome. Not much more, and it's getting smaller each release it seems.

When you consider the SVG interface, customizability, the new technology frameworks KDE 4 is built around, and all that's available without having to download add ons like you see many people doing in Gnome (Screenlets, GnomeDO, emerald, etc.), with all the subtle animations and polish (and round menus, keehee), only a few more megabytes than Gnome 2 is really saying something.

But of course, you don't have to believe me. You can see it for yourself quite easily by installing kubuntu-desktop or getting a Kubuntu LiveCD. Unfortunately, it seems KDE users are the minority in this community, and often criticized for 'trying to look closer to Redmond,' when in fact there is much more behind that initial perception many users have. Ironic there would be discrimination when most Ubuntu users are people who wanted to try something different, even if it was just a different distro, not a different OS.

Edit: I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of discrimination, I'm just saying I've seen a lot of short-sighted comments about KDE. You can use what you want and like, but if you don't like a certain design, you probably shouldn't insult the project as a whole, as if it has no merit, when many people worked very hard to make it a good software compilation. That's all I meant, again, not accusing anyone here.