At first glance it looks like it. Could be a load of old codswallop too.
If it’s for real, then it just goes to confirm what I have said for some time. kde4 is leading the way in modern desktop environment.
I think KDE in general has been leading since 2.0, but that’s just my opinion.
When I go into Winders now, I miss my multiple desktops so badly it almost hurts. Such a little thing, I know, but I have been SPOILED by that.
That, and a bunch of other little things (such as the fact that the “Start Menu” in KDE doesn’t disappear each time another window brings up a dialog … or even when a balloon appears in the tray area!).
Those of you who’ve tried KDE 4.3, though, please let me know if it has finally restored the ability to set up different desktop backgrounds. I downloaded Milestone 5 a couple of weeks ago and played with it, but I still couldn’t set but one common background.
I figure, if you’re going to have separate desktops, make 'em SEPARATE.
I don’t have that working on my sandbox PC with KDE-4.3. … but its only got 1GB of RAM, and I discovered on my KDE-3.5.10 setup that having each of the 4 desktop’s with a separate graphic page had a small, but noticeable performance impact … sufficient that I stopped using that feature on KDE-3.5.10. …
I read a post (somewhere) speculating (or was it asking ? ) that that specific feature be added in KDE-4.4.
The transparencies that I get in KDE-4.3 put my KDE-3.5.10 transparencies to shame. In fact I am so enamored of KDE-4.3 (over 3.5.10) now that I play to put KDE-4.3 on a couple more of the family PCs.
Here i can try and explain it
right click on desktop>desktop settings
in the desktop activity field make sure desktop is selected then you should have the cashew in the top right corner click it zoom out then you should have a transparent window top right click on configure plasma put a check in different activity for each desktop zoom back in and change the wallpapers for each desktop when your on that desktop
hope that makes sense
You sum it about as I would.
There should be 3 choices in the Desktop section: Folder View, Desktop Containment, Desktop without Toolbox.
It’s 2nd choice you want.
Then click the cashew on the Desktop, zoom in…
I know there’s a global recession going on, but your lack of full stops (periods for the yanks among us ;)) and caps make it rather hard to follow there havoc! Especially for non-native English speakers.
On that note I hereby donate generously to the “Havoc full stop appeal” - “…”
Now with careful management and a good investment scheme, you should be able to live off the interest for years to come ;).
But on a more serious note, when I get to the “you should have a transparent window top right click on configure plasma” bit, I see nothing when I right click! All I see is this -
actually it is OS/2 Warp’s “Object Desktop” for winders as produced by
StarDock <http://www.stardock.com/>, who made a big pile of money
selling their “Object Desktop” as shareware to OS/2 version 3 and
later users, for years!! when OS/2 started dying, they packed up and
started selling wondoz versions…
so, it seems that KDE is “borrowing” a design from the mid-90’s
Warp was so far ahead of window$ back then, i’m still kinda surprised
that M$ so soundly crushed it…i finally have to move from Warp to
Linux because the browsers on Warp just couldn’t do the ‘new stuff’
(like Flash, etc etc etc etc)
I remember back then play with Warp on a “sandbox PC”, around the same time as “Windows-3.11” …
Warp was significantly more glossy and powerful, but I also recall the claims to Warp’s stability were not enough to stop me from crashing it all the time, especially in areas of network access. In the end my strange ability to crash warp was so repeatable, I stopped using it on the Sandbox PC, and also stopped looking at it.
Having typed that, I don’t think too many others experienced the stability hiccups that I encountered. I recall a time when one could choose a new PC with either MS-DOS, Win-3.1, Warp, and possibly DR-DOS, although MS-DOS and Win-3.1 were dominant. I’ve always believed that Microsoft’s success over IBM’s OS/2 was due to SIGNIFICANTLY superior marketting tactics, strategy and OEM leverage. … Something that IBM failed miserably in matching.
My recollection is a bit different, in spite of your capitals (=SHOUTING) ;). The problem was not a lack of marketing, but a failure in product development. It’s difficult to market a new product to an already established market, without a proper migration path built into the product.
OS/2, and Warp (OS/2 3.x iirc) was very stable, except for supporting floppy disks which were still in heavy use in those days particularly on laptops and notebooks. Given the excellent HPFS on hard disks (superior to DOS/Windows FAT), IBM’s developers made a big mistake for Warp in how they implemented extended attributes for floppy disk files, choosing to use a couple of system files for EA’s on the actual floppy. Those files were prone to corruption or deletion. The user’s data files were rendered useless. The lack of reliability got a very bad press at the time.
Warp launched with a relatively short window, provided by delays in the launch of Win95, in which to recover from it’s already low take-up of OS/2. The following issues were well established prior to Warp:
Originally OS/2, a real multi-tasking system, launched with a DOS compatability box included, but with too little memory allocated. Migration of DOS customers was very low, and so leading application S/W Vendors didn’t produce OS/2 versions (IBM didn’t have Lotus then). The DOS box was improved but too little too late. Windows being DOS based didn’t have that problem. This wasn’t a problem of marketing, but of product development.
Lack of support for OEM PC H/W peripherals was an issue for OS/2 well before Warp, and it continued for Warp. Another problem of development or lack of it.
In an attempt to overcome the application shortfall (too late IMO the battle was already lost), Warp launched with its own suite of integrated office applications, with increased advertising and some OEM PC’s included with it. I remember trying it in a PCWorld shop and it was very fast on a 486 desktop PC. Of course, Win 3.1 was ok on a 386 as it didn’t really multi-task. I used Warp and its office apps successfully for real-world business. But the old problem still remained, that too few leading applications were not available in OS/2 versions. It doesn’t always pay off to be first out with leading technology, particularly if you haven’t got the product development right.
It’s been interesting to watch novell-openSUSE in a not dissimilar situation (leaving applications aside) competing against ubuntu and its clones. Given recent announcements, signs are that Novell may be getting it, even if openSUSE development hasn’t so far.
Interesting. I don’t recall having problems with floppies with OS/2. As for Warps’ stability, I recall everyone raving about its stability, while I was crashing it every day. And the crashes were bad. Real bad. But I concede despite my bad experiences with the stability, there was a lot of good press/comments about its stability.
Again, different memories. I recall back then comparing DR-Dos, and MS-DOS and OS/2 multi-tasking of DOS apps, and for the DOS apps that I used, MS-DOS came out a distant (and really distant) 3rd. DR-DOS had compatibility problems with some specific apps (but not in general) and for the apps I used, OS/2 had the best DOS emulation.
In my case, it was the stability on our LAN that kept me away from pushing for OS/2 in the office. (and I was providing the IT support at the time, as a secondary duty, for an office of about 20).
Fair enough - but most the people who I knew at the time, when I talked to them about Microsoft’s Operating System (which was Windows-3.1 and 3.11 and NOT win95 when I was considering OS/2) had absolutely no interest in OS/2. None. They also had no technical backing for their view. They had purchased the Microsoft line hook and sinker based on advertisements and the odd review, of which they understood next to nothing.
But I won’t dispute your over all assessment, because I saw only a microcosm in a very specific area, and after I made up my mind to not pursue OS/2 I did stay away from it. I did not have the time nor budget to re-look at OS/2. IBM had the once chance in our office back then (1990/91) and for our LAN purposes it was unstable. That was the ONLY reason that we rejected it (as I did want to deploy it). It turns out that was the right decision probably for the wrong reasons.
Anyway, hopefully Novell does not make the wrong decisions with openSUSE, although when one looks back at DR.DOS and Word Perfect failures against Microsoft products, one can get worried from just a historical basis (with no corresponding facts).
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:16 +0000, oldcpu wrote:
> goldie;2031178 Wrote:
> > Warp was so far ahead of window$ back then, i’m still kinda surprised
> > that M$ so soundly crushed it…i finally have to move from Warp to
> > Linux because the browsers on Warp just couldn’t do the ‘new stuff’
> > (like Flash, etc etc etc etc)
> I remember back then play with Warp on a “sandbox PC”, around the same
> time as “Windows-3.11” …
> Warp was significantly more glossy and powerful, but I also recall the
> claims to Warp’s stability were not enough to stop me from crashing it
> all the time, especially in areas of network access. In the end my
> strange ability to crash warp was so repeatable, I stopped using it on
> the Sandbox PC, and also stopped looking at it.
I’m going to agree with your assessment of Warp (OS/2). It was (is)
easily crashed… it just didn’t crash as often as Windows 3.x.
I think we tend to remember things in a comparative historical way…
thus OS/2 was stable in comparison to it’s x86 desktop OS peers.
Realistically, it wasn’t all that good (still isn’t)… but that’s in
comparison to what we have easy access to today.
I was an AmigaOS fan… again, it was multi-tasking when other were
not… but it sure had its stability problems.