Calendar

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

You know the Dave Gorman (Modern Life is Good-ish) advert .. where he shouts WHYYYYYY ?? .....

[youtube=660,400]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o4G_0sNeRs#t=27[/youtube]

Source (including screenshots):
http://ubuntuportal.com/2014/09/how-to-make-lubuntu-14-04-look-like-windows-xp.html (http://ubuntuportal.com/2014/09/how-to-make-lubuntu-14-04-look-like-windows-xp.html)

[EDIT]

And to pre-empt any questions relating to Peppermint .. Yes probably (in fact it could probably be done more accurately with Peppermint's XFWM4 window manager), but NO I won't help

--

[Emegra]

 but NO I won't help

Aw Pleeeeease



Graeme

[chemicalfan]

To be fair, I did this about 6-7 months ago on my in-laws PC, except they're on LMDE MATE. So, it's also achievable on MATE as well as LXDE.

We've had this discussion before, but I'm talking about people who are in their 70s, who can't grasp using a smartphone. After they've been using XP for 10 years, I'm not going to try to pull the rug from under them, and I'm not going bald over training them on a new OS layout. They're happy that their PC is secure again, and does what they need it to (and they haven't spent a penny on it), and I'm happy because it's one more Linux PC in the world, but more importantly, it's a working, secure PC that hasn't lined Bill Gates' pocket anymore.

[donwatson]

Go on  You know you want to 

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

Aaaargh, another one (posted on the Peppermint forum):
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/METROux+for+Peppermint+Ubuntu++%26+EEEpc?content=166419 (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/METROux+for+Peppermint+Ubuntu++%26+EEEpc?content=166419)

The DE formerly known as Metro on Peppermint 

That's it, the world has officially gone friggin bananas.

Treacle pudding layered with horse snot gravy anyone ?

Whyyyyyy ??

[mikep]

To be honest, I never thought XP looked all that good in the first place.

Bit 'Fisher Price' for my taste.

The first thing I would do after an install was tweak it to have the 'classic' (Windows 98) look.

[mikep]

To be fair, I did this about 6-7 months ago on my in-laws PC, except they're on LMDE MATE. So, it's also achievable on MATE as well as LXDE.

We've had this discussion before, but I'm talking about people who are in their 70s, who can't grasp using a smartphone. After they've been using XP for 10 years, I'm not going to try to pull the rug from under them, and I'm not going bald over training them on a new OS layout. They're happy that their PC is secure again, and does what they need it to (and they haven't spent a penny on it), and I'm happy because it's one more Linux PC in the world, but more importantly, it's a working, secure PC that hasn't lined Bill Gates' pocket anymore.

Fair enough. Your in-laws are lucky to have your tech support and good luck to them. I love it when folks in their seventies embrace technology. I'm also happy that my PC is secure again, does what I need it to, and I haven't spent a penny on it. (I'm not in my seventies yet, by the way..)

I've always sort of admired Bill Gates though. When he said (in the nineties?) that one day every home would have a PC, I thought he was mad. At that time they cost a fortune and were only really any use for office work. But thanks (I believe) to Microsoft's mass marketing techniques, many of us now have several. I can count five plus a laptop. Also, he became the self-made richest man on the planet at a very early age, then gave most of it away to charities. Now that's a CV.

That's not to say I admire the current iteration of Microsoft though. Two different things. I might not have minded 'upgrading' Windows if the newer version had offered me something secure, and which I actually wanted, and hadn't required me to ask Microsoft's permission  every time I wanted to change the hardware in my computer.

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

I'd dispute quite a few things in there...

1) Personal computer in every home .. that was well under way before Microsoft came to prominence (or even existed), but if you mean x86 'PC' that would probably be more down to IBM's hardware (and clones), the OS was incidental at the time and pure 'timing' luck on Microsoft's part (or they'd likely be less that a footnote in history)

2) Self made man .. you mean in the right place at the right time (when IBM needed an OS), then squashing competitors with dirty tactics such as FUD and where that fails, copying their work, or buying them out then binning their better tech .. or simly breaking/flouting the law.

3) deserving admiration .. the guy was/is a serial fraudster/con artist/liar/monopolist and it turns out spy, and IMHO probably did more to hold back computing than anyone else in history.

4) Gave his money to charity .. more like invested in "Big Pharma", and some clever PR
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/06/07/bill-gates-big-pharma-bogus-philanthropy/ (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/06/07/bill-gates-big-pharma-bogus-philanthropy/)

Still admire him ?

[mikep]

Oookay,

Apparently I need to do some more reading (if I ever get the time).

I don't even know what FUD means (at least, outside Scotland), but becoming the world's richest man from being in the right place at the right time still requires a level of ability I certainly don't have (but would quite like to). It's a bit like saying George W bush is an idiot, even though he's quite well off and was the most powerful man on earth (twice). I should be so stupid. I don't have to like someone (or even his motives) before I acknowledge his abilities.

But I definitely remember how unaffordable personal computers were in the nineties. I worked in mainframe programming at the time, and I never expected to be able to afford one.

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Like saying "Linux contains Microsoft code, and using it might leave you open to a court case" .. no proof (and ccertainly he'd be best palced to provide it) .. just spreading FUD.



OK, sure if you want to "recognise" his skills as a thieving bast*** and con artists, fair enough .. I'd have to agree he's VERY good at that .. it's the word "admire" I'm having problems with....

http://techpaladin.com/2007/09/10/microsofts-murderous-partnerships/ (http://techpaladin.com/2007/09/10/microsofts-murderous-partnerships/)

I can "recognise" the skill/audacity of say Ronnie Biggs without "admiring" him and building him into something he wasn't

But I definitely remember how unaffordable personal computers were in the nineties. I worked in mainframe programming at the time, and I never expected to be able to afford one.

And how exactly did Microsoft bring down the price of PC's ?

Surely it's hardware mass production by many competing manufacturers of the opened up IBM PC architecture (and that architectures modularity) that brought prices tumbling down.
In fact if anything Microsoft have used their monopoly of the PC software market to kept PC prices artificially high .. if IBM had done the same with the hardware PC's would still cost a ton
Fact is, they'd be cheaper (and probably more advanced) without Microsofts dominance 

--

[chemicalfan]

Not sure if you can still see me down here from that soapbox 

Can't believe I'm about to defend Bill Gates, but in the mid-late nineties, there wasn't an alternative to Microsoft anyone would want to use as a home desktop. There may have been a small window in the early nineties (while DOS was still dominant), but once Windows 95 came out, it was game over until well after the millenium.

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

And your point ?

[chemicalfan]

That while Bill Gates' business practices were pretty dodgy to say the least, it's not like consumers could vote with their feet as the monopoly Microsoft had was all-encompassing

[Mark Greaves (PCNetSpec)]

Sorry still missing it .. OK let's try again, and your point as it differs from mine ?

[EDIT]

I don't remember saying he didn't (by breaking every moral and legal code out there) achieve a monopoly .. just that:-

Said methods weren't "admirable" nor is anything he's done outside Microsoft.
He (or Microsoft) wasn't the cause of the explosion in home computing.
He (or Microsoft) did not in any way make computing cheaper (or 'better' for that matter).

So which point am I being challenged on here ?

--

[chemicalfan]

I'm a bit confused too, but I guess this one:

He (or Microsoft) wasn't the cause of the explosion in home computing.

There wasn't a natural alternative, so unless the lack of Microsoft would spawn one out of necessity, I think Microsoft did cause the explosion in home computing. It's all hypothetical though, anyone got a time machine and no fear of causality?