PDA

View Full Version : Post your desktop



Sharingan
15th October 2007, 13:02
Just wondering how everyone has their desktop set up. Some people like their OS environment tidy, others have trouble finding a spot to place yet another shortcut. What's yours like?

Here's a shot of mine:

Desktop (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9983/desktopbm5.jpg)

I'm obsessed with keeping everything as tidy as I possibly can. Before anyone comments why I'm not using Firefox: I couldn't be bothered to find out how to secure yet another browser.

Stephen Coates
15th October 2007, 13:31
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/6459/desk151007ik0.jpg

Normally the image files and the avi file wouldn't be there. I will be moving them as soon as I have finished with them.

I tend to keep all the files that I am using on the desktop and thn move them when I have finished using them, so normally it is just links to programmes on the desktop.

v85rawdeal
15th October 2007, 13:31
Nice... er... fish;)

Here's mine on my laptop!

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z169/v85rawdeal/MyDesktop.jpg

As you can see, I have boring stuff on the left side and all my creative stuff on the right hand side.

My desktop system isn't much different, apart from all the naked ladies on it (all artitstically done, of course)

Note the use of both Firefox and IE7, because I personally prefer IE7, but am trying to get used to FF at the moment.

Harrison
15th October 2007, 15:00
There I was clicking Steve's desktop image link, waiting to see some nice Amiga or Mac themed Windows desktop, and what did I see... it was so boring I quickly erased it from my mind! You do know you can use images as a backdrop on your desktop Steve? ;)

Like the dragon v85rawdeal. :)

Stephen Coates
15th October 2007, 15:15
There I was clicking Steve's desktop image link, waiting to see some nice Amiga or Mac themed Windows desktop, and what did I see... it was so boring I quickly erased it from my mind! You do know you can use images as a backdrop on your desktop Steve? ;)

Like the dragon v85rawdeal. :)


Until the other day, I had a background picture which said AmigaOS4 on it (can't remember where I got it from).

Puni/Void
15th October 2007, 17:33
I think you got some wallpapers from me a while ago. ;) I think I remember uploading a bunch to the FTP or something.

Harrison
16th October 2007, 00:10
Here is my current desktop. I've been using this background for a while now. I made it from the concept art for a forthcoming Star Wars game.


http://www.amiga.me.uk/off_site_images/forum_images/desktop_161007.jpg



As you can see I like to keep it nearly empty. I tend to put files on there while I'm working on them, and then move them to another HD once I'm finished so the desktop is never cluttered. I hate having program icons on there too, and instead add the ones I use the most into the quick launch bar, and the rest of the ones I use regularly to the left-hand side of the start menu.

Did you also know that the more icons you have on the desktop, the longer the system will take to load. This is because the system needs to check the links of each shortcut before continuing to load Windows.

And here is the desktop from my server, Yuna.


http://www.amiga.me.uk/off_site_images/forum_images/yuna.jpg


I will take a screenshot from my other systems when I get chance.

my_lo
21st June 2008, 13:58
Beautiful star wars wallpaper, Harrison ;)

Here is my desk as it is now, all the icons are modified with the tango shell patcher to look more gnomish...

Clean:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1865/deskic4.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=deskic4.jpg)

Dirty:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2017/deskdirtyaz2.th.jpg (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=deskdirtyaz2.jpg)

Harrison
23rd June 2008, 09:59
I've not seen that tango shell patcher. Definitely makes Windows look for Linux like. Shame about the OSX style launchbar! ;)

my_lo
23rd June 2008, 13:23
Here is the link (http://vertigosity.deviantart.com/art/Tango-Patcher-2600-8-06-27940418) to the tango patcher. It works very well and manages all icons through the whole xp thing...

For the launcher, it's not OSX style, it's the same as my lower bar in ubuntu when all is removed and transparency set to the max. I love to have the same desk on my linux and my windows partitions :p

Harrison
23rd June 2008, 13:47
Ah! But they are both based on the Mac OSX one originally! And personally it is one thing I really hate on the Mac OS. Especially the newer versions where the icons seem to be getting bigger and bigger with each new release.

In reality it was Apple's way of copying the Windows task bar without making it look too much the same. You have quick launch icons just like the Quick Launch bar in Windows, and open applications appear as icons, just like the taskbar shows open windows in windows. For me it is just too big and ugly on the screen. But as with anything, that is personal preference and as many people like it as hate it. And Mac users hate the Windows way of doing this just as much, although with only 3% of the market being Mac owners you have to wonder who is right. ;)

my_lo
23rd June 2008, 13:52
tbh, i didn't know who invented the launcher, i just tried to reproduce my gnome lower bar with big icons for easy launch. If i could chose, i'd go fully blackbox, i simply love the pop out menu but, once again, it bugs so much, i just cant stand it...

Harrison
23rd June 2008, 14:49
Something that might interest you. Did you know that the old file manager Directory Opus, from the Amiga, is still being developed, but now for Windows? It is now up to version 9 and is a really good file manager. It is worth giving the free 30 day trial a go to see what it has to offer. The additions it adds over standard Windows features when you open a file window are quite something. The site is www.gpsoft.com.au/ (http://www.gpsoft.com.au/)

my_lo
24th June 2008, 09:14
Wow, that's awesome, i didn't know that one... Thanks for the link ^_-

Stephen Coates
20th January 2009, 21:46
Thought I'd post my current desktops, which do have backgrounds, just to satisfy those of you who dislike solid colours.

My Windows 2000 desktop - http://stevecoates.net/stuff/towerdesk.jpg
This features the Amiga Forever font (a Windows version of Topaz). I have had this font on for a while now and have actually started to like it. The background is the base of the cooling towers at Tinsley one day before they were demolished in summer 2008.

My PowerBook 1400 desktop - http://stevecoates.net/stuff/powergirl.jpg
Picture is quite appropriate considering it is a Macintosh. Just slightly too old to be an "iProduct".

woody.cool
22nd January 2009, 18:22
On my laptop, I'm currently trialling Windows 7 Beta
So, here it is:

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/desktop/win7-22-10-2009.jpg

I'll post desktop pictures for my other PCs soon.

Harrison
22nd January 2009, 21:17
What are your thoughts of Windows 7 so far? I've not had chance to test it out myself yet, but I've been reading that most people are already preferring it over Vista and say it's more stable and faster. The question is, is it really a new OS... the next in the series. Or is it really just a repaired update to Vista, much like XP SP2 was, or Win 2000 SP2. Especially when you look at that common service pack release for each version before they are stable and nice to use.

Buleste
23rd January 2009, 09:11
More to the point have you disabled Autoplay?:evil:

woody.cool
29th January 2009, 19:58
What are your thoughts of Windows 7 so far? I've not had chance to test it out myself yet, but I've been reading that most people are already preferring it over Vista and say it's more stable and faster. The question is, is it really a new OS... the next in the series. Or is it really just a repaired update to Vista, much like XP SP2 was, or Win 2000 SP2. Especially when you look at that common service pack release for each version before they are stable and nice to use.
Hmm! Well! I have varied opinions on Win7

It's basically Vista that's been fixed in a lot of ways .... but MS have p****d me off .... they took out 'Classic Start Menu'

Also, I think Win7 Beta is an unstable piece of sh!t.
Some of my apps don't work (but do in Vista) but it is only a beta so there's hope that it might get fixed for the final realese, but ICQ won't even start on Win7 but works fine on Vista Ultimate and Vista Home Premium.

Very strange indeed.

as promised, more desktop pictures:

This one is taken from my machine at work that runs Windows XP Professional SP3
http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/desktop/work-27-01-09.jpg
woody.cool's work PC

and this one from my home laptop running XP Pro SP3 again:
http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/desktop/my-lappy-29-01-09.jpg
my home laptop after the big format .... caused by Win7 completely shafting the file system on C:

more will follow (for my home PC, my server and my nice shiny new netbook)

woody.cool
4th February 2009, 21:58
I also run Linux on my laptop (dual boot) so here's my Ubuntu desktop:

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/desktop/ubuntu-04-02-2009.jpg
woody.cool's Ubuntu 8.10 installation - dual booting on his laptop

As you've noticed ..... same desktop wallpaper!
Also, my Data drive (which is NTFS) is mounted and can READ and WRITTEN in Ubuntu .... that's something I'd never have thought possilble in Ubuntu after my previous struggles to be able to write to an NTFS file system under Linux.

Happy dayz :D

woody.cool
5th February 2009, 20:43
Another one too, my Acer Aspire A110 Netbook

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/desktop/acer_aspire.png
woody.cool's netbook

It's a shame it comes with such a restrictive Linux distro ..... might stick Ubuntu on it!

Stephen Coates
5th February 2009, 21:07
That quite resmebles Windows 3.1 :p

woody.cool
5th February 2009, 21:12
That quite resmebles Windows 3.1 :p
I never thought of that ...... but now you've mentioned it, I can see the resembalence :lol:

I'm definately gonna put Ubuntu on this thing though ...... it'll be less restrictive.

v85rawdeal
5th February 2009, 21:41
Just got myself a new laptop, as my other one is looking kinda worse for wear.

THe new wallpaper is kinda nice on it too.

http://forum.classicamiga.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=82

I don't like to clutter up the desktop with lots of icons so most of them are hidden in the start menu.

Stephen Coates
5th February 2009, 21:49
That quite resmebles Windows 3.1 :p
I never thought of that ...... but now you've mentioned it, I can see the resembalence :lol:

I'm definately gonna put Ubuntu on this thing though ...... it'll be less restrictive.

I'd say the only main difference between the two is the search box at the top. The world seems to have gone mad over search facilities since Windows 3.1.

Is it possible to add or remove the 4 big boxes if you wanted something different on the screen?

I've never used a NetBook but two people in my class have them (I think they are of the eeeeeeeeeeeeee variety).

my_lo
20th April 2009, 08:27
I was doing some sightseeing in Oblivion lately and i found 2 very beautiful landscapes, they remind me of Star Trek somehow. I could almost see Voyager leaving the planet, far in the sky...
I made 2 screenshots of it and i am using one as wallpaper at the moment. I thouhgt some of you would enjoy them ;)

http://www.noplan.be/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oblivion-2009-03-15-11-02-50-14-300x187.jpg (http://www.noplan.be/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oblivion-2009-03-15-11-02-50-14.jpg)

http://www.noplan.be/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oblivion-2009-03-15-11-03-20-85-300x187.jpg (http://www.noplan.be/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oblivion-2009-03-15-11-03-20-85.jpg)

woody.cool
29th May 2009, 19:24
I know this hasn't been contributed to for some time, so thought I'd post my A3000's desktop

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/a3000_desktop.png

I know it's a tad basic .... but it's about the limit of what Workbench 2.1 can do (other than customising the fonts etc.)

Cortona
29th May 2009, 20:00
Mine is basic. I happen to think OS X 10.3 has the nicest OS X wallpaper, but 10.3 is so old now that other Mac users shun me and nobody writes software for it now!

Harrison
30th May 2009, 04:42
So you can't use some OSX software on older versions such as your 10.3 version? Hmm... another reason to dislike the OS. ;)

Harrison
30th May 2009, 04:47
I know this hasn't been contributed to for some time, so thought I'd post my A3000's desktop

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/a3000_desktop.png

I know it's a tad basic .... but it's about the limit of what Workbench 2.1 can do (other than customising the fonts etc.)

You can do quite a bit more than that with WB 2.1. You can add a small tiled background to save memory, but greatly improve the look over the standard grey for one. And also change the icons. Or maybe the copper effect that classicWB has to give a nice gradient background to the whole thing. My A600 at the moment has a pretty standard looking classicWB installation, but I used to have a more customised one that looked quite nice. And you have 14MB of ram from the looks of it, so shouldn't have issues with ram when using additional things like icons or background images.

Cortona
30th May 2009, 09:38
So you can't use some OSX software on older versions sure as your 10.3 version? Hmm... another reason to dislike the OS. ;)

There were significant changes between 10.3 and 10.4 - Quartz Image processing (or something like that) which means 10.4 is generally the base OS X release that people write s/w for. Even Apple, the swines! I will get around to buying 10.4 or 10.5 retail eventually...

coze
30th May 2009, 12:41
Ok here goes my desktop. It's a dual core AMD machine with 4gb ram, running ... WinXP SP1 !!! This is the tidied up version, usually it's more messy.

I'm not sure what to do with the sidebar. I love the quicklaunch panel, but mail checker , weather stuff is kinda unneccessary.

The black box is an online news channel I'm watching.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8818/desktopscreenshotiridiu.jpg

There's also a SP2 winXP64 installed in another partition, (which was supposed to be my main windose) but the news channel thingy doesn't run on xp64, so I'm on this most of the time.

Before somebody asks, I didn't install SP3 on this because I'm using this installation for EPROM programming, and some other stuff on parallel port, and something above SP2 interferes with parallel port access, so I try to avoid it.

woody.cool
30th May 2009, 20:24
I know this hasn't been contributed to for some time, so thought I'd post my A3000's desktop

http://woody-cool.no-ip.biz/pics/a3000_desktop.png

I know it's a tad basic .... but it's about the limit of what Workbench 2.1 can do (other than customising the fonts etc.)

You can do quite a bit more than that with WB 2.1. You can add a small tiled background to save memory, but greatly improve the look over the standard grey for one. And also change the icons. Or maybe the copper effect that classicWB has to give a nice gradient background to the whole thing. My A600 at the moment has a pretty standard looking classicWB installation, but I used to have a more customised one that looked quite nice. And you have 14MB of ram from the looks of it, so shouldn't have issues with ram when using additional things like icons or background images.

I'll post a new pic when I get round to it ..... I've been tinkering with WBPattern and have installed MagicWB icons :)

Stephen Coates
30th May 2009, 23:57
So you can't use some OSX software on older versions sure as your 10.3 version? Hmm... another reason to dislike the OS. ;)

There were significant changes between 10.3 and 10.4 - Quartz Image processing (or something like that) which means 10.4 is generally the base OS X release that people write s/w for. Even Apple, the swines! I will get around to buying 10.4 or 10.5 retail eventually...

I think MacOS X has always been a bit limiting in terms of what software you can run on it. I had a PowerMac G3 with Jaguar a couple of years ago and I found that quite a bit of software required Panther. I tried to "obtain" a copy of Panther, but I only managed to get disks 2 and 3 :(. Fortunately though We had a copy of Tiger which we installed on my Mum's PowerMac G4. I used this disk to install Tiger on my G3 and no longer had many problems with new software. I wouldn't say it was much different speed wise to Jaguar either.

Harrison
1st June 2009, 15:48
From the little I've used OSX I've never really seen that much difference between each version. As far as I could see each version was little more than the same as a Windows service pack in terms of the updates it provided, but Mac users were forced to pay the full price for a new OS with each version released. The usual Apple rip off.

Cortona
1st June 2009, 19:50
From the little I've used OSX I've never really seen that much difference between each version. As far as I could see each version was little more than the same as a Windows service pack in terms of the updates it provided, but Mac users were forced to pay the full price for a new OS with each version released. The usual Apple rip off.

Although I try to distance myself from Apple snobs (you know the type - trendy, young Hoxton-dwelling wannabes that go to Twitter parties), as an OS X user I disagree. There have been a bunch of new features and updated software with each OS X release. You need only read the Apple website when a new OS X is released to be deluged with pages of propaganda on new features.

Windows certainly has a longer shelf life, but that comes with its own drawbacks, one of which is IE6. (So many businesses still use IE6, including where I work, so I have to design for it. I hate it. I hate it so much.)

I completely agree the Apple rip-off sentiment, though. OS X 10.4 on Ebay goes for about 50. Might as well buy a new copy of 10.5!

Harrison
1st June 2009, 22:03
But then you could only buy 10.5 if your hardware is good enough. And if it isn't then the other Apple rip off comes into play. Upgrade your current Mac? Are you mad. You can't do that! You have to buy this shiny new one that is identical to the PC being displayed next to it in terms of internal hardware, but because it has an Apple badge on it will add a 150% Apple surcharge for the privilege.

Stephen Coates
2nd June 2009, 01:31
But then you could only buy 10.5 if your hardware is good enough. And if it isn't then the other Apple rip off comes into play. Upgrade your current Mac? Are you mad. You can't do that! You have to buy this shiny new one that is identical to the PC being displayed next to it in terms of internal hardware, but because it has an Apple badge on it will add a 150% Apple surcharge for the privilege.

I must agree with harrison when it comes to the MacIntels.

I still like Apple's PPC machines.

Cortona
2nd June 2009, 13:05
Not feeling the love for Apple here. You can upgrade PowerMacs, you just can't swap around the guts of Apple's laptops, iMacs and Minis, which is a bit of a shame because my G5 iMac could do with a better graphics card. As to which OS I prefer using, on balance I prefer using OS X over Windows (and OS X has more in common with Amiga OS, of course, as both are based on UNIX).

Anyway, if I can meander back to the topic, here's my desktop at work. I've shrunk it down a little as it's 1920 x 1200 (on a 24" monitor, so I can actually read it).

Harrison
2nd June 2009, 14:22
That's quite a cool background. I take it that is just an image and not an interactive calander?

You noticed the lack of Apple fans around here then? ;)

One thing that always bugged me was the statement that you needed a Mac if you were a designer. Why? PCs have all of the key software available on the Mac, and have done since the mid 90's. I've used PCs for design, multimedia and video work since then and have never had a problem.

I personally think it comes down to personal taste in the OS. Much like how most of use stuck with the Amiga to the bitter end as our main system, when most were jumping ship to the PC. If you prefer the way the Mac OS works and the hardware is designed then you will probably keep buying and using Macs. Personally I love the modular nature and much cheaper hardware of the PC. Being able to mix and match whatever you like at realistic prices. Plus the software base is huge compared to the Mac. And emulation is dead on the mac compared to the PC.

I would consider a Mac for only one purpose. Final Cut Pro. It is still better than any PC based video editor and if video editing was my key business need then Final Cut Pro would be at the top of my list. However I can achieve just as much with Premiere, After Effects and Combustion on the PC for what I need. However, go to a higher level of video post production and it returns fully to the PC with Inferno, Flame, Fire etc...

The Mac still enjoys its neich markets.

Cortona
2nd June 2009, 19:51
Yep. That's a static wallpaper from Smashing Magazine (a very useful website).

I think it's the more deluded art students and wannabes that think they have to have a Mac for design or new media work. And you're right of course, Creative Suite, for example, is functionally exactly the same on Windows and OS X. I'm not qualified to comment on the differences in how the OSes handle virtual memory and image caching; it may make a small difference to execution speed, especially when you're editing 200MB+ .PSD files.

Emulation for the Mac is dismal. Power64 is great but you have to pay, and E-UAE is derived from WinUAE but it lacks a decent front-end (although there is Hi-Toro) and I've never had it running as well as WinUAE on a PC.

Harrison
3rd June 2009, 09:01
Do you run any versions of Windows on your Mac?

Cortona
3rd June 2009, 12:20
Do you run any versions of Windows on your Mac?

No, I'd have to fork out for Parallels and a copy of XP.

One day, when I can afford it, I'll get an Intel-based iMac that comes with Bootcamp, I'll buy XP and then I'll have a dual boot Mac - the best of both worlds!

Harrison
3rd June 2009, 12:33
Oh, so you are still using the older PPC macs? Personally I view them as real Macs. Intel macs are just PCs with a Mac case and a different BIOS chip that tells OSX is can be installed.

Have you tried any of the other PPC OSs available for the Mac? Such as Linux distros or BeOS?

woody.cool
3rd June 2009, 18:06
Have you tried any of the other PPC OSs available for the Mac? Such as Linux distros or BeOS?
Just out of curiosity, would AmigaOS 4.x work on a PPC Mac?

Cortona
3rd June 2009, 20:00
Just out of curiosity, would AmigaOS 4.x work on a PPC Mac?

Don't know. But if it does, I'd be very tempted to get it and buy a multi-card reader, then I can transfer files between the Mac and my A1200.

I haven't installed any other OSes on my iMac, although it did come with OS 9 on a DVD.

my_lo
4th June 2009, 06:21
Personally I love the modular nature and much cheaper hardware of the PC. Being able to mix and match whatever you like at realistic prices. Plus the software base is huge compared to the Mac. And emulation is dead on the mac compared to the PC.

I agree with Harrison on this. Even if i love the design of Macs, i won't pay more for less performances :nuts:
But, i must say that i find the desktop of Windows ugly and boring and i don't think that it's getting any better with the newer versions (vista,...). The son of my sister has managed to install Mac OS on his eepc and it works fine.
My dream would be a windows version that would have the looks of a MAC OS (without having to use 3rd party softwares), or at least something a bit better than the usual ugly microsoft design...
But Mac OS isn't the only OS i find more cute, i also like Gnome or Blackbox for example...

Harrison
4th June 2009, 09:49
You can trick OSX to be installed on any PC if you have the hacks to patch the installer. It isn't straight forward though and doesn't work with every PC.

As for running Amiga OS4 on a PPC Mac. Some have supposedly achieved it on a Mac Mini. Here (http://www.truveo.com/Amiga-OS4-runs-on-MAC-MINI/id/737162892) is a video showing it in action. There also seem to be quite a few torrent hits for the Mac Mini hacked version of Amiga OS 4. Not sure about compatibility with other PPC macs though.

Bloodwych
25th July 2009, 21:29
I love the variations in people's desktops - so many different themes. :)

Mines just the standard Royal Noir/Remixed theme with a few additions to keep it interesting.

Update - I just added a moon clock as well. It shows the time plus the current cycle!

How cool is that? :D

Demon Cleaner
26th July 2009, 21:13
The moon clock is indeed nice :)

Bloodwych
27th July 2009, 12:50
It is a great bit of kit - even looked out the window to check it was working - LOL!

Harrison
27th July 2009, 12:56
Some cool additions to your desktop. Vista icons in XP I see! ;)

Could you list what extra you have installed to produce that desktop? I would be interested to know. That moon clock is great too.

I once installed Stardock to play around and customise an XP system and that was very quickly removed again. It had huge system resource overheads and was quite unstable at the time.

Bloodwych
27th July 2009, 14:45
I agree, you have to be careful and I'm quite similar in requiring low resource usage for desktop apps. I usually check how much they're using the hard drive or banging the registry, although with a monitoring app you will get registry use nearly every second.

The stuff on my pic are all very light on resources. Uses about 30MB of RAM in total; 20MB if you use a calendar widget rather than a stand alone program like I have.

The programs in use are:

Theme - Royale remixed (you'll have to patch your UXTheme.dll file, as Microsoft don't allow third party themes by default. If you don't want to do that, take a look at zune or other official themes). Brilliant theme, highly compatible (I've had no issues) and very good to look at. Comes with the default wallpaper shown and the icons.

Mac like dockbar - RocketDock (uses very little CPU also).

Calender with scheduling facilities - Rainlendar lite

Widgets, desktop monitors - Rainmeter (also check out Samurize).

Can't remember where all the original scripts came from for Rainmeter, you'll have to search (there are hundreds of themes I was browsing at the time).

I had a little tidy up yesterday and rewrote some of the scripts to update less often and look a little better:

Stephen Coates
30th September 2010, 11:58
Here is my current Windows XP desktop. I don't really use Windows XP much though.

http://stevecoates.net/stuff/desktop300910.jpg

Here is the cool background image: http://stevecoates.net/stuff/a500bg.jpg
Which came from this photograph: http://stevecoates.net/photos/fp4/35a500.jpg

I'm not sure whether that is my own A500+, or the one which ED209 sent me.

And if you enjoy seeing black and white photographs of computers which were taken with 50mm/f1.8 lenses, here is one of my current PC's motherboard: http://stevecoates.net/photos/fp4/11motherboard.jpg.

Chewieshmoo
11th October 2010, 09:00
Windows 7 Ult. 64 bit. Nothing Too special but I like it.

http://i.imgur.com/KLQSZ.jpg

Harrison
11th October 2010, 15:49
There are some great images available via NASA. Very nice.

Opening this thread, I just realised I'm still using the same main Star Wars wallpaper as I was back on the first page of this thread. I've yet to find anything better, and it has followed me over to a newer system. :) I do however change the other Star Wars images on the other 2 monitors collected to the same system. Currently I have quite a cool light saber images from Force Unleashed concept art.

651

Chewieshmoo
12th October 2010, 03:05
There are some great images available via NASA. Very nice.

Opening this thread, I just realised I'm still using the same main Star Wars wallpaper as I was back on the first page of this thread. I've yet to find anything better, and it has followed me over to a newer system. :) I do however change the other Star Wars images on the other 2 monitors collected to the same system. Currently I have quite a cool light saber images from Force Unleashed concept art.

651

Star Wars Desktops are always cool, I think there should be great images coming up from Star Wars the Force Unleashed if the trailers so far are anything to go by.

Bloodwych
29th October 2010, 13:10
I'm moving over to Windows 7 64-bit now via a dual boot, but still tend to use XP 32-bit for many things as it's setup just as I like it (pics above). Change is hard.

Now I'm forcing the move to Windows 7 and looking to leave XP behind for day to day stuff. At the moment, everything is mostly default, but I'll change that soon. To my surprise, I now find a vertical taskbar is much more efficient with modern widescreen monitors, aided by the way Windows 7 stacks windows onto one icon with progress bars and without labels! The taskbar at the bottom was designed for 4:3 monitors back in the day, so I forced myself to try something new. Took a few hours to get used to it, but now I can't go back.

In my opinion, much of the widescreen monitor space is wasted left and right of the desktop, with a limited vertical resolution for applications but too much resolution horizontally. So why waste vertical space with a taskbar? Let your browser have it - it needs it more! I'll probably place a mac style dock launcher along the bottom now with auto hide. Since very few menus exist on the bottom now, it won't get activated and popup by accident. :)

Here is what I mean (won't be everyone's cup of tea, and may interfere if you run multi-monitors side-by-side):

Harrison
29th October 2010, 13:45
I don't think I could get on with the taskbar at the side, and love the Win7 dock feature, with stacking icons, so you need keep having loads of extra program tabs across the bottom of the screen. That idea really was a huge improvement to the OS. And widescreen monitors for me are great for anything timeline based such as video editing or flash. Also for me most applications have a lot of control panels around the screen, so a wider screen is great to keep those off to the side.

I do agree that for websites and reading anything like a PDF or other documents move vertical real estate is definitely needed. Some people even have a widescreen monitor setup in portrait for this next to their main monitor, which is an interesting solution.

Bloodwych
29th October 2010, 16:24
Most people will agree with you Harrision. We are talking taskbar at bottom since the Windows 95 days!!! It's like a tradition.

It felt so wrong to me at first, never looked right when I saw others with it at the side in past years, but I've found it works best for me now I've gone 1080p combined with the all new Windows 7 stacking taskbar. :)

I can see how some apps with huge menus left and right would conflict - like photoshop! But there is still plenty of space.

Stephen Coates
29th October 2010, 16:25
Not sure I would like a vertical taskbar, but I can see the advantage on a widescreen monitor.

I've never quite seen the advantage of widescreen monitors. Timelines are a good example as harrison mentions, but for most of my use (which usually involves web pages/documents/programme listings), a monitor which is taller is better.

Bloodwych
29th October 2010, 16:32
You're right Stephen - the only real benefits are video and films, if you watch them on your PC from time to time. Games also look good in widescreen, so it's more of a media thing, as is the actual 1080p resolution thrown around these days.

But as you said, for general work you need the vertical and squarer resolutions but those are getting phased out in favour of cheaper 1080p mass-produced panels. :(

Stephen Coates
29th October 2010, 19:16
I've been looking at LCDs recently*. It seems the majority are 16:9 and have a resolution of 1920x1080, for HD stuff. Of course that will probably be fine for a lot of people's needs, as it is still bigger than 1280x960 and 1280x1024, with the advantage of being able to play HD video.

But there are a few around which are 16:10 and have resolutiuons of 1920x1200 which would be a lot better than 1920x1080.

*There is a small possibility that I may get one, if someone else helps pay for it.

Teho
29th October 2010, 20:53
Hadn't even crossed my mind, but when you mentioned it I immediately dragged it over to the right side of the screen. It's been like that now for a total time of about a minute and a half and I'm allready convinced it's a better solution.

Way back, during the Win9x era I used the Office toolbar in the same manner. So it's not totally unfamiliar to have it there. Just never thought about it. You could move it around in XP too though, couldn't you?

Bloodwych
29th October 2010, 21:31
Ho Teho, why yes you certainly could. And many people did, by accident and design. :D

It never worked quite as well on 4:3 monitors as you lost too much horizontal res and even on widescreen the lack of stacked icons and wider windows bars with labels made it less efficient, sometimes awkward looking. People did find good solutions in XP however using the vertical bar.

You can also add a quick launch type addition too, a bit like the one in XP. Place a folder on your desktop called Launch or something. Then copy or drag your desktop shortcuts inside. I drag mine as I don't like too many icons on the desktop.

Then right click on the taskbar and create a new toolbar. Select the Launch folder on your desktop in the requester and watch as all the icons appear, just like the old quick launch. You can remove text labels and make them small - plus they auto arrange into neat columns depending on the width of the taskbar. I'll add a picture here once I'm finished.

Harrison
30th October 2010, 00:36
No need to go to that trouble to recreate the old Quick Launch bar on the task bar. The Quick Launch bar is still built into Win 7, but deactivated as standard. I have it working in Win 7 for apps that I don't use every day, so don't want in the quick launch always there icons.

To reactivate the Quick Launch bar in Windows 7 just follow the simple steps at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/975784

Bloodwych
30th October 2010, 08:21
Thanks Harrision, that's exactly the same method as I mentioned, but using the original quicklaunch folder rather than a custom one on your desktop. Nice to see it in pics. I prefer using the desktop folder as it gets rid of all my icons once dragged into there and automatically positions them into the taskbar.

Good to know however quicklaunch is still around, as the "pinned" apps on the start menu don't wrap properly when it fills up (ie you expand the taskbar, instead of lining up into columns, they just get wider and a scroll bar appears). See here: http://blog.tarunaggrawal.com/2010/01/vertical-taskbar-the-yet-again-neglected-child-of-windows-7/

That's why quick laucnch is still a useful feature.

gkjand
19th December 2010, 11:34
http://www.wallpaperphotoshare.com/files/original_photos/mount-rainier-wallpapers_14051_1024x7685148.jpg (http://www.wallpaperphotoshare.com/photo/members/viewphoto/5148/mount-rainier-wallpapers-14051-1024x768.html)