Re: Do Microsoft?s Copilot+ PCs Require Linux?

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On 2024-05-29 11:31 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2024-05-29, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On 2024-05-29 1:38 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:19:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>
On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:04:39 -0400, Joel wrote:

>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>
On Tue, 28 May 2024 01:55:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>

No, because it's [WinXP] a good UI and some stuff still works..from
what I heard.

>
Really?? That Fisher-Price toy-style UI was a “good UI”?

>
You could switch it to look mostly like Win2000.

>
You’re admitting that an even older UI out of the 1990s was
nicer-looking than XP?

>
2000's UI was a bit enhanced over 9x, actually ...

>
Really?? Now you’re resorting to comparing it with even older, DOS-based
Windows to try to make it look good?

>
Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
Windows was spectacular, so Microsoft's decision to base XP on it was a
smart one. It was stable, fast and it looks better than every Windows
95-like Linux desktop environment *to this day*. You're desperately
trying to bury it, but it is only because you're jealous that a bunch of
"untalented" programmers managed in 1999 to do something Linux
developers still can't manage to do twenty-five years later. Not one
person who looks at a Linux desktop environment today is impressed by
how it looks. Grab a random, non-technical person from the street and
show them Linux Mint and Windows 2000 side-by-side, and I promise you
they would choose to use the latter despite its obsolescence. Switch
Cinnamon for GNOME and the result would be the same. Your serious
delusion won't change that fact. None of these people give a flying Snit
if Mint uses the same kernel as is being used on supercomputers.

 
I used Windows 2000. It's inferior to Cinnamon, or Mate or Xfce in my
opinion. (Of course these desktops have the advantage of running on top of
Linux.) But I can't quite understand why you run down Linux UIs that look
like the Windows' UI — what is it about Windows 2000's UI that you think is
somehow unique compared to other Windows desktops?

>
Whether D'Oliveiro wants to admit it or not, Windows 2000 and XP both
looked like professional operating systems when they were released, and
they had a polished look which is often sorely lacking from Linux
desktop environments.

You keep saying this, but what is the supposed "significant difference"
between XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows 10 or 11 compared to Cinnamon,
Xfce (the way LM sets it up) or Mate? Personally I like Cinnamon (or Mate or
Xfce) more than its Windows counterparts, but I'm curious as to what you're
seeing that I don't see.

Aside from Ubuntu which always manages to make
GNOME look great, the desktop environment of choice in most
distributions always has elements which simply don't look right. It's
still a fantastic environment which allows you to do every job you can
think of and more very effectively, but there is no reason to criticize
the way that any version of Windows has looked when the current crop of
Linux desktop environments don't look better at all.

I'm not a fan of Ubuntu, originally because of Unity and then the Gnome 3
desktop — now I'm also not crazy about its use of Snaps. I'm also not a fan
of moving my furniture around, just so my house "looks different." If you
like Gnome 3, that's great. (I do have Ubuntu installed on a computer and I
can get around on it, but I don't really like it. Choice is good.)

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine