Are Mac users better skinners?
Saturday, November 15, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Anyone who's been watching TechTV's The Screen Savers lately has seen Konfabulator. A MacOS program that is the equivalent of the DesktopX object feature. You can think of Konfabulator as being the closest thing to DesktopX on the Mac.
But whether it is Konfabulator or Kaleidoscope before it or even some of the other Mac skinning programs, as well as the icons, there has been an ongoing debate, over the years, over who is better at skinning. Mac users or PC users?
On the PC side, programs like WindowBlinds, DesktopX, ObjectBar, Sysmetrix, Hoverdesk, and many others have more sophisticated features that allow technically adapt PC users to create a lot of interesting things. On the Mac side, while a much smaller market contains a lot of graphics designers and artists.
Anyone that's been on one of the mailing lists for the Mac skinning programs knows that Mac users are pretty convinced that they're a lot better at skinning (and are convinced that PC users are a bunch of rippers -- a charge, that while over generalized, we all have seen how little respect some people have for the rights of skinners).
So now Konfabulator is coming out for Windows. My view is, if Konfabulator becomes more popular somehow than DesktopX then we're a bunch of losers who deserve to be on the ash heap of history. With a 2 year head start and a lot more features (and DesktopX is cheaper!) the only way I can see DesktopX losing is through either a) Stardock sucking at development or 
Stardock sucking at marketing or c) Our community unable to compete with the Mac community's skinning prowess.
 |
|
Page 5 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #82 Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:59 AM
| DesktopX objects are just .PNG and .XML. |
no. not at all. the main config file is package.ini which is not XML. also DesktopX objects can contain binaries (the 99% that you say that don´t are mostly shotcuts). and again those binaries are configured in INI files without XML structure.
is the ability to expand DesktopX an advantage? for sure. we are mostly talking about cross-platform stuff here though. the problems Konfabulator might have here are to be solved in the main EXE file, not in the widgets.
for repacking they could just hire a college student. just because it will take 10 clicks instead of one that´s not hard work. cut some wood, that´s work.
i think that it´s a commercial product gives it an advantage for marketing. for some strange reasons they are taken more seriously than freeware developers. something you are probably aware of. maybe they also did a better marketing somehow. for somebody that is not part of this skinning world your DesktopX marketing might have led to the impression the program is about having a fishtank on your desktop. not really what anybody would feature on a tv show.
IPlural: i´m not assuming anything on Konfabulator. why should i? i use Rainmeter. it works perfectly for my needs, so why should i pay for something else? that no warranties thing is something you should really think about though. way more important than copyright mumbo-jumbo.
[Message Edited]
Reply #84 Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:29 AM
I see intergration potential... programs and on-line interaction with web servers... MAD STUFF!!!
Also mutli-media deplays, marketing (music, vidoes, games, personalities, shows), infomation (MTA, Schools, goverment agencies), and all sorts of stuff.
Sometimes I feel like I am the only person who sees all of this stuff.
I feel so lonley.
Reply #85 Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:23 PM
Moshi,
All scripts are handled as XML internally.
I see what you mean about binaries though. When I say binaries, I am thinking of executables and DLLs. There won't ever be a Mac version of DesktopX (or Linux) as we've never had any interest in making DesktopX for those platforms so cross-compatibility is not a focus for DesktopX's development.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 5 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #81 Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:31 PM
Actually 2 years ago Industrial Light and Magic bought a bunch of Dual CPU NT boxes and they run Maya amoung other Windows based apps. More and more over the last 2 years have also followed suit with them. They run Linux SMP Servers with Maya and other Linux/Unix/Intel based apps doing the Gorillia share of the storage and app serving. Including Photoshop.
MAC is still in use, but it is not holding on with a very good grip anymore in Hollywood. In some of the areas it had the larger portion of in times past.
MAC is going to have to come up with a plan that will allow it to run Linux/Unix ready apps and also run WIndows based apps in a stable virtual machine/process.
The move to Linux/Unix based systems for the most part was because of the costs of Windows servers and SGI servers. Though SGI has moved to the Intel based Workstations and SMP Servers in order to attempt regaining it's status as the best thing going in High end production.
I still want an SGI eventually
Oh and I would love to have Intergraph and most of the SGI production software with it
Maybe someone could make a Magic Oil Lamp widget so I could rub it dull with wishing for Christmas
MAC is the standard in Desktop Publishing, not CGI that I have ever heard or read of...
Which is slowly drifting from what some write about it..
[Message Edited]