KDE 4.0 Beta 4 Desktop

[phoronix]

Phoronix: KDE 4.0 Beta 4 Desktop

KDE 4.0 Beta 4 was released earlier today and it features a number of bug fixes along with cleaning up the KDE code-base and at the same time adding a few new enhancements to the KDE 4.0 feature set. The OpenSuSE-based KDE Four LiveCD was also upgraded this afternoon to version 0.6. With the changes in KDE 4.0 Beta 4 and the shear number of improvements in KDE 4.0, we have taken some screenshots from this latest testing release and have them here for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=11339

[Thetargos]

Maybe it is just me, but I don't really like CoverFlow, much less Amarok trying to imitate a feature from iTunes. Amarok is much superior to iTunes (IMHO), that "copying" something from it seems like a "regression". I like way more the way the Amarok OSD can easily be set to suit your current DE theme and color scheme and how the album cover is displayed on it, as it also does in the "tooltip" in the sys-area. I've not seen such features in iTunes (and I hope I won't) of any version I've seen (5-7). The simplified GUI looks nice, though. Much cleaner (is it me or KDE is kind of adopting GUI guidelines similar to GNOME's in terms of UI cleanness?)

[disturbedsaint]

IMHO KDE looks even worse (using the standard settings/theme) than it did before :/
For example: http://www.phoronix.net/image.php?id...kde_4b4_08_lrg

It just looks like it is thrown together, ugly fonts, ugly scrollbar, etc.


I always preferred GNOME > KDE, simply because of the look and feel.
Since most of the "experienced" Linux users always state that KDE is much more advanced (and I would like to use a couple of QT apps) I was kinda hoping KDE4 would be/look/feel better, but it seems like it wont.

[d2kx]

IMHO KDE looks even worse (using the standard settings/theme) than it did before :/
For example: http://www.phoronix.net/image.php?id...kde_4b4_08_lrg

It just looks like it is thrown together, ugly fonts, ugly scrollbar, etc.


I always preferred GNOME > KDE, simply because of the look and feel.
Since most of the "experienced" Linux users always state that KDE is much more advanced (and I would like to use a couple of QT apps) I was kinda hoping KDE4 would be/look/feel better, but it seems like it wont.

The font is misconfigurated by the guy that has shot this screenshot. With a proper font, the whole thing would look much better. And Oxygen isn't final yet.

[yoshi314]

It just looks like it is thrown together, ugly fonts, ugly scrollbar, etc.


I always preferred GNOME > KDE, simply because of the look and feel.
Since most of the "experienced" Linux users always state that KDE is much more advanced (and I would like to use a couple of QT apps) I was kinda hoping KDE4 would be/look/feel better, but it seems like it wont.

you know, kde is configurable. that won't change in kde4.

i don't really care about screenshots, because i always change my system's look the way I want it.

are you saying that the way the desktop looks by default is the reason to switch?

[Thetargos]

It just looks like it is thrown together, ugly fonts, ugly scrollbar, etc.

That can always change. However if font AA is an issue in KDE4 I'd be worried (as it seems to be the case in the Screenshot).

I always preferred GNOME > KDE, simply because of the look and feel.
Since most of the "experienced" Linux users always state that KDE is much more advanced (and I would like to use a couple of QT apps) I was kinda hoping KDE4 would be/look/feel better, but it seems like it wont.

I've always liked GNOME better than KDE for a number of reasons over the past years. However I do use many QT applications, and even some that rely on KDE specifically (like Amarok or K3B which require you to at least have a slim KDE installation). I don't have to "switch" to use them... The downside for me in KDE is its "clutter". The UI (up to 3.x) seems to be too cluttered, any options screen is too cluttered, no way to distinguish core features, cosmetic features, extra features right from the GUI... I don't think GNOME is perfect either, as some times it is oversimplified (giving the impression of less features and options). However the way GNOME has managed to have some more advanced, seldom used features by most of users as "gconf" controls (sort of like the Windows registry, but for apps and DE options only, no system non-sense) is better... Still some times a more refined GUI would be better (separating core features, from extra features, and advanced features, without clutter... not an easy task, by any means). At any rate, what I've seen of KDE4 seems to be more "Mac-like" (hence GNOME-like) than previous versions.

[ashtray]

grahhhh.. pleaaaase, somebody hire a good designer to make normal icons and normal style!!!!!!

I know that all this is configurable (you can even draw all icons by yourself), but.. grahh.. is it difficult to make a realy good default design for example to attract even more users?..

I realy don't understand them (since I'm both C++ programmer and designer)...

[disturbedsaint]

are you saying that the way the desktop looks by default is the reason to switch?

It's not something that would be reason to not use it.
But I do partially judge about something based on how it looks in stock form, as would every regular person using it.

I tried many times to make KDE look like GNOME/clearlooks (since I like the way GNOME/clearlooks looks), but I never managed to do so.
And I think that is a valid reason for not using it.