The author is talking about a new way of working with your desktop that all other desktop environments are not capable of.įor example, you can spatially separate files presented on your desktop by functionality and activity.

Make the work first and then talk, and no, folder view and desktop activities are not the next big thing. Im sorry, I won’t fall in that KDE4 hype again. In what way, assuming of course you’ve used OS/2? OS/2 was more revolutionary that what is described there. Of course Microsoft could have stopped being lazy and developed the basic idea further, but they didn’t. It was merely somewhere to put program icons and launch them. It’s nothing like it, not intended to be like it and the program manager was never intended to be a means for organising files and content. I’m also greatly amused that a lot of exceptionally well informed people are comparing this to Windows 3.1. What it didn’t do was help you organise your desktop content. Active Desktop was a means to try and put internet content on your desktop, and in reality, was intended as a conduit to MSN by Microsoft. It might help if you got a clue and understood what Active Desktop actually was. Saying ‘not revolutionary’ is a very easy to say, but I still see desktops around like the one in the article of Vista, with people getting no help whatsoever from the computer to organise their stuff – which is what computers are intended to be used for.įolder view on the desktop? Windows had that for 10 years already through Active Destop and noone uses it…

None of them revolutionary… If that was the only thing I read about KDE, it would make me want to stay away from it.

Download skype for windows xp 2005