Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
quadrox
wrote on the 4 Jan 09 at 23:02
|
|
|
I agree completely, however I suspect that there are a lot of people who use their computer only to show of their cool screensavers who will vote this down.
Time will tell...
|
|
|
|
agree completelly as well - there are screensavers, which not only are painfully ugly, as well abuses OpenGL and crashes non-3d boards like those simple and old S3-trio, and all those very simple vesa-based 2d boards...
|
|
iKonaK
wrote on the 5 Jan 09 at 01:12
|
|
|
|
I hate screensavers and system sounds, are totally useless and annoying.
|
|
Ferk
wrote on the 5 Jan 09 at 02:08
|
|
|
|
If you set a password for it, screensavers are a nice way to lock your computer when you are away but you want keep it working.
|
andruk
(Idea reviewer)
wrote on the 5 Jan 09 at 05:39
|
|
|
Remove some of the crappy GL ones and substitute something tasteful like the roving XP icon in Windows (except of course with the Ubuntu logo) on a black screen. Include the GL screensavers for those who still want them in the repos.
+1
|
|
boteeka
wrote on the 5 Jan 09 at 09:06
|
|
|
Screensavers are still useful even on LCD screens, but for a different purpose than they were originally designed. They can show useful information on the screen (like the clock, calendar events, number of new emails received, etc.).
Or, they are just pure fun :-).
|
|
|
|
I like my screensavers...
|
|
|
|
I would want 1 or 2 to remain
|
|
Gigi33
wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 00:31
|
|
|
iKonaK wrote on the 5 Jan 09 at 01:12
> I hate screensavers and system sounds, are totally useless and annoying.
Seconded.
|
|
wootah
wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 01:32
|
|
|
Waste of energy... sure, but I still think they are fun to play around with and some of them can be quite visually appealing :)
Plus I think it gives some of the 'average' users something to play with. I would even go as far as saying the majority of the population believes that they are necessary these days.
+- 0
|
|
Feba
wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 02:13
|
|
|
|
Clearly we need to have at least a few basic ones; a customizable information screen (time, RSS feed.) and one just to let the user know their computer didn't die (Say, a rotating Ubuntu logo) and so people know there ARE screensavers; other than that I agree this is a bit of fat we could easily trim. I'd also rather see screensavers distributed one at a time, like every other aspect of the GUI, instead of in bulk packs. I see no reason someone should need to install other screensaver programs and keep dozens of screensavers sitting around just to get the one they want.
|
|
|
|
Why remove them? Screensavers may not be strictly necessary anymore, but they're fun, and they don't take much space on disk. One of the things I rather like about Ubuntu is that it's designed for how people use computers, and part of that, like it or not, does include screensavers.
|
|
Feba
wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 09:24
|
|
|
|
HBK: I don't think anyone wants to remove screensavers completely; just have them not take up space as part of the DEFAULT INSTALL. Just like we shouldn't be providing megabytes of wallpaper when one or two attractive ones will do.
|
|
shinger
wrote on the 6 Jan 09 at 16:34
|
|
|
+0
I agree with some people here that some screensavers just have to be removed. They just don't added anything to the OS it self.
But a complete remove of the screensaver its not a very good idea. People are just use to it to have screensavers. Its adds a bit to the system and its kind of good to have one if your system usually locks it self after 10 minutes and after 1 minute it uses a screensaver you would know after going away for 5 minutes that somebody would have messed with your computer.
|
|
DannyB2
wrote on the 15 Jan 09 at 15:33
|
|
|
Separate scream savers into two types:
1. Functional (eg, weather, stock price, calendar, etc.)
2. Eye Candy
Make it more clear that cpu intensive eye candy screen savers may use more energy.
Make it more clear that setting screen saver to turn off monitor is more energy efficient.
|
|
lavinog
wrote on the 8 Feb 10 at 21:31
|
|
|
I did a test on a xp machine once:
Idle the system drew
|
|
lavinog
wrote on the 8 Feb 10 at 21:33
|
|
|
ok, that was weird my post got truncated.
basically I tested a screensaver on xp and the system used more than twice as much power to display it.
Also screensavers damage lcd screens.
|
Post your comment
|
