|
Description
Actually, we have 5 wallpapers, 9 themes and 80+ SCREENSAVERS!!!
WHAT THE HELL!
Who need that amount of screensavers?
I think we should vote five to the default installation, and the other ones comes with a optional package?
Isn't gnome "keep it simple"?
For me just a "dim screen" is enough for default.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
taron wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 15:31
|
No. I want more of them, they're great, funny AND good to impress Windows guys.
I don't how many space on the CD they need, but I don't think it's that much.
|
|
forteller wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 16:00
| |
A lot of the screensavers are really terrible! Not very impressive at all. I say remove the junk, keep the quality! (But make sure it's easy to get the rest of the screensavers back for those who want them. Like an removed-screensaver package or something).
|
|
RyanPrior wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 16:44
| |
Fewer screen savers with more options, please! Having a few really cool and configurable screen savers would be the most impressive by far.
|
|
Anubisxian wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 16:57
|
I'd say, leave all of them in there, but please include the option to customize each one.
Even the so-so ones are better then the most Windows screensavers... half the time, windows screensavers ask you for money every five minutes.
|
|
dino99 wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 16:57
|
make them optional
who care about except geek and kids ?
It's a serious OS not a play station
|
|
Mario92 wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 17:38
| |
My computer doesn't even run but only couple of them :(
|
|
Dark Star wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 17:44
| |
Provide good screen saver . rather than adding useless screen saver :|
|
|
alvevind wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 18:11
|
I agree there are *way* too many, and most of the are not very interesting or useful and seem very dated.
Keep the 15-20 best ones and scrap the rest.
Just post a poll on ubuntuforums.org or somewhere, and you'll have 100 people helping out selecting the best ones in zero time.
(Make the lousy ones available through the repository if people moan about needing them.)
|
|
Steve413z wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 18:39
| |
one of the most annoying screensavers on ubuntu, is "blank screen"... if the screen is blank, TURN OFF THE MONITOR, don't waste the energy (especially on laptops)
|
|
mikedep333 wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 18:51
|
Hello people. Don't forget that many of these screensavers are in the "extra" packages. Perhaps we should put more of them into "extra" packages.
Don't remove choices. Simply separate the commonly desired ones from the less desired ones in "extra" packages.
|
|
bigdufstuff wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 18:59
| |
I don't understand why there is _ANY_ screensaver by default. It seems like there should only be "turn screen off". If people want the actual screensavers (who looks at their computer when they aren't using it?) they can install the package.
|
|
supersonicdarky wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 19:46
| |
leave about 10, preferably mostly 2d ones that don't require 3d acceleration. put the rest in a package called screensaver-pack or something, and as pointed out many times before, make them configurable.
|
|
brownknight wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 19:49
|
+1
Quality first. Minimize the list to a select few based on quality and theme and put the rest in a package that can be added by the user as an option.
|
|
ssam wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 20:37
| |
and encourage people to turn their monitors off
|
|
Őry Máté wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 20:39
| |
I can't understand at all why we screen savers need by default. Energy saving should be the first. Screen saver is obsolete.
|
|
Lee wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 20:41
|
The more the merrier -- especially for random mode.
AS LONG AS THEY WORK, that is. Often, they don't.
|
|
Lee wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 20:43
| |
BTW people, screensavers are not intended to be impressive (not as their main feature, anyway) they're supposed to **save** your **screen**. To do that, the main requirement is lots of movement, with no static areas of color/brightness/contrast. Many of the "impressive" screensavers are actually damaging to your screen.
|
|
ebrahim wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 21:44
|
The best screen saver I know (in term of saving the screen): a blank screen.
But screen savers of Ubuntu are really great. I love most of them :D
|
|
Estesark wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 23:03
|
"80+ screensavers"? Don't know where you're getting that from, I've only got 78... ;)
I agree that it's too many. I think that twenty or so should be enough, and at least half of those should be able to run without a decent graphics card - my GeForce 7100 GS (no comments please) isn't able to display most of the current batch at a decent speed, and as there isn't a configuration option, I'm stuck with dimming the screen.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 01:34
|
5 screen savers?
That is too few!
PS. The SkyRocket screensaver is absolutely awesome, I watch it like a little kid!
|
|
facundocorradini wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 01:43
|
I agree...
Maybe getting some screensavers out will make some space to include more Wallpapers
|
|
johno wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 02:33
|
Screensavers have been obsolete for years. Even CRTs have had DPMS standby modes for a long time that give substantial power savings and negligable resume time. But now with LCDs there isn't an issue of burn-in anyhow, and they benefit even more from switching the display to standby.
I guess a fade to blank screen after 10 minutes, and the DPMS standby one minute later, would be a reasonable default. But overall, the dozens of low-quality "screen-savers" don't worry me too much - because blank-screen is all that's needed anyhow.
But for the people that insist on chewing through a needless 40W of power to have a moving pretty picture showing it makes sense to cull back the default list.
|
|
hypercube24 wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 02:36
| |
I love the screensavers, they keep my cat entertained for hours! ;-) bb
|
|
johno wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 02:42
|
Come to think of it, why isn't there a button to press or click to "turn display backlighting off now"? Basically a keybinding or toolbar icon to "xset dpms force standby"
That way when you get up and leave a computer you can tell it to start saving straight away. (better still engage S3 suspend... but the overall most popular idea is most popular for a reason :-(
|
|
mmcmonster wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 12:01
|
3 meta-packages should be made:
screensavers (default installation) - should have ~10-15 2-D only screen savers.
screensavers-extra - should have all the other screensavers that do not requite openGL/compiz.
screensavers-3d - should have screensavers that require a 3d rendering engine/graphics card (openGL/compiz).
|
|
amiga_os wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 13:32
|
Absolutely. mmcmonster is right... though, like the original idea, I think 5 screensavers is more than enough for the default install.
After all, space screensavers use on the CD could be used for something else. There's loads of other things that are higher priority than having a tonne of screensavers, most of which don't work.
The only reason we have so many screensavers, is they're a cool thing to do when you're learning to program.
|
|
ubunteando wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 22:38
| |
I never use screensaver actually... Just keep 3 or 4 different ones and let them be configurable.
|
|
gh wrote on the 16 Mar 08 at 13:06
| |
There should be no 3D screensaver installed by defaut, because at least one of them makes the computer freeze (I don't remember the message it displayed).
|
|
xiphias wrote on the 19 Mar 08 at 20:11
|
Actually, i like having LOTS of them. A filter on quality would be a good idea, but i still think it is one of the features that impresses a lot of people new to ubuntu, thanks to the fact that you do not need to change anything on your newly installed system to have this. And, turning them off is easy.
At least it shows what creativity exists on the platform and within the OS-community in general.
|
|
arbulus wrote on the 25 Mar 08 at 18:31
|
Screensavers are completely obsolete. There is no such thing as burn-in on an LCD screen, which is exactly what screensavers were created to prevent. Since the condition no longer exists, I say do away with the solution. Beside that, they take a great deal of processing power to run, so your computer is using more power to run a screen saver than it would be just sitting there idle.
I say remove them completely from the default install and leave a "Screensavers" package in the repos that people can install if they really want them.
|
|
Primož Papič wrote on the 15 May 08 at 08:22
| |
Probably said before, preinstalled screen savers should energy efficient and should be simple; eg black screen, and maybe bouncing ubuntu logo, every other screen saver should be easily installed from the desktop settings -> screen savers...
|
|
dino wrote on the 16 Jun 08 at 13:48
|
Just to clarify:
> Isn't gnome "keep it simple"?
yes. gnome comes with about 5 IIRC.
All others came from http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/ (not part of gnome)
|
|
ebrahim wrote on the 16 Jun 08 at 20:25
| |
@arbulus: There are still many CRTs out there. And showing a blank screen eats less power than showing anything else!
|
|
AFarris01 wrote on the 2 Jul 08 at 17:24
| |
i agree. as much as i like some of the screen savers, having 75-80 by default is stretching it a little. great idea to pull the excess off into a separate package...but i definitely don't think they should be removed completely. screen savers may be largely obsolete now in terms of their original intended use, but lots of people still like them just because they look neat. isnt that enough reason to keep them, albeit drastically cut back?
|
|
ImperfectLink wrote on the 17 Jul 08 at 16:59
| |
Perhaps it would be good to have only 5 or so screensavers and have a button to "Get more Screensavers".
|
Post your comment
|
