Idea #6950: make alternative install look better

-40

Written by Mario92 the 13 Apr 08 at 19:15. Category: Look and Feel.
Related to: Nothing/Others. Status: New

Description

Now alternative install looks like 80's windows installer whic looks like s**t!
Even Windows 95 installer looks at least twice prettier than ubuntu installer! Just make it look itty pitty better

(sorry my english :)

Tags: (none)

Attachments

No attachments.

Duplicates

[Report a duplicate and merge its votes to this idea]

Comments

sajmon_phoenix wrote on the 13 Apr 08 at 19:34

thats ALTERNATE, for better look there's liveCD install here.
alternate is fast and simple, not good lookong...
-1

zooounds wrote on the 13 Apr 08 at 20:36

It's just fine. It's not meant to be the mainstream installer.

Eldmannen wrote on the 13 Apr 08 at 21:00

The alternative installer is supposed to be butt-ugly text-user interface.

Use the default installer.

Endperform wrote on the 14 Apr 08 at 00:30

There is a reason it's called the alternate installer. Some hardware configurations cannot deal with the default X drivers and cannot display a graphical environment.

Auzy wrote on the 14 Apr 08 at 01:56

His got a good point though.. Why can windows display graphics on pretty much everything without special drivers, and we cant?

Madman6510 wrote on the 14 Apr 08 at 03:25

The alt installer is designed for people that NEED a text installer.

The LiveCD exists for a reason...

vexorian wrote on the 14 Apr 08 at 03:40

"His got a good point though.. Why can windows display graphics on pretty much everything without special drivers, and we cant? "

* Because the devices are designed for it.
* Also, for windows XP the default installer is text based, it then actually overrides the MBR and copies some temporary files and drivers, so it installs windows before the installation finishes. So this makes it cuter... but it also makes it quite intrusive, it killed my installation once for doing this... I do not know how vista works though.

revzoe wrote on the 18 Apr 08 at 07:15

vexorian is quite correct. The windows installer has always been text based, they just get that part out of the way as quickly as possible. This is why windows reboots during installation. In this respect, the liveCD is vastly superior. There are, however, cases in which a liveCD simply will not work. So, if our only options besides liveCD are do harmful things without asking, or use a text based installer, we should firmly choose the second.

Post your comment