why QT has best look and feel?? - Xwindows

This is a discussion on why QT has best look and feel?? - Xwindows ; Hi!, I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or gtk(gimp). i know ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: why QT has best look and feel??

  1. why QT has best look and feel??

    Hi!,

    I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for
    quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel
    compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or
    gtk(gimp). i know they are not powerful like the ones developed with
    other x window tools but i am sure they look the best. I know that the
    KDE GUI has been built with QT, but why is that QT looks good whereas
    other suck!! :-). Could you please tell em why?.

    Thanx

    Sunny

  2. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    As is always the case with appearances, it boils down to personal tastes and
    biases. Aside from the inherent ugliness of Motif, GUIs are ugly or
    beautiful for the most part due to the eye of the beholder.

    This is most clearly demonstrated by Mac OSX. Mac users rave about how it's
    the most beautiful interface ever. Having seen many of its screenshots, I
    find it to be fairly attractive; but nothing extraordinary for the most
    part. Parts of it are beautiful, but it's just another theme to me. I
    think Keramik looks just as good.

    I had used GTK+ for a few years before discovering Qt, and I thought GTK+
    was very attractive. I now look back and wonder what I was thinking. My
    perceptions and biases have changed over time.

    sunil wrote:

    > Hi!,
    >
    > I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for
    > quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel
    > compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or
    > gtk(gimp). i know they are not powerful like the ones developed with
    > other x window tools but i am sure they look the best. I know that the
    > KDE GUI has been built with QT, but why is that QT looks good whereas
    > other suck!! :-). Could you please tell em why?.
    >
    > Thanx
    >
    > Sunny



  3. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    In comp.windows.x, Tony O'Bryan

    wrote
    on Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:12:40 -0600
    <1001fp2nbomt9fa@corp.supernews.com>:
    > As is always the case with appearances, it boils down to personal tastes and
    > biases. Aside from the inherent ugliness of Motif, GUIs are ugly or
    > beautiful for the most part due to the eye of the beholder.


    I'll agree in general but even Motif looks beautiful
    compared to straight Athena. :-)

    >
    > This is most clearly demonstrated by Mac OSX. Mac users rave about how it's
    > the most beautiful interface ever. Having seen many of its screenshots, I
    > find it to be fairly attractive; but nothing extraordinary for the most
    > part. Parts of it are beautiful, but it's just another theme to me. I
    > think Keramik looks just as good.


    I think it looks like an overdose of Nyquil, myself -- but it
    is colorful, I'll grant it that. :-) XP by contrast looks
    flat and uninteresting.

    >
    > I had used GTK+ for a few years before discovering Qt, and I thought GTK+
    > was very attractive. I now look back and wonder what I was thinking. My
    > perceptions and biases have changed over time.


    GTK is basic and slightly quirky (one has to drag the separator by
    the small box, for example -- a la Athena -- and not by simply
    dragging anywhere on the separator line). However, the internals
    are fairly clean, if a bit thin in spots with X shining through.
    (But X is so nice anyway I don't mind too much; it's when one
    goes outside of X that things get a little tarnished.)

    I'm going to have to see if Qt is as easy to work with using kdevelop.
    I'm curious now -- I've just written a very simple game (a C-based
    patriotic "bomb Osama" variant). Admittedly, it's not quite finished
    (preferences and scores are lacking) but I could for instance try to
    port it to Qt, Athena, raw X, and Win32.

    >
    > sunil wrote:
    >
    >> Hi!,
    >>
    >> I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for
    >> quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel
    >> compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or
    >> gtk(gimp). i know they are not powerful like the ones developed with
    >> other x window tools but i am sure they look the best. I know that the
    >> KDE GUI has been built with QT, but why is that QT looks good whereas
    >> other suck!! :-). Could you please tell em why?.
    >>
    >> Thanx
    >>
    >> Sunny

    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    It's still legal to go .sigless.

  4. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > I'm going to have to see if Qt is as easy to work with using kdevelop.


    Aside from a few quirks you have to deal with, KDevelop is very nice as a Qt
    development tool. I use it for development at work (I have a Linux/Windows
    Qt license -yay!-), for my Free software, and for my Open Source
    contracting work. I would be lost without it.


  5. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    asunil79@yahoo.com (sunil) wrote in message news:<410796a3.0401100904.17227b74@posting.google.com>...
    > Hi!,
    >
    > I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for
    > quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel
    > compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or
    > gtk(gimp). i know they are not powerful like the ones developed with
    > other x window tools but i am sure they look the best. I know that the
    > KDE GUI has been built with QT, but why is that QT looks good whereas
    > other suck!! :-). Could you please tell em why?.
    >
    > Thanx
    >
    > Sunny


    Whatever... I find Motif to be quite attractive. To me it looks clean,
    crisp, and professional. My only complaint with Motif is that it needs
    a new file dialog and a good color chooser (the one realeased in v2.2
    don't cut it).

    In my opinion Motif is presently the only legitimate toolkit for the X
    window system. Don't even get me started on Qt. The idea that a "cross-
    platform" toolkit should somehow be regarded as the native GUI toolkit for
    X is down right ridiculous, disgusting even. Neither Qt, nor Gtk integrate
    with X as well as Motif. In addition Motif consumes less memeory and runs
    faster than either. Motif draws it's widgets much better than Gtk.

    I look forward to the upcoming releases of Motif which are going to make
    some interesting and useful additions. Go here and look at some of the
    proposals:

    http://www.openmotif.net/forum/index.php?c=718

    I would like to see the Motif community become more active and start devel-
    oping a desktop (and applications) based on X11 and Motif technology. Hey,
    I'm no expert but I'm willing to try and jump in and do something. I don't
    view this as an attempt at world domination. Just an opportunity for those
    of us who like Motif to have an alternative to KDE/Qt or GNOME/Gtk.

  6. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    Use wrote:
    > asunil79@yahoo.com (sunil) wrote in message news:<410796a3.0401100904.17227b74@posting.google.com>...
    >
    >>Hi!,
    >>
    >>I have been using KDE and its various other tools (kdbg etc..) for
    >>quiet some time and i find that they have the best look and feel
    >>compared to other applications developed using motif(Xemacs, ddd..) or
    >>gtk(gimp). i know they are not powerful like the ones developed with
    >>other x window tools but i am sure they look the best. I know that the
    >>KDE GUI has been built with QT, but why is that QT looks good whereas
    >>other suck!! :-). Could you please tell em why?.
    >>
    >>Thanx
    >>
    >>Sunny

    >
    >
    > Whatever... I find Motif to be quite attractive. To me it looks clean,
    > crisp, and professional. My only complaint with Motif is that it needs
    > a new file dialog and a good color chooser (the one realeased in v2.2
    > don't cut it).
    >
    > In my opinion Motif is presently the only legitimate toolkit for the X
    > window system. Don't even get me started on Qt. The idea that a "cross-
    > platform" toolkit should somehow be regarded as the native GUI toolkit for
    > X is down right ridiculous, disgusting even. Neither Qt, nor Gtk integrate
    > with X as well as Motif. In addition Motif consumes less memeory and runs
    > faster than either. Motif draws it's widgets much better than Gtk.
    >
    > I look forward to the upcoming releases of Motif which are going to make
    > some interesting and useful additions. Go here and look at some of the
    > proposals:
    >
    > http://www.openmotif.net/forum/index.php?c=718
    >
    > I would like to see the Motif community become more active and start devel-
    > oping a desktop (and applications) based on X11 and Motif technology. Hey,
    > I'm no expert but I'm willing to try and jump in and do something. I don't
    > view this as an attempt at world domination. Just an opportunity for those
    > of us who like Motif to have an alternative to KDE/Qt or GNOME/Gtk.


    There's a project to port the Irix desktop (Indigo Magic) to OpenMotif
    and Linux: http://www.5dwm.org

    BTW, both Sun and HP have already abandoned Motif/CDE in favour of
    Gtk/GNOME (that is, they continue to support Motif and CDE but don't
    plan to make any more development on them).

    --
    Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.

    To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.


  7. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    neoholistic wrote in message news:...
    >
    > There's a project to port the Irix desktop (Indigo Magic) to OpenMotif
    > and Linux: http://www.5dwm.org
    >


    Thanks for the info.

    > BTW, both Sun and HP have already abandoned Motif/CDE in favour of
    > Gtk/GNOME (that is, they continue to support Motif and CDE but don't
    > plan to make any more development on them).


    Oh well, their loss As I said, I'm not seeking world domination, just
    an alternative.

    Thanks

  8. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:57:17 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > GTK is basic and slightly quirky (one has to drag the separator by
    > the small box, for example -- a la Athena -- and not by simply
    > dragging anywhere on the separator line).


    Thought I'd chime in here with a "hmh, are you, perchance, using
    one of those age-old gtk+ 1.x versions?", since my experience with
    the separators as a gnome/gtk user is that they can be dragged
    anywhere.

    --
    Mikko Rauhala - mjr@iki.fi -
    Transhumanist - WTA member -
    Singularitarian - SIAI supporter -


  9. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    > There's a project to port the Irix desktop (Indigo Magic) to OpenMotif
    > and Linux: http://www.5dwm.org
    >
    > BTW, both Sun and HP have already abandoned Motif/CDE in favour of
    > Gtk/GNOME (that is, they continue to support Motif and CDE but don't
    > plan to make any more development on them).
    >


    Let's not forget Sun's record of being wrong on toolkits before we mourn the
    demise of Motif... First there was NeWs, then XView, then OpenLook, and now
    GTK.. ;-)

    From my viewpoint (we make Motif GUI builders and Qt addon products), we're
    continuing to see heavy use of Motif in mission critical C++ systems
    developed and deployed on UNIX/Linux. And when people want crossplatform,
    they *seem* to be selecting Qt. I'm sure that it is used, I just don't seem
    to hear much about GTK.

    Mark



  10. Re: why QT has best look and feel??

    In comp.windows.x, Mikko Rauhala

    wrote
    on 16 Jan 2004 16:32:59 GMT
    :
    > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:57:17 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >> GTK is basic and slightly quirky (one has to drag the separator by
    >> the small box, for example -- a la Athena -- and not by simply
    >> dragging anywhere on the separator line).

    >
    > Thought I'd chime in here with a "hmh, are you, perchance, using
    > one of those age-old gtk+ 1.x versions?", since my experience with
    > the separators as a gnome/gtk user is that they can be dragged
    > anywhere.
    >


    Actually, yes; I'm using gtk 1.2. I'm gratified to hear it's been
    fixed in later versions.

    I like Debian but there are times when they get
    a little long in the tooth. :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    It's still legal to go .sigless.

+ Reply to Thread