Doesn't look quite like it yet, how to improve?

Alright, followed those instructions anyway and it looks pretty good.
However, gtk3 shit still looks like trash. How to fix that?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-24_11-16-21.png (1280x1024, 13K)

>gtk3 shit still looks like trash. How to fix that?
u can't

sad!

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-24_11-22-31.png (1280x1024, 76K)

Just install software normally. GUI package managers are silly.

Was just an example of shitty gtk3 window borders retard.

Then edit the size of window borders in your config files. It's rich that you call others retards when you're asking for help with such a simple task.

Tell me how

There should be a file for it, I don't use XFCE so I don't know where theirs is. They use XFWM or something right? So it'll be that file.

Dude I don't know. Windows manager that does GTK3 would probaby be metacity.

Window borders aren't much an issue, user.
GTK3 philosophically differs from Win95, and it's extremly hard, if possible, to make GTK3 look like Win95.
Just drop GTK3 altogether.

thought linux was supposed to be configurable

>windows theme on linux
cringe

You can compile any kernel you want. No one promised that XFCE is configurable.

Freetards told me I could do whatever I want but this is just No Man's Sky all over again

You don't have to use XFCE. There are dozens of DEs and WMs you can use.

why are you ruining what was once such a beautiful operating system?
this is like taking a woman thats a natural 10/10, giving her fake boobs, a spray tan, and starving her until shes 80lbs.
Have you no mercy in your soul!?

Which one will make everything work and look like Windows 9x?

You can. Source code is open for all to read and compile.

Any of them probably. There are plenty of taskbars and such to run on top of them.

>why are you ruining what was once such a beautiful operating system?
>gnome 3
>beautiful

he's on xfce,
gnome 3 is about as beautiful as the color black.
he's on linux though.
linux is a natural beauty, but she needs the right clothing.
i'd recommend a sophisticated desktop environment, designed for the 21st century.
Try WindowMaker.

>Be a linuxfag
>spend most of your time shitting on Windows design alone
>try to make their DE look like the shitty early windows experience
Within a few years these neckbeards will be trying to emulate the Metro experience.

>everyone who uses the Linux kernel shits on wangblows design

>that taskbar
>that text rendering
>the size and spacing of the desktop icons
ew

>unix porn
>everything is gnu/linux
yikes

That's the same font and icon spacing that Windows 95 used. Do you even remember it?

Attached: win95desktop2.png (640x480, 6K)

These themes are always shit, they never have perfect spacing and most programs installed are GTKshit that look like ass.
The closest anything got was KDE3 with a 9x theme, but even that was still shit. Lets not even start on the fact that nothing even begins to touch core features 9x had like custom colors.

None of you fucks ever have much more than a terminal window or browser open in these screenshots because anything else looks like putrid goat shit.
For this to be done, it needs to be the focus of the DE and not some crap theme that makes something else look like some bastardised version of 9x.

>implying everything desktop linux is not garbage tier

This. Only Mac OS X has an aesthetically pleasing and consistent design.

What do you think this thread is about you fucking brainlet freetard
>trying to make xfce look like win9x
>freetard tells me its impossible
>tell freetard the freetards told me its possible
>tells my I chose the wrong linux to do it with
>ask which to do it with
>"you can do it with any of them"
Fuck freetards

Fuck it, I'm mad so let's go.

>shit border around icon text
Luckily I don't have to think of a word to describe this as it's right there - trash.
>File Sys...
Literally the same amount of characters as "File System"
You and whoever else is responsible for that needs to be gassed.
>High color house inside dithered icon
I was going to give you points for using the improved icons from 98 but then you done fucked up.
>Single color in title bar
What is with this meme of X themes using something only 16color fags had to put up with? Gradients were a thing.
Sticking to default colors in general is shit. At least you used the superior blue for the background.
The minimise/maximise/close buttons look good I'll give it that, rest of the window is complete aids though.
>Shadows
I bet it feels like shit to use too.
That taskbar is piss poor, I have seen enough here.
0/10 Would not compute with.

>fuckhueg icons
Why?
>Mix of fonts that are anti-aliased and not
Does your crap GUI toolkit not let you change this?
>single color title bar again
Your command prompt icon is ~2px too high, menu bar is too thick
>terminal font
"Perfect DOS" My ass. Jesus Christ find a fucking bitmap version
>Shadows
What exactly are you going for here?

Task bar is better. 2/10

>Changed desktop color
I guess OP was a flaming faggot after all

>wrong linux
You don't need to compile a new kernel just to install a new WM?

OP here and I fully agree

I think the problem is GTK and Qt and stuff are all just shit and not actually as customizable as advertised. Newer versions even demand a streamlined look and feel. Also freetards have no concept of what looks good.

I cannot claim responsibility for all the shit that's wrong with it for these themes claim they will be faithful representations of Win9x but they all fail in so many ways.

>Why?
Have you used Windows 95? That's the scale of the icons.
>Does your crap GUI toolkit not let you change this?
Welcome to Windows 95.
>Your command prompt icon is ~2px too high, menu bar is too thick
No, it is correct.
>"Perfect DOS" My ass. Jesus Christ find a fucking bitmap version
Going for accuracy.
>What exactly are you going for here?
Accuracy.

What's the system font MS uses called? I downloaded MS fonts but I don't know which to use.

Tahoma.

it's a yikes from me dawg

That's better.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-24_13-33-57.png (1280x1024, 69K)

It literally only got the Start button right.

Attached: same.png (506x153, 9K)

>Do you even remember it?
I literally wrote a program for Windows 95 this year. It's not right. Nothing about that image is right.

Different resolutions, same scale. Font is Tahoma, should be M$ Sans-Serif. That's the only actual issue.
That doesn't make you an authority.

>That doesn't make you an authority.
Downloading poorly made clones by randos on GitHub surely makes you one then.

It isn't mine. I just use i3. I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

Do you always get this defensive over being wrong?

What are you on about now?

I'm just saying multiple people have called you out and your only defense is "no ur rong".

There is only one thing wrong with that screenshot, and it is the font. You have yet to show anything else, yet you continue to act like a snarky bitch. What's wrong with you?

Why the big icons though? Even if 95 had that feature, nobody used it.

>There is only one thing wrong with that screenshot, and it is the font.
And the taskbar outline, and the taskbar buttons, and the icons in the taskbar, and the taskbar clock, and the name for the recycle bin, and the spacing of just about everything in the image, and the anti-aliasing on the window title and terminal fonts. Really just about everything is wrong and you're retarded.

Explain why. Obviously the clock and applets are wrong, but that can't be changed without overhauling the XFCE4 bar.
>and the spacing of just about everything in the image
No, it's correct. I think you're just confused or upset.
>and the anti-aliasing on the window title and terminal fonts.
No, that is correct. The desktop font is just wrong.
>Really just about everything is wrong and you're retarded.
You sound like you're upset and just trying to vent. We all go through that phase, I guess.

I think NT 4 might've had support for large icons.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? Are you that kid that argues with the professor after missing problems?

>Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong?
I'm not the one throwing feces and screeching like a child. You have issues admitting you're wrong.
>Are you that kid that argues with the professor after missing problems?
I don't know who you're referring to, but I doubt it. Are you upset at him?

>I'm not the one throwing feces and screeching like a child. You have issues admitting you're wrong.
The image you're defending isn't even using the correct terminal for 95. Everything about it is wrong.
>I don't know who you're referring to, but I doubt it. Are you upset at him?
There it is again, pitiful.

Settle down laddie, no need to get this ass blasted over comments calling out your desktop theme.

>The image you're defending isn't even using the correct terminal for 95
Well obviously, xfce4-terminal didn't even exist then.
>There it is again, pitiful.
Look, I don't know who this "kid" is who you're having a spat with, but this isn't the place to air your dirty laundry.

install Q4OS

Attached: q4os.png (1920x1080, 292K)

>Well obviously, xfce4-terminal didn't even exist then.
Obviously. The point is even the title and icon are incorrect.

Post the theme that can be used on any distro and I'll humor it.

You know vaporwave has been dead for like five years at this point, right?
The title is correct. The icon should be MS-DOS, but it is for CMD.

What is Window Maker, alex?
There are lots of classic DE out there, if you want Windows classic just use windows 7, no point ricing out your meme linux OS to look like shittier imitation of windows

Attached: 2018-09-24-203607_1920x1080_scrot.jpg (1920x1080, 1.02M)

You have the background image?

>talking to tripfags
>ever

Yes. I have loads of medieval papes in my medieval directory.

Attached: Nuremberg_chronicles_-_BAMBERGA.jpg (1998x914, 1.11M)

Thank you very much. I just need this one.

Anyone that argues against Vaporeon on classic theme knowledge is automatically wrong.

I refuse to believe some vapor eon tripfag has a follower, so put your trip back on, vapor.

Not a follower, just somebody that's made fun of him for having horrible font rendering before.

That vapfag talks a lot of shit but I haven't seen him post a faithful windows 9x desktop yet

Saying anyone who argues with vapor is wrong is follower behaviour.

is foobar installed as a snap or as a .deb?

Did he disagree with you or something? He just has a lot more knowledge in that area than most. It's like arguing with Falcon about builds.

I haven't seen that. I just think unconditionally agreeing with someone is foolish.

I think you'd have a point if he ever made any incorrect statements in that area.

Okay, you're vapor.

Are you the person he disagreed with? Because Vapor was right on all points, lol.

>No, that is correct.
You mean aside from the fact that Windows 95 didn't HAVE font anti-aliasing?

Uninstall and quit ricing

I think you've disagreed with at least three people. I just pointed out some things you were mistaken on. I just think it's weird for someone to promote themselves like this and to be named after a dead music genre.
There were/are at least half a dozen tools for that, actually.

>I think you've disagreed with at least three people.
I think I've only disagreed with one person who doesn't admit when they're wrong.

Vapor, is it that hard for you to believe that multiple people see through you?

>There were/are at least half a dozen tools for that, actually.
And you could also change the desktop icons into dicks. Does that mean it's correct? No, it's just your idea of correct.

>Does that mean it's correct?
Correct depends on the goal, actually.

Attached is a picture of Windows 95. Any further discussion isn't required.

Attached: Untitled.png (1024x768, 6K)

this op
just uninstall xfce and install the elegantly written in C GNOME, don't even change the default theme. Adwaita is max /comfy/

Why is it using the wrong font?

The taskbar is wrong

You mean for the terminal? I think OSR1 or OSR2 changed the default font though. That picture is of 95 RTM. I used RTM for testing since most compilers supported OSR2 but not RTM.

Attached: Untitled.png (1024x768, 34K)

Looks like it has an installer or something
xpq4.sourceforge.io/

It is an installer, actually.

What was the default font in each, then?