Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL
- ttuuxxx
- Posts: 11171
- Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
- Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Yes thats hard to measure on my pc because I have 4gigs of ddr2, so it shows like 1%, but the average user will notice a change. I notice mostly with the dragging of the windows,compiling and fixmenus.gerry wrote:As I said somewhere else, TOP shows that the widgets use a total of 14 percent of my 256MB ram, and it shows in speed.
Gerry
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
less is WAY more...
What makes Puppy so outstanding is Barry K's effort toward lean, clean, and fast software - not only his own work, but what is chosen to include with each iteration of Puppy.
When we deviate from that mindset, we lose sight of the original design concept, and risk devolving into bloatware...
Think the Bauhaus school of design - or - since this is Puppy, perhaps Bowowhaus. 'Form follows function' - that which functions most cleanly and simply is most beautiful...
When we deviate from that mindset, we lose sight of the original design concept, and risk devolving into bloatware...
Think the Bauhaus school of design - or - since this is Puppy, perhaps Bowowhaus. 'Form follows function' - that which functions most cleanly and simply is most beautiful...
John Hechtman / www.zenarrow.com / jhecht@ix.netcom.com
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
"Bling" vs Performance are not always mutially exclusive. Its possible to have something that doesnt look like Windows 3.1 but still runs very nearly as fast as the "3.1-looking" puppys.
Its not enough to have something that "just works", it has to be something that people are able to work easily, and that they actually want to work as well.
Pwidgets adds a lot of usability to puppy 4.1.2, at very little cost to performance. Im not sure about its long term inclusion in standard puppy linux, but I am glad that it was included in 4.2 just to show how attractive and useable puppy linux can be with a few extra tweaks.
I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. In my experience, a poll of everyone who had ever used puppy linux would show a very different result.
Its not enough to have something that "just works", it has to be something that people are able to work easily, and that they actually want to work as well.
Pwidgets adds a lot of usability to puppy 4.1.2, at very little cost to performance. Im not sure about its long term inclusion in standard puppy linux, but I am glad that it was included in 4.2 just to show how attractive and useable puppy linux can be with a few extra tweaks.
I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. In my experience, a poll of everyone who had ever used puppy linux would show a very different result.
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]
Sorry, my server is down atm!
Sorry, my server is down atm!
You are imposing your own aesthetic judgments on others. I happen to >like< a minimalist look - why should more 'eye candy' be installed in a basic build, when it can easily be added as a .pet package? Or, if it is installed, it should be easily removable.ecomoney wrote:"Bling" vs Performance are not always mutially exclusive. Its possible to have something that doesnt look like Windows 3.1 but still runs very nearly as fast as the "3.1-looking" puppys.
Its not enough to have something that "just works", it has to be something that people are able to work easily, and that they actually want to work as well.
I have not used Pwidgets, so I'm not able to judge it. However, this poll is being answered by Puppy users who care enough to do so. To say it should be ignored is once again, imposing your values on other Puppy users. And how do you propose to contact 'everyone who had ever used Puppy Linux'? Further, what 'experience' do you have that makes you think the results of an expanded poll would be different? You totally have the right to your own opinion - but so does everyone else...ecomoney wrote:Pwidgets adds a lot of usability to puppy 4.1.2, at very little cost to performance. Im not sure about its long term inclusion in standard puppy linux, but I am glad that it was included in 4.2 just to show how attractive and useable puppy linux can be with a few extra tweaks.
I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. In my experience, a poll of everyone who had ever used puppy linux would show a very different result.
In >my< experience, the most ardent Puppy users, are fluent computerists who want to get away from bloated OSs that include too much decoration. There is no reason to not offer whatever >add-ons< you like, to change appearance - but don't include them in the basic build.
John Hechtman / www.zenarrow.com / jhecht@ix.netcom.com
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
My experience is in using puppy linux, in head to head competition with windows computer engineers, full time as my primary "job" in my local community over the past five years, looking after the needs of individuals, family homes, small business, schools and charities. I ran a puppy Linux cybercafe for three years, and support around 150 p.c.'s in my local area.Further, what 'experience' do you have that makes you think the results of an expanded poll would be different?
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=12714
http://www.deoss.org/positive/index.php ... &Itemid=43
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 86&t=23459
I have an academic and practical background in Computer Programming and Business Computing using Windows for twelve years before that.
This may well be true, but only because Puppy Linux is currently at an underdeveloped state, and does not yet entirely fulfil the purpose for which it was created. Its mission statement (as stated by Barry Kauler, its origionator) says in its entiretyIn >my< experience, the most ardent Puppy users, are fluent computerists
Only a tiny fraction of the people I have introduced to puppy linux have ever posted on this board. Generally speaking end users just dont, whatever operating system they use. If it goes wrong, or doesnt do everything they want it to, they just call an engineer. They dont answer polls on message boards.Puppy Linux Mission Statement:
* Puppy will easily install to USB, Zip or hard drive media
* Booting from CD, Puppy will load totally into RAM so that the CD drive is then free for other purposes
* Puppy will be extremely friendly for Linux newbies
* Puppy will boot up and run extraordinarily fast
* Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use
* Puppy will just work, no hassles
* Puppy will breathe new life into old PCs
From a technical perspective, I understand part of puppy linux's speed and "special powers" are derived from its small size. IMHO the fact that is has until now looked like (and I quote from the general public who I meet every day) an obsolete Windows OS, full of strange codes, with common tasks not being automated, has severely held back its uptake as a mainstream operating system. Its recent rise up the rankings at distrowatch are because its automated simple tasks like accessing cd's and pendrives, improved its appearance (slightly), gives warnings about full disks and because it no longer defaults to a black screen full of code if it is improperly shut down. These have required hardly any increase in size to achieve.
Like I say, I think it was a wise choice from whodo to include some extra "bling" in this release, just to show what is possible from any future puppy linux. It is much more usable to, and desired by, the average computer user (who it is aimed at) because of these extra small additions. I am sure his own personal experience in supporting puppy linux based p.c.'s in charities to average end users made him aware of the need for this.
I hope future editions of puppy will spare a few well chosen extra bytes (because thats all it would take) to make it look like a modern operating system, and a lot more suitable to the vast majority of people out their that dont have access to a computer, and are not fluent computerists.
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]
Sorry, my server is down atm!
Sorry, my server is down atm!
- ttuuxxx
- Posts: 11171
- Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
- Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Well then it should be taken even more serious due to the fact that people who are voting actually have an idea how things work, and If its developers voting against Pwidgets then that alone is very important, due to the fact that they know that unnecessary programs that take a lot of system resources by default are bad for the user and bad for puppy's reputation as a OS that just works on older computers. I think as long as Pwidgets is on by default, Puppy should raise its min resources, to 256mb of ram min., forget 128mb or less. Also I take this poll serious because of it, I'm trying to get WhoDo to make 1 extra final unofficial version without Pwidgets and this is the proof I have. Once pwidgets is gone, WhoDo could replace Claws mail with the full Seamonkey suite and still be right around the 100MB area. That should make a lot of people happy. So you can take this Poll VERY serious because the version it will produce will probably end it on your systems that you provide people.ecomoney wrote:
I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. I
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)
have the best of both...
My congratulations to Ecomoney on his Puppian exploits! You support 150+ Puppified computers? My hero!
Why not have the bloody bling >switchable< on/off? Like Window$ 'best appearance' or 'best performance'? I have no objection to bling being available - just don't impose it on me if I don't want it!
Why not have the bloody bling >switchable< on/off? Like Window$ 'best appearance' or 'best performance'? I have no objection to bling being available - just don't impose it on me if I don't want it!
John Hechtman / www.zenarrow.com / jhecht@ix.netcom.com
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
"Computer help in NYC" / 917 628 0192 - cell / 212 586 4633 - landline
why don't you just set the priority of the bling very low.... then it shouldn't interfere with normal tasks
I'm not one to be all pro bing by default just a suggestion
I'm not one to be all pro bing by default just a suggestion
Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
Re: have the best of both...
Pwidgets gui has an option to switch it off from V2.0 onwardsjhecht wrote:My congratulations to Ecomoney on his Puppian exploits! You support 150+ Puppified computers? My hero!
Why not have the bloody bling >switchable< on/off? Like Window$ 'best appearance' or 'best performance'? I have no objection to bling being available - just don't impose it on me if I don't want it!
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
"take it seriously" was a bad phrase to use, sorry for any offense. What I meant is that the results would not necessarily reflect what puppys "target audience" (Linux newbs) might like to see. The people here are here because they are, on the whole, happy with how puppy is at the moment.
Ive often thought that the reason Windows does so well against linux is because their developers are paid to produce an operating system that is simple for ordinary computer users to understand and use, therefore they will buy it and continue to pay them. If they had been left to their own devices then Im sure windows would look very different...probably a lot more like Linux!!!
If linux wants to do better and become the world most used operating system, then its developers must have the same kind of attitude, to produce something that will be of more use to more people than just themselves....but do it for free.
Pwidgets solves a problem for new puppy users, and makes the whole thing a lot more accessible to them. It doesnt make puppy do any more than it does already, but it does make the more important functions more accessible to and usable by them. Zigbert has done a great job in identifying a real world need, and programming a solution to a problem that he doesnt even have himself! IMHO He deserves great applause for this and should be a role model for other linux developers to follow.
If we need to make space, then lets drop other programs that most "linux newbs" dont need, like a mail client at all (most people use webmail), gnumeric, the web page composer in seamonkey etc etc and make those optional add ons.. Perhaps then we would have room for things that are important to end users, like a modern flash player that will work on old computers with most sites well into the future (flash 10 is an extra 2mb). Puppy 4.2 is still a long way from how my "customers" would like to see it, and I am sure I will have to spend hours modifying it as it is.
@jhecht, being able to look after as many computers as I do would not be possible unless the puppy developers had done a great deal of work under the hood to make it reliable, and neither would it have been possible unless I had spent a great amount of time customizing the user interface to make it useable. Different people have different skills, and they are all needed.
Ive often thought that the reason Windows does so well against linux is because their developers are paid to produce an operating system that is simple for ordinary computer users to understand and use, therefore they will buy it and continue to pay them. If they had been left to their own devices then Im sure windows would look very different...probably a lot more like Linux!!!
If linux wants to do better and become the world most used operating system, then its developers must have the same kind of attitude, to produce something that will be of more use to more people than just themselves....but do it for free.
Pwidgets solves a problem for new puppy users, and makes the whole thing a lot more accessible to them. It doesnt make puppy do any more than it does already, but it does make the more important functions more accessible to and usable by them. Zigbert has done a great job in identifying a real world need, and programming a solution to a problem that he doesnt even have himself! IMHO He deserves great applause for this and should be a role model for other linux developers to follow.
If we need to make space, then lets drop other programs that most "linux newbs" dont need, like a mail client at all (most people use webmail), gnumeric, the web page composer in seamonkey etc etc and make those optional add ons.. Perhaps then we would have room for things that are important to end users, like a modern flash player that will work on old computers with most sites well into the future (flash 10 is an extra 2mb). Puppy 4.2 is still a long way from how my "customers" would like to see it, and I am sure I will have to spend hours modifying it as it is.
@jhecht, being able to look after as many computers as I do would not be possible unless the puppy developers had done a great deal of work under the hood to make it reliable, and neither would it have been possible unless I had spent a great amount of time customizing the user interface to make it useable. Different people have different skills, and they are all needed.
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]
Sorry, my server is down atm!
Sorry, my server is down atm!
No bling thanks, but pwidgets? How do i know, what does it do anyway?
Typical of geeks, everyone assumes the reader knows what you're talking about. Ecomoney said it worked well in 412 so i looked around and did not find it. How long am i supposed to work/read/search for something to replace what i've worked so hard to get working properly. Upgrade to 4.2 - why? especially if threatened with bloat (even a little). So not knowing what i'm dealing with, i just reacted to bling, bloat and bother.
Ecomoney or various said something about making puppy more accessible, without of course giving me anything further to go on. But on a GUI machine, the only thing that is inaccessible is something with a problem. All else is accessible if you know the procedure/ where to look and THAT is the proper role of a manual, a wiki, a tutorial, a video or an Ecomoney! The former are in great need of improvement and i wish the latter lived closer to ME! Therefore, pwidgets should be a .pet.
Barrie's 3rd objective, being friendly to newbies can either be achieved by cloning every look and function of windows OR by proper documentation and teaching. The latter course is MUCH better than the former, EXCEPT when windows refugees MUST keep, open and resave old files and/or interface with windows-using colleagues. Tall order.
Well, Puppy is just a puppy, not a working dog (yet). Enjoy.
Typical of geeks, everyone assumes the reader knows what you're talking about. Ecomoney said it worked well in 412 so i looked around and did not find it. How long am i supposed to work/read/search for something to replace what i've worked so hard to get working properly. Upgrade to 4.2 - why? especially if threatened with bloat (even a little). So not knowing what i'm dealing with, i just reacted to bling, bloat and bother.
Ecomoney or various said something about making puppy more accessible, without of course giving me anything further to go on. But on a GUI machine, the only thing that is inaccessible is something with a problem. All else is accessible if you know the procedure/ where to look and THAT is the proper role of a manual, a wiki, a tutorial, a video or an Ecomoney! The former are in great need of improvement and i wish the latter lived closer to ME! Therefore, pwidgets should be a .pet.
Barrie's 3rd objective, being friendly to newbies can either be achieved by cloning every look and function of windows OR by proper documentation and teaching. The latter course is MUCH better than the former, EXCEPT when windows refugees MUST keep, open and resave old files and/or interface with windows-using colleagues. Tall order.
Well, Puppy is just a puppy, not a working dog (yet). Enjoy.
[color=orange]1. Dell Dimension E521, AMD Athln 64, 2 GHz 1.93GB ram,
Puppy 533 on CD, accesses flash drive only,
FFox Nightly12.0
2. Compaq P3 733Hz 375RAM
Printer: Oki C3400 > LAN [/color]
Puppy 533 on CD, accesses flash drive only,
FFox Nightly12.0
2. Compaq P3 733Hz 375RAM
Printer: Oki C3400 > LAN [/color]
- ComputerBob
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon 26 Jan 2009, 16:58
- Location: The Beautiful Sunshine State
- Contact:
Seeing as it took almost 30 minutes, just to get the input box to appear on the forum -- and I was unable to reach this forum at all, all day long today, I'm going to make this quick, and hope that the forum accepts it before my browser times out again.
I'm not a developer. I'm probably not a typical user, either, though.
I use Debian (Squeeze) on my own PC. There's only one reason why I started using Puppy Linux: I fix up old, donated PCs for a charity and Puppy 4.1.2 was lean and fast on several old Dell PCs that had onboard Intel video chipsets and 128 MB of RAM, even when antiX Linux couldn't even boot up on those machines and other "mini-Linuxes" were either "too barebones," or required too much work to get them configured the way I wanted.
I was also very impressed that Puppy 4.1.2 was able to run (well, actually it "walked") when I booted its LiveCD up on a Pentium (1), 166 MHz PC with 64 MB of RAM and no hard drive.
I'm all for bling -- but only for those who want to install it, not installed by default for everyone. If Puppy 4.2 contains any bling by default that reduces its ability to work on old PCs, I will continue to use Puppy 4.1.2 instead.
Now it's time to click on "Submit" and take my chances with this currently extremely flaky forum.
I'm not a developer. I'm probably not a typical user, either, though.
I use Debian (Squeeze) on my own PC. There's only one reason why I started using Puppy Linux: I fix up old, donated PCs for a charity and Puppy 4.1.2 was lean and fast on several old Dell PCs that had onboard Intel video chipsets and 128 MB of RAM, even when antiX Linux couldn't even boot up on those machines and other "mini-Linuxes" were either "too barebones," or required too much work to get them configured the way I wanted.
I was also very impressed that Puppy 4.1.2 was able to run (well, actually it "walked") when I booted its LiveCD up on a Pentium (1), 166 MHz PC with 64 MB of RAM and no hard drive.
I'm all for bling -- but only for those who want to install it, not installed by default for everyone. If Puppy 4.2 contains any bling by default that reduces its ability to work on old PCs, I will continue to use Puppy 4.1.2 instead.
Now it's time to click on "Submit" and take my chances with this currently extremely flaky forum.
[color=red][b]Computer[/b][/color][color=blue][b]Bob[/b][/color].com - Making Geek-Speak Chicâ„¢
News, Views, Information, Software, Help & Fun - Every Day
[url=http://www.computerbob.com][b]ComputerBob.com[/b][/url]
News, Views, Information, Software, Help & Fun - Every Day
[url=http://www.computerbob.com][b]ComputerBob.com[/b][/url]
I like bling. I voted for it but I was wrong.
Let the puplet makers worry about the bling. There will always be something for everyone.
As long as there is NO snowymountain/lake or guyonabike wallpaper I'm happy.
Boxpup 4.1.2 and Buddapup 4.0 are fine examples of desktops that seduce anyone who boots them up.
Let the puplet makers worry about the bling. There will always be something for everyone.
As long as there is NO snowymountain/lake or guyonabike wallpaper I'm happy.
Boxpup 4.1.2 and Buddapup 4.0 are fine examples of desktops that seduce anyone who boots them up.
post No 3 page 1 suggested
this poll will achieve little and is wasting time and resources.
And it's not about widgets or pwidgets - or skins or favourite colours, or more clocks or more weather forecasts (of undoubtedly doubtful reliability ) they are just examples or symptoms.
Surely, Puppy is /can be defined as
1. a core OS with uniquely useful attributes (big list of these as we all know) , and with
2. ability via packages/package loaders to add to the core in similarly useful and practicable ways. And
3. for ALL users, ie a wide spectrum?
If this is the Puppy concept, then it is obvious that bling, in whatever guise, should be
(a) non-core, but
(b) easily added-on.
This has been done already with many superb packages etc and likely to get even more that way with PWoofery?
Whether you want bling or no-bling becomes irrelevant.
Any user should be able to add or ignore bling
- it is not an issue worth voting on, or people wasting time on.
And 4.2 is better than anything we've had before, thanks to WhoDo and team - don't doubt it!
this poll will achieve little and is wasting time and resources.
And it's not about widgets or pwidgets - or skins or favourite colours, or more clocks or more weather forecasts (of undoubtedly doubtful reliability ) they are just examples or symptoms.
Surely, Puppy is /can be defined as
1. a core OS with uniquely useful attributes (big list of these as we all know) , and with
2. ability via packages/package loaders to add to the core in similarly useful and practicable ways. And
3. for ALL users, ie a wide spectrum?
If this is the Puppy concept, then it is obvious that bling, in whatever guise, should be
(a) non-core, but
(b) easily added-on.
This has been done already with many superb packages etc and likely to get even more that way with PWoofery?
Whether you want bling or no-bling becomes irrelevant.
Any user should be able to add or ignore bling
- it is not an issue worth voting on, or people wasting time on.
And 4.2 is better than anything we've had before, thanks to WhoDo and team - don't doubt it!
Well we've been copping a schellacking... we're being beat.... sad but true.... what to do?
Now, I tried Xonclock and xli (Slideshow) on my 486, not much RAM. Worked fine.
Well that's not a test!!!
But this is ... and the pic aint no lie... ttuuxxx knows it.
Yes. That is what you see.
An IBM 80486DX 50MHz, 32 MiB ram, 512 MiB Harddrive, running Puppy fat_free-2.16-dillo... LIVE.... 120 Mib swap, latest Pwidgets-2.0.5, it did not break.
Cheers
Mick
EDIT. Sorry, pic was down for a while. You can see the machine is working hard and using plenty of resources but it is working on the most bottom end kit that I can get Puppy to run on. This would not have worked on any Pwidgets before 2.0.4. Since then Patriot hacked conky and the total Pwidgets package is now 222K compressed, including Conky.
I didn't vote in the poll. And I wont. I don't even care if Pwidgets was not included really in 4.2. But it is, and I just think WhoDo included it as a "selling point" for doze refoes (haven't I said that somewhere? )
Please, a little forgiveness here, time and date are wrong because the internal battery in the 486 is a bit sad.
Cheers folks
Now, I tried Xonclock and xli (Slideshow) on my 486, not much RAM. Worked fine.
Well that's not a test!!!
But this is ... and the pic aint no lie... ttuuxxx knows it.
Yes. That is what you see.
An IBM 80486DX 50MHz, 32 MiB ram, 512 MiB Harddrive, running Puppy fat_free-2.16-dillo... LIVE.... 120 Mib swap, latest Pwidgets-2.0.5, it did not break.
Cheers
Mick
EDIT. Sorry, pic was down for a while. You can see the machine is working hard and using plenty of resources but it is working on the most bottom end kit that I can get Puppy to run on. This would not have worked on any Pwidgets before 2.0.4. Since then Patriot hacked conky and the total Pwidgets package is now 222K compressed, including Conky.
I didn't vote in the poll. And I wont. I don't even care if Pwidgets was not included really in 4.2. But it is, and I just think WhoDo included it as a "selling point" for doze refoes (haven't I said that somewhere? )
Please, a little forgiveness here, time and date are wrong because the internal battery in the 486 is a bit sad.
Cheers folks
Last edited by 01micko on Sat 21 Mar 2009, 01:22, edited 2 times in total.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
To bling or not to bling
Adding "extra" features is a "get carried away with what I can do" developer syndrome that I'm all too familiar with having been guilty myself on several occasions in the past.
For success always have a clear idea of the objectives of your project (call it a vision or charter if you like).
Use KISS, and ask "Does what I'm considering adding, conflict with the objectives?"
Your end result will be a clean implementation of the original vision.
Was extra bling part of the original vision? I'm guessing No.
Kudos to all of the developers of special puplets out there - wow, TaxOC, Gray, Ttuuxxx, tombh and a host of others. I've used your puplets and add-ons that build on base versions and I have been amazed at what you accomplish.
B.
For success always have a clear idea of the objectives of your project (call it a vision or charter if you like).
Use KISS, and ask "Does what I'm considering adding, conflict with the objectives?"
Your end result will be a clean implementation of the original vision.
Was extra bling part of the original vision? I'm guessing No.
Kudos to all of the developers of special puplets out there - wow, TaxOC, Gray, Ttuuxxx, tombh and a host of others. I've used your puplets and add-ons that build on base versions and I have been amazed at what you accomplish.
B.