In article <bobb-C05CC4.09043006072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
"Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:

> > Well, I disagree. I used them both, and I just suspect you would agree
> > with me had you done the same.
>
> Maybe I would. But I haven't, and I am trying to use your description of the
> differences, but you just haven't shown any fundamental differences. Do you
> really think the two screenshots, both of which show all open windows
> arranged so you can see them at the same time, shows a fundamental
> difference?
>
> Its not like I am the only one not seeing your point. But you refuse any
> further explanation, so I guess you don't really want to discuss it, which
> of course is your choice, but don't expect to convince anyone that way.

Well, it seems that George also didn't understand the difference until he
realised that "Tile Windows" isn't a function for switching windows in Windows,
it's a function to Tile windows. To re-arrange them. Not to switch. The only
reason wintrolls are pitching this as a predecessor to Exposé is because if you
select a window after they are tiled, and then -undo- the tile, the window is
the frontmost window, which means it can be used to switch windows - but it's
not it's purpose, and no one would ever use it for that purpose since it would
be the sloweast way to switch windows you could imagine.

I apologize if this difference wasn't obvious. I admit to assuming that people
knew about functions such as "Tile windows" and "Cascade windows" which has
been around in both Windows and MacOS for quite some time.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <mr-4A1FD5.21542606072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
Sandman <mr[at]sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <bobb-C05CC4.09043006072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> "Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, I disagree. I used them both, and I just suspect you would agree
> > > with me had you done the same.
> >
> > Maybe I would. But I haven't, and I am trying to use your description of
> > the
> > differences, but you just haven't shown any fundamental differences. Do you
> > really think the two screenshots, both of which show all open windows
> > arranged so you can see them at the same time, shows a fundamental
> > difference?
> >
> > Its not like I am the only one not seeing your point. But you refuse any
> > further explanation, so I guess you don't really want to discuss it, which
> > of course is your choice, but don't expect to convince anyone that way.
>
> Well, it seems that George also didn't understand the difference until he
> realised that "Tile Windows" isn't a function for switching windows in
> Windows,
> it's a function to Tile windows. To re-arrange them. Not to switch. The only
> reason wintrolls are pitching this as a predecessor to Exposé is because if
> you
> select a window after they are tiled, and then -undo- the tile, the window is
> the frontmost window, which means it can be used to switch windows - but it's
> not it's purpose, and no one would ever use it for that purpose since it
> would
> be the sloweast way to switch windows you could imagine.

The statement in your original post that I objected to was: "Anyone
claiming that these functions are similar has not grasped how Exposé
works". Now that you are finally explaning more about what you meant, it
appears this is based on the intent of the functions, not on the
functionality itself. The intent of Expose is to switch windows, while
the intent of Tiled Windows is to manage/re-arrange windows. I can agree
with that. But I would still say that the functions are "similar" -
because the end result can be similar (showing all open windows, which
your screen dumps show to be very similar), and both functions can be
used in the same way - if you are lost in a sea of open windows, Tiled
Windows will allow you to find what you are looking for. Even Apple's
description which I posted earlier (except for the "scaled down" part)
could be put into a Microsoft brochure describing Tile Windows.

>
> I apologize if this difference wasn't obvious. I admit to assuming that
> people
> knew about functions such as "Tile windows" and "Cascade windows" which has
> been around in both Windows and MacOS for quite some time.

This disagreement has nothing to do with not knowing about tiled or
cascaded windows. It has more to do with the fact that functionality to
show all open windows has been in Windows for some time, but you won't
acknowledge that this is "similar" to what Expose does. That Expose does
this better, and can do the same for a single application, and can also
expose the desktop (which Windows can also do) doesn't change the fact
that a similarity exists.

Bob B.

In article <bobb-400BC6.14110306072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
"Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:

> > Well, it seems that George also didn't understand the difference until he
> > realised that "Tile Windows" isn't a function for switching windows in
> > Windows, it's a function to Tile windows. To re-arrange them. Not to
> > switch. The only reason wintrolls are pitching this as a predecessor to
> > Exposé is because if you select a window after they are tiled, and then
> > -undo- the tile, the window is the frontmost window, which means it can be
> > used to switch windows - but it's not it's purpose, and no one would ever
> > use it for that purpose since it would be the sloweast way to switch
> > windows you could imagine.
>
> The statement in your original post that I objected to was: "Anyone claiming
> that these functions are similar has not grasped how Exposé works". Now that
> you are finally explaning more about what you meant, it appears this is
> based on the intent of the functions, not on the functionality itself. The
> intent of Expose is to switch windows, while the intent of Tiled Windows is
> to manage/re-arrange windows. I can agree with that. But I would still say
> that the functions are "similar" - because the end result can be similar
> (showing all open windows, which your screen dumps show to be very similar),
> and both functions can be used in the same way - if you are lost in a sea of
> open windows, Tiled Windows will allow you to find what you are looking for.
> Even Apple's description which I posted earlier (except for the "scaled
> down" part) could be put into a Microsoft brochure describing Tile Windows.

I disagree. No one would ever use TW to switch windows. A 'sea of windows' will
NOT be helped by TW as my screenshot quite adequately showed, and that was with
very few windows.

> > I apologize if this difference wasn't obvious. I admit to assuming that
> > people knew about functions such as "Tile windows" and "Cascade windows"
> > which has been around in both Windows and MacOS for quite some time.
>
> This disagreement has nothing to do with not knowing about tiled or cascaded
> windows. It has more to do with the fact that functionality to show all open
> windows has been in Windows for some time, but you won't acknowledge that
> this is "similar" to what Expose does.

I would if it was. It seems clear to me that you've made up your mind about
these without even ever trying one of them. I can't see how we could have a
constructive discussion about it if that is the case.

> That Expose does this better, and can
> do the same for a single application, and can also expose the desktop (which
> Windows can also do) doesn't change the fact that a similarity exists.

In the same way a brown car is similar to a brown cow...

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <mr-2BB74D.23204806072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
Sandman <mr[at]sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <bobb-400BC6.14110306072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
> "Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, it seems that George also didn't understand the difference until he
> > > realised that "Tile Windows" isn't a function for switching windows in
> > > Windows, it's a function to Tile windows. To re-arrange them. Not to
> > > switch. The only reason wintrolls are pitching this as a predecessor to
> > > Exposé is because if you select a window after they are tiled, and then
> > > -undo- the tile, the window is the frontmost window, which means it can
> > > be
> > > used to switch windows - but it's not it's purpose, and no one would ever
> > > use it for that purpose since it would be the sloweast way to switch
> > > windows you could imagine.
> >
> > The statement in your original post that I objected to was: "Anyone
> > claiming
> > that these functions are similar has not grasped how Exposé works". Now
> > that
> > you are finally explaning more about what you meant, it appears this is
> > based on the intent of the functions, not on the functionality itself. The
> > intent of Expose is to switch windows, while the intent of Tiled Windows is
> > to manage/re-arrange windows. I can agree with that. But I would still say
> > that the functions are "similar" - because the end result can be similar
> > (showing all open windows, which your screen dumps show to be very
> > similar),
> > and both functions can be used in the same way - if you are lost in a sea
> > of
> > open windows, Tiled Windows will allow you to find what you are looking
> > for.
> > Even Apple's description which I posted earlier (except for the "scaled
> > down" part) could be put into a Microsoft brochure describing Tile Windows.
>
> I disagree. No one would ever use TW to switch windows. A 'sea of windows'
> will
> NOT be helped by TW as my screenshot quite adequately showed, and that was
> with
> very few windows.

Where did I say anyone would use TW to switch windows? The fact that
you can't (or wouldn't) do everything that Expose does with TW doesn't
preclude them from being similar.

>
> > > I apologize if this difference wasn't obvious. I admit to assuming that
> > > people knew about functions such as "Tile windows" and "Cascade windows"
> > > which has been around in both Windows and MacOS for quite some time.
> >
> > This disagreement has nothing to do with not knowing about tiled or
> > cascaded
> > windows. It has more to do with the fact that functionality to show all
> > open
> > windows has been in Windows for some time, but you won't acknowledge that
> > this is "similar" to what Expose does.
>
> I would if it was. It seems clear to me that you've made up your mind about
> these without even ever trying one of them. I can't see how we could have a
> constructive discussion about it if that is the case.

I agree that someones mind is made up about this subject, and he won't
even address the points I raise. So we can end the discussion.

Bob B.

In article <bobb-B52B52.15012906072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
"Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:

> > > > I apologize if this difference wasn't obvious. I admit to assuming
> > > > that people knew about functions such as "Tile windows" and "Cascade
> > > > windows" which has been around in both Windows and MacOS for quite
> > > > some time.
> > >
> > > This disagreement has nothing to do with not knowing about tiled or
> > > cascaded windows. It has more to do with the fact that functionality to
> > > show all open windows has been in Windows for some time, but you won't
> > > acknowledge that this is "similar" to what Expose does.
> >
> > I would if it was. It seems clear to me that you've made up your mind
> > about these without even ever trying one of them. I can't see how we
> > could have a constructive discussion about it if that is the case.
>
> I agree that someones mind is made up about this subject, and he won't even
> address the points I raise.

The points you seem to be raising are about two things you never even tried.

You could be calling explorer.exe similar to Exposé, since it also arranges
windows on the screen. Or as I said to B.B earlier:


If I type "open Library" and "open Desktop" in the Terminal, the Finder will
open these two folders, with Desktop as the frontmost. Now, I can type "open
Library" again and Finder will select that window for me.

Are you claiming that Exposé is similar to the "open" command?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <adminkoff-00EEF4.16260006072003[at]news.west.cox.net>,
"Anthony D. Minkoff" <adminkoff[at]NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:

> Since we can't seem to agree on the meaning of the word "similar," let
> me put the question a different way: Who produced the significant
> innovations?
>
> Exposé's purpose is to enable the user to quickly find and switch to a
> desired window. Tile Windows, which has been available on both
> platforms for a long time, has not historically been seen as a tool for
> that purpose, and Sandman has convincingly argued (and demonstrated with
> a screen shot) that it is not a useful tool for this purpose. (I'd go
> even further and say that Tile Windows is not very useful, period. I
> almost never use it, myself.)
>
> The creators of Exposé created a solution to a problem. That solution
> is, in the Bob B. sense of the word, "similar" to something that has
> existed for a long time, but has not been usable for this problem.
> However, it had some key differences that suddenly made it useful and
> applicable to the problem. Those differences make up the important
> innovation.
>
> Is a tuning fork "similar" to a dowsing rod? In a gross sense, sure,
> but so what? The significant innovation is the details that make it
> useful. Windows, Mac OS, X11, and others have all had dowsing rods for
> a long time. Apple just made a tuning fork.

Well, rather than going back and forth with Sandman on this topic
forever, I will let your 3rd paragraph be a summary of what we were
discussing. I think Sandman's emphasis is on the fact that Expose is
oriented towards switching to a particular window, though it arranges
windows to do this, while Windows' tools for dealing with lots of
windows lean towards arranging windows, and are a poor way to switch
between windows - so he doesn't see any similarity. My emphasis is more
in the direction of acknowledging that Expose doesn't just pop into the
world with no precedent or precursors, that there is existing software,
even on the dreaded Windows, that attempts similar tasks and uses
similar methods.

Now I'll shut up about it.

Bob B.

In article <bobb-5C010E.16512006072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
"Bob B." <bobb[at]sphinx.com> wrote:

> > Is a tuning fork "similar" to a dowsing rod? In a gross sense, sure,
> > but so what? The significant innovation is the details that make it
> > useful. Windows, Mac OS, X11, and others have all had dowsing rods for
> > a long time. Apple just made a tuning fork.
>
> Well, rather than going back and forth with Sandman on this topic
> forever, I will let your 3rd paragraph be a summary of what we were
> discussing. I think Sandman's emphasis is on the fact that Expose is
> oriented towards switching to a particular window, though it arranges
> windows to do this, while Windows' tools for dealing with lots of
> windows lean towards arranging windows, and are a poor way to switch
> between windows - so he doesn't see any similarity. My emphasis is more
> in the direction of acknowledging that Expose doesn't just pop into the
> world with no precedent or precursors, that there is existing software,
> even on the dreaded Windows, that attempts similar tasks and uses
> similar methods.

But the thing is that Tile Windows -doesn't- attempt similar tasks or use
similar methods...

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-CF1F96.13221107072003[at]library.airnews.net>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4[at]airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:

> [at]If I type "open Library" and "open Desktop" in the Terminal, the Finder will
> [at]open these two folders, with Desktop as the frontmost. Now, I can type "open
> [at]Library" again and Finder will select that window for me.
> [at]
> [at]Are you claiming that Exposé is similar to the "open" command?
>
> I never replied to that question because I thought it was silly.

Of course it's silly. I agree with you - It's silly because it's as similar to
Exposé as Tile Windows is. The -only- thing Exposé, Tile Windows and the open
command shares is that hey CAN, technically, be used to switch windows.

Let's make a table:

E TW O
Can be used to switch windows X X X
Affects all windows X
Uses a hotkey/hot corner X
Is not meant for window switching X X
Supports drag'n'drop X

See?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-6CC5C9.15485707072003[at]library.airnews.net>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4[at]airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:

> [at]Of course it's silly. I agree with you - It's silly because it's as similar
> [at]to Exposé as Tile Windows is. The -only- thing Exposé, Tile Windows and the
> [at]open command shares is that hey CAN, technically, be used to switch
> [at]windows.
> [at]
> [at]Let's make a table:
> [at]
> [at] E TW O
> [at]Can be used to switch windows X X X
> [at]Affects all windows X
> [at]Uses a hotkey/hot corner X
> [at]Is not meant for window switching X X
> [at]Supports drag'n'drop X
> [at]
> [at]See?
>
> You're running off on a tangent again.
> The hotkey one and the drag&drop one are both features--not at all
> related to the function of the utility. You can bring them up 1,000
> times, but they won't influence my decision unless you can show me how
> they're vitally important.

Because when the function is "switching windows" - the feature on how you do it
is quite vital. The function of Tile Windows -isn't- "switching windows" which
is quite clear since it doesn't have an easy way to access it, such as an
hotkey or hot corner.

The alt-tab approach is what Exposé is "similar" to, as in it being a function
to switch windows in Windows.

> But we're done arguing whether or not Expose is a rip off of Tile
> Windows. I do not believe it is, but it was not your list that
> convinced me.
> Does expose include ALL windows? As in floating tool palletes too?

Nopes, just regular ones.

> That could become quite obnoxious around apps with many tool windows,
> like Photoshop.

Indeed. 'Tile Windows' makes a mess with PhotoShops palettes.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-A8A870.19281609072003[at]library.airnews.net>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4[at]airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:

> [at]Because when the function is "switching windows" - the feature on how you
> [at]do it is quite vital. The function of Tile Windows -isn't- "switching
> [at]windows" which is quite clear since it doesn't have an easy way to access
> [at]it, such as an hotkey or hot corner.
> [at]
> [at]The alt-tab approach is what Exposé is "similar" to, as in it being a
> [at]function to switch windows in Windows.
>
> I do not see it that way. If its function is to switch windows, then
> its function is to switch windows, regardless of how it is done.
> Differences in implementation can make one better or worse than the
> other, but not distinct. Functionally, Expose' can be compared to the
> Taskbar as they are both for switching windows. But I don't see Expose' as
> a knock-off of the taskbar because its method is sufficiently distinct.

Then you agree that Exposé is sufficiently distinct from a function of tiling
windows.

> Where one is simply a collection of buttons with a one-to-one mapping to
> open windows, the other seems to be spatial--it retains the relative
> locations of windows to some degree. So it more or less includes an
> additional function the taskbar does not.

Well, not only one, but yes.

> But features are simply how you go about doing things. You could
> display the taskbar as buttons, or as text, or as a menu, or whatever. But
> in the end it's the same function--a list of open windows. Same goes for
> activation. It sits in the bottom of the screena nd you must click on it to
> activate a window. You could have it hide itself. Does it now become a new
> thing because you must now park the mouse at the edge of the screen for a
> moment AND click a button to activate a new window? Of course not--it's a
> mere fetaure.

Given that you're describing an alternatie mode, I don't see the relevans. If
the task bar included a window switching feature, but you needed to enter a
command in HEX on the command line in order to activate it I would call Exposé
"sufficiently distinct".

> I try to draw a fairly distinct line between functionality and
> features. That's why I'm a bit underwhelmed with OSX's new update--its' a
> lot of new features, but not a lot of new functionality from what I can see.
> I fully undertand what you're trying to say to me. But I do not
> agree with it.

I'm happy as long as you agree that TW and E has nothing in common. :)

> [at]> But we're done arguing whether or not Expose is a rip off of Tile
> [at]> Windows. I do not believe it is, but it was not your list that convinced
> [at]> me.
> [at]> Does expose include ALL windows? As in floating tool palletes too?
> [at]
> [at]Nopes, just regular ones.
>
> So...that "Affects all windows" row in your table should be blank,
> shouldn't it?

No, I meant it also displays hidden or minimized windows. Palettes aren't
"windows" in this sense.

> [at]> That could become quite obnoxious around apps with many tool windows,
> [at]> like Photoshop.
> [at]
> [at]Indeed. 'Tile Windows' makes a mess with PhotoShops palettes.
>
> I hear that Tile Windows can be undone without moving all the windows
> manually. Is this true?

I don't know what you mean. If you Tile Windows in Windows, you can 'undo' it
and they will pop back to their original place. In fact, this is something you
HAVE to do - ohtherwise the windows will remember their tiled state the next
time you open them and they will probably be just about useless.

--
Sandman[.net]