In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "flip" <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in message
> news:flippo-EDBFAC.07192006072003[at]news.central.cox.net...
> > In article <vgg0k6no71v1bc[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > It's less direct: you have to go through the application.
> >
> > No, you don't. You right click on the icon on the task bar.
>
> MacOS X does not have a task bar. You have to go through

I meant the Dock, of course.

> the application's icon in the dock, unless that application is
> already front most. Then you can use the Window menu.
>
> Either way is awkward, compared to the task bar.

If you've got a very small number of windows open, the task bar might be
more convenient. As soon as you've got a significant number, the task
bar stinks. Either you lose the identity of the windows or you're forced
to give up a significant amount of desktop space to extra task bar rows.

And that's on top of the space you lose with all your menu bars, too.

>
> > > This means it is less easy to get a particular window
> > > to the front, and it also makes it less useful as a way to
> > > see what windows you have open.
> >
> > No, it merely shows that you're STILL refusing to learn how the Dock
> > works.
>
> You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> this problem years ago.

MS addressed it badly, yes.

But what does that have to do with the fact that you keep making claims
about Mac OS X that are wrong?

>
> > > > Particularly when you have 20 or so files open?
> > >
> > > I do not think this would much challenge the taskbar:
> > > if it were 4 rows tall, there'd be only 5 buttons per row.
> >
> > Why not make the task bar 20 rows tall?
>
> Cuz my screen isn't that big. :D

That's the point.

>
> > And have 20 windows on the
> > screen, each of them with their own menu bar?
>
> Well, if you did that you'd hardly be touching your
> 20 row tall taskbar, would you?
>
> > If you have a 45" diagonal screen, you might be able to get away with it.
>
> The taskbar does start to break down if you have hundreds
> of windows, but I doubt Expose will be able to deal with
> that very well either.

It doesn't take hundreds of windows before the task bar breaks down.

>
> [snip]
> > > > Right. The problem is that the taskbar stinks.
> > >
> > > MacOS X does not have a taskbar.
> >
> > That's what I said.
>
> You did? Missed that. I would suggest that the taskbar
> is not one of MacOS X's problems, since it does not
> have one.
>
> > > The problem is that there's no UI element that provides
> > > you with direct access to obscured or hidden windows;
> >
> > Other than right clicking on the dock, you mean.
>
> No, that's not really so direct. That's going through
> menus.

Well, gee. It's not direct on Windows either. You don't go directly to
the Window. You have to go to the task bar first.

>
> > > Expose fixes this by making the windows become briefly
> > > unobscured.
> >
> > Exactly. Expose is the first UI element that does this. Thanks for
> > admitting it (finally).
>
> First UI element on the Mac, anyway. :D

First UI element period.

>
> > > BTW, does anyone know if it shows hidden windows, or
> > > windows in the dock? If it does not, then it's still not going
> > > to do as much as the taskbar, though it may be a welcome
> > > improvement.
> >
> > Reports here say that it does both.
>
> Good.
>
>

"flip" <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in message
news:flippo-E71484.14561506072003[at]news.central.cox.net...
> In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > No, you don't. You right click on the icon on the task bar.
> >
> > MacOS X does not have a task bar. You have to go through
>
> I meant the Dock, of course.

Ah.

> > the application's icon in the dock, unless that application is
> > already front most. Then you can use the Window menu.
> >
> > Either way is awkward, compared to the task bar.
>
> If you've got a very small number of windows open, the task bar might be
> more convenient. As soon as you've got a significant number, the task
> bar stinks. Either you lose the identity of the windows or you're forced
> to give up a significant amount of desktop space to extra task bar rows.

The task bar has an auto-hide feature just like the Dock does; you don't
have to give up any screen real estate.

Though I very rarely need to expand it anyway. I, at least, do not
seem to need >10 windows at a time very often.

> And that's on top of the space you lose with all your menu bars, too.

Since the menu bars are part of the windows, they are
obscured with them; you don't lose any space that way;
indeed you might gain a very small amount of space in rare
cases, because you can have windows with no menu bars.

[snip]
> > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > this problem years ago.
>
> MS addressed it badly, yes.

I've yet to use a better solution. I am sure you
have great faith that Expose will be a better
solution, but I have rather less.

> But what does that have to do with the fact that you keep making claims
> about Mac OS X that are wrong?

As far as I can tell, the only claim I have made that
you dispute is that the business of going to a menu to
bring a window to the front is "awkward" and "not direct".

I think I am right in saying those things; but perhaps I am
merely spoiled by the taskbar.

[snip]
> > > Why not make the task bar 20 rows tall?
> >
> > Cuz my screen isn't that big. :D
>
> That's the point.

Well, with 5 buttons per row and, say, 10 rows
you get 50 windows. Seem pretty capacious. I admit
that once you get up to 100 windows you are going to have
a rought time of it. But nobody has a decent way to deal
with that: the real answer is not to use a hundred windows
at a time.

[snip]
> > The taskbar does start to break down if you have hundreds
> > of windows, but I doubt Expose will be able to deal with
> > that very well either.
>
> It doesn't take hundreds of windows before the task bar breaks down.

When would you say it breaks down then?

[snip]
> > No, that's not really so direct. That's going through
> > menus.
>
> Well, gee. It's not direct on Windows either. You don't go directly to
> the Window. You have to go to the task bar first.

That's so. But it is closer. On the MacOS, you go to the dock, then the
menu,
then to the window itself. On Windows, you go to the taskbar, then the
window itself.

As I understand it, with Expose you go to the screen corner, then
the miniaturized window, then the real window. I am not sure how
well ths works in practice; we'll see in due course.

[snip]

In article <vgh3f5k1p8mqab[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> > > > Why not make the task bar 20 rows tall?
> > >
> > > Cuz my screen isn't that big. :D
> >
> > That's the point.
>
> Well, with 5 buttons per row and, say, 10 rows you get 50 windows. Seem
> pretty capacious. I admit that once you get up to 100 windows you are going
> to have a rought time of it. But nobody has a decent way to deal with that:
> the real answer is not to use a hundred windows at a time.

I just opened 200 documents in BBEdit, the popup menu in the dock icon handles
these just fine.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <vgh3f5k1p8mqab[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "flip" <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in message
> news:flippo-E71484.14561506072003[at]news.central.cox.net...
> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > > No, you don't. You right click on the icon on the task bar.
> > >
> > > MacOS X does not have a task bar. You have to go through
> >
> > I meant the Dock, of course.
>
> Ah.
>
> > > the application's icon in the dock, unless that application is
> > > already front most. Then you can use the Window menu.
> > >
> > > Either way is awkward, compared to the task bar.
> >
> > If you've got a very small number of windows open, the task bar might be
> > more convenient. As soon as you've got a significant number, the task
> > bar stinks. Either you lose the identity of the windows or you're forced
> > to give up a significant amount of desktop space to extra task bar rows.
>
> The task bar has an auto-hide feature just like the Dock does; you don't
> have to give up any screen real estate.

But then you can't see what you're shooting for.

>
> Though I very rarely need to expand it anyway. I, at least, do not
> seem to need >10 windows at a time very often.

Some of use do more than that.

Not to mention, of course, the other advantages of the Dock.

>
> > And that's on top of the space you lose with all your menu bars, too.
>
> Since the menu bars are part of the windows, they are
> obscured with them; you don't lose any space that way;
> indeed you might gain a very small amount of space in rare
> cases, because you can have windows with no menu bars.

How would a window with no menu bar take up less space on Windows than a
window with no menu bar on Macs?

>
> [snip]
> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > > this problem years ago.
> >
> > MS addressed it badly, yes.
>
> I've yet to use a better solution. I am sure you
> have great faith that Expose will be a better
> solution, but I have rather less.

I didn't say that. I said that the Dock is a better solution.

>
> > But what does that have to do with the fact that you keep making claims
> > about Mac OS X that are wrong?
>
> As far as I can tell, the only claim I have made that
> you dispute is that the business of going to a menu to
> bring a window to the front is "awkward" and "not direct".

Not to mention your assertion that the Taskbar is better than the dock.

>
> I think I am right in saying those things; but perhaps I am
> merely spoiled by the taskbar.

More likely, you haven't used the Dock enough to be able to express an
opinion.

>
> [snip]
> > > > Why not make the task bar 20 rows tall?
> > >
> > > Cuz my screen isn't that big. :D
> >
> > That's the point.
>
> Well, with 5 buttons per row and, say, 10 rows
> you get 50 windows. Seem pretty capacious. I admit
> that once you get up to 100 windows you are going to have
> a rought time of it. But nobody has a decent way to deal
> with that: the real answer is not to use a hundred windows
> at a time.

Why would anyone want to devote 10 rows to a taskbar?

That proves my point. You're content with the crappy way of doing things
because you don't know any better.

>
> [snip]
> > > The taskbar does start to break down if you have hundreds
> > > of windows, but I doubt Expose will be able to deal with
> > > that very well either.
> >
> > It doesn't take hundreds of windows before the task bar breaks down.
>
> When would you say it breaks down then?

I'd say that needing 4 rows in the task bar is enough to show how clumsy
the task bar is.

>
> [snip]
> > > No, that's not really so direct. That's going through
> > > menus.
> >
> > Well, gee. It's not direct on Windows either. You don't go directly to
> > the Window. You have to go to the task bar first.
>
> That's so. But it is closer. On the MacOS, you go to the dock, then the
> menu,
> then to the window itself. On Windows, you go to the taskbar, then the
> window itself.

Except that you're advocating hiding the task bar. That's one extra step.

>
> As I understand it, with Expose you go to the screen corner, then
> the miniaturized window, then the real window. I am not sure how
> well ths works in practice; we'll see in due course.

Or you hit the key to bring it up.

"flip" <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in message
news:flippo-FB5359.16474906072003[at]news.central.cox.net...
> In article <vgh3f5k1p8mqab[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > The task bar has an auto-hide feature just like the Dock does; you don't
> > have to give up any screen real estate.
>
> But then you can't see what you're shooting for.

Just as with the dock, when you hit the bottom of the screen it
appears, and then you can see.

> > Though I very rarely need to expand it anyway. I, at least, do not
> > seem to need >10 windows at a time very often.
>
> Some of use do more than that.

Well, then you may be a candidate for a two or even
throw row taskbar. But I wonder what you are doing
that needs more than 10 windows.

> Not to mention, of course, the other advantages of the Dock.

Yes, it's quite a nice application launcher, if you have less
than, say, 15 application you use frequently. It's more direct
than the start menu, even the new XP start menu: one click
and off you go.

And I have not found the lack of proper labels to be as much
of a problem as I had expected it to be, either.

[snip]
> > Since the menu bars are part of the windows, they are
> > obscured with them; you don't lose any space that way;
> > indeed you might gain a very small amount of space in rare
> > cases, because you can have windows with no menu bars.
>
> How would a window with no menu bar take up less space on Windows than a
> window with no menu bar on Macs?

It does not. However, it's content area can be slightly larger
because it can extend all the way to the top of the screen
when maximized, as the menubar can be completely omitted
then.

This is a marginal advantage at best, though.

[snip]
> > > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > > > this problem years ago.
> > >
> > > MS addressed it badly, yes.
> >
> > I've yet to use a better solution. I am sure you
> > have great faith that Expose will be a better
> > solution, but I have rather less.
>
> I didn't say that. I said that the Dock is a better solution.

That it is not. It is a better program launcher if you have
only a few programs, and it's a decent app switcher if
your apps are things like iTunes which typcally have but
one window.

But it's second-best for selecting windows, or for inventoring
them.

[snip]
> > As far as I can tell, the only claim I have made that
> > you dispute is that the business of going to a menu to
> > bring a window to the front is "awkward" and "not direct".
>
> Not to mention your assertion that the Taskbar is better than the dock.

Well, they are of a piece, aren't they?

> > I think I am right in saying those things; but perhaps I am
> > merely spoiled by the taskbar.
>
> More likely, you haven't used the Dock enough to be able to express an
> opinion.

I've been using it for months. If it takes longer than
that, there's clearly something wrong with it.

[snip]
> > Well, with 5 buttons per row and, say, 10 rows
> > you get 50 windows. Seem pretty capacious. I admit
> > that once you get up to 100 windows you are going to have
> > a rought time of it. But nobody has a decent way to deal
> > with that: the real answer is not to use a hundred windows
> > at a time.
>
> Why would anyone want to devote 10 rows to a taskbar?

So you can see your windows, if you have so many.

> That proves my point. You're content with the crappy way of doing things
> because you don't know any better.

I suppose that's true. But I do know the Dock, and it's not
better for this.

[snip]
> > When would you say it breaks down then?
>
> I'd say that needing 4 rows in the task bar is enough to show how clumsy
> the task bar is.

It's quite servicable with 4 rows- that's not even 1/5th of the
screen. And four rows with 5 buttons per row is 20 windows;
on my screen once you go to 6 buttons per row, they start it
shrink which I know you don't like. But you can stand
a little shrinkage you can get 40 windows easily enough with
such a task bar.

[snip]
> > then to the window itself. On Windows, you go to the taskbar, then the
> > window itself.
>
> Except that you're advocating hiding the task bar. That's one extra step.

Okay. Lets say tapping the bottom of the screen is an extra
step.

I find I have to do the same thing with the Dock because if I do not,
windows get stuck behind it all too easily. The taskbar does not
have this problem, and I do not auto-hide it.

So for me (with my lousy 4-8 windows) the taskbar is two steps
(click the button, then off to the window), and the Dock is
four (tap the bottom of the screen, click-and-hold to get the
menu, select from the menu, then off to the window)

If you have a 4 row taskbar you probably want to autohide, so
it will be a little more even, but the taskbar still wins out
I think.

> > As I understand it, with Expose you go to the screen corner, then
> > the miniaturized window, then the real window. I am not sure how
> > well ths works in practice; we'll see in due course.
>
> Or you hit the key to bring it up.

I do not see how this is an improvement.