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
> 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.
>
> > > 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.

And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
"tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
this into Longboar?

SD

> > > > 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
>
> > 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.
>
> [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.
>
> > > 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
>
> > > 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.
>
>

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > this problem years ago.
>
> And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
> this into Longboar?

I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
QE to use for that.

But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.

No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.

[snip]

In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates" this
> > into Longboar?
>
> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect they never will.
> It solves a problem Windows does not have. What they might do is gussy up
> the taskbar with QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> QE to use for that.
>
> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue; I mean to
> suggest that this is a form of catch up.
>
> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows, so that in this respect
> MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear to me that they will manage it with
> this Expose feature.

Of course they can't leapfrog over Windows equivalent of Exposé - Windows
doesn't have a equivalent.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > > this problem years ago.
> >
> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
> > this into Longboar?
>
> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> QE to use for that.
>
> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
>
> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.

I had a chance to play around with Panther a bit the other day. Exposé,
with its window shrinking function assigned to a mouse button under the
thumb, is by far the most natural window switching mechanism I've ever
experienced. Seriously. It's so good that I think Apple should stick a
thumb button on the standard mouse, just for this.

When you head for the Dock or the Taskbar to pull up a window, it's a
disruptive process -- you stop whatever you're doing and go into window
hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.

(Mayor won't like this post)

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:07:23 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

>In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
>> > > this problem years ago.
>> >
>> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
>> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
>> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
>> > this into Longboar?
>>
>> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
>> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
>> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
>> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
>> QE to use for that.
>>
>> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
>> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
>>
>> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
>> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
>> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.
>
>I had a chance to play around with Panther a bit the other day. Exposé,
>with its window shrinking function assigned to a mouse button under the
>thumb, is by far the most natural window switching mechanism I've ever
>experienced. Seriously. It's so good that I think Apple should stick a
>thumb button on the standard mouse, just for this.

It sounds very good. Time for a mouse upgrade. :)

>When you head for the Dock or the Taskbar to pull up a window, it's a
>disruptive process -- you stop whatever you're doing and go into window
>hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
>'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.
>(Mayor won't like this post)

(Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:07:23 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
>> > > this problem years ago.
>> >
>> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
>> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
>> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
>> > this into Longboar?
>>
>> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
>> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
>> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
>> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
>> QE to use for that.
>>
>> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
>> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
>>
>> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
>> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
>> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.
>
>I had a chance to play around with Panther a bit the other day. Exposé,
>with its window shrinking function assigned to a mouse button under the
>thumb, is by far the most natural window switching mechanism I've ever
>experienced. Seriously. It's so good that I think Apple should stick a
>thumb button on the standard mouse, just for this.
>
>When you head for the Dock or the Taskbar to pull up a window, it's a
>disruptive process -- you stop whatever you're doing and go into window
>hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
>'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.
>
>(Mayor won't like this post)

Why would it bother me? I already know that you're a major Macbigot.
Apple could have fixed it so you have to run around your house three
times to use the feature and you'd have still declared it better and
more intuitive than anything else.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> > > this problem years ago.
> >
> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
> > this into Longboar?
>
> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> QE to use for that.

Sour grapes. Run through the quicktime video on apple's website, win has
nothing like it. I agree MS needs better control of the hardware to
even get close in functionality.

SD

> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
>
> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.
>
> [snip]
>
>

In article <ngmhgv83vmt5rachtjruif00jvs6u7unff[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:07:23 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> >> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> >> > > this problem years ago.
> >> >
> >> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> >> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> >> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
> >> > this into Longboar?
> >>
> >> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> >> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> >> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> >> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> >> QE to use for that.
> >>
> >> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
> >> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
> >>
> >> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
> >> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
> >> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.
> >
> >I had a chance to play around with Panther a bit the other day. Exposé,
> >with its window shrinking function assigned to a mouse button under the
> >thumb, is by far the most natural window switching mechanism I've ever
> >experienced. Seriously. It's so good that I think Apple should stick a
> >thumb button on the standard mouse, just for this.
>
> It sounds very good. Time for a mouse upgrade. :)
>
> >When you head for the Dock or the Taskbar to pull up a window, it's a
> >disruptive process -- you stop whatever you're doing and go into window
> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.
> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>
> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)

That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort of
fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.
> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
> >>
> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >
> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort of
> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>
> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!

Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel because
there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
Exposé.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching
> >> >> >to.
> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
> >> >>
> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >
> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort of
> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
> >>
> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
> >
> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel because
> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
> >Exposé.
>
>
> ...whatever that means.

It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is hardly
some obscure or ill-defined concept.

Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear to
be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
and feature lists.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <ngmhgv83vmt5rachtjruif00jvs6u7unff[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:07:23 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Liberty-C45209.12514406072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> >> > In article <vggu39crkd2eed[at]news.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> > > You just can't deal with the simple fact that MS addressed
> >> > > this problem years ago.
> >> >
> >> > And MS is still using their "years ago" solution, including the DOS era
> >> > "tile windows". Without Apple attempting to advance GUI design there
> >> > would be no development in that area. How long before MS "innovates"
> >> > this into Longboar?
> >>
> >> I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> >> they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> >> have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> >> QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> >> QE to use for that.
> >>
> >> But I do not mean to criticize Apple for addressing this issue;
> >> I mean to suggest that this is a form of catch up.
> >>
> >> No doubt Apple would like to leapfrog over Windows,
> >> so that in this respect MacOS X is better; it's not at all clear
> >> to me that they will manage it with this Expose feature.
> >
> >I had a chance to play around with Panther a bit the other day. Exposé,
> >with its window shrinking function assigned to a mouse button under the
> >thumb, is by far the most natural window switching mechanism I've ever
> >experienced. Seriously. It's so good that I think Apple should stick a
> >thumb button on the standard mouse, just for this.
>
> It sounds very good. Time for a mouse upgrade. :)
>
> >When you head for the Dock or the Taskbar to pull up a window, it's a
> >disruptive process -- you stop whatever you're doing and go into window
> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching to.
> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>
> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)

Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
direction with GUI development.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:

>In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
>> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're switching
>> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort of
>> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >>
>> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >
>> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel because
>> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
>> >Exposé.
>>
>>
>> ...whatever that means.
>
>It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is hardly
>some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>
>Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear to
>be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
>and feature lists.

Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
including getting something from the tile command in Windows.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:19:13 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>
>Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
>of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
>direction with GUI development.

Can you tell me what you missed from 3.1?

In article <2fgjgvgifv8j5dshjmftitanm3f6ucp19h[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:19:13 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >
> >Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
> >of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
> >direction with GUI development.
>
> Can you tell me what you missed from 3.1?

THE TASK LIST!!!!!!!

Plus DOS compatibility.

SD

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort of
>> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
>> >> >> >> >switching
>> >> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
>> >> >> >> tasks
>> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort of
>> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >> >
>> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel because
>> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
>> >> >Exposé.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...whatever that means.
>> >
>> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is hardly
>> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>> >
>> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear to
>> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
>> >and feature lists.
>>
>> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
>> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
>> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
>> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
>
>Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in any
>windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the limitations
>of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a good
>thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
>good through the next century, final word on the issue?
>
>SD
>
>P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)

Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:16 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <2fgjgvgifv8j5dshjmftitanm3f6ucp19h[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:19:13 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >
>> >Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
>> >of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
>> >direction with GUI development.
>>
>> Can you tell me what you missed from 3.1?
>
>THE TASK LIST!!!!!!!

You can get a task list from XP.

>Plus DOS compatibility.

XP has this.

>SD

In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort
> >> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
> >> >> >> >> >switching
> >> >> >> >> >to.
> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
> >> >> >> >> tasks
> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort
> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel
> >> >> >because
> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
> >> >> >Exposé.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ...whatever that means.
> >> >
> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is hardly
> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear to
> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
> >> >and feature lists.
> >>
> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
> >
> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in any
> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the limitations
> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a good
> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
> >
> >SD
> >
> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
>
> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.

This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well tuned
graphics subsystem..it is new.

No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.

You're welcome to give up any time.

SD

In article <kvkjgvkvrpb92c9f1pe6og8tlb7i868u1u[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:29:16 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <2fgjgvgifv8j5dshjmftitanm3f6ucp19h[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:19:13 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >
> >> >Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
> >> >of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
> >> >direction with GUI development.
> >>
> >> Can you tell me what you missed from 3.1?
> >
> >THE TASK LIST!!!!!!!
>
> You can get a task list from XP.

Oh did MS put it back? They took it out for 95, 98 and NT (the last
versions of windows I will probably "use")

> >Plus DOS compatibility.
>
> XP has this.

Probably not as good as OS/2's DOS compatibility was (remember, we
couldn't switch from win 3.1 to XP way back when)

> >SD
>

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention sort
>> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
>> >> >> >> >> >switching
>> >> >> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
>> >> >> >> >> tasks
>> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the sort
>> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel
>> >> >> >because
>> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is with
>> >> >> >Exposé.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...whatever that means.
>> >> >
>> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is hardly
>> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear to
>> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
>> >> >and feature lists.
>> >>
>> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
>> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
>> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
>> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
>> >
>> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in any
>> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the limitations
>> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a good
>> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
>> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
>> >
>> >SD
>> >
>> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
>>
>> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.
>
>This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well tuned
>graphics subsystem..it is new.
>
>No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
>
>You're welcome to give up any time.
>
>SD

It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>
> Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
> of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
> direction with GUI development.

I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-DE41F1.22113706072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> > they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> > have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> > QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> > QE to use for that.
>
> Sour grapes. Run through the quicktime video on apple's website, win has
> nothing like it.

I've seen it. Win has nothing very much like it, but the taskbar
has been solving the same problem very well for years- sure, with
less chrome, but chrome's not everything.

> I agree MS needs better control of the hardware to
> even get close in functionality.

I doubt that. MS has most of what it needs in DirectX to implement
QE on extand hardware. It's the layers above the hardware interface
they have to do.

However, I do not think they anticipated what a success
QE would be, and they were caught a bit flat footed. So it
will be a little while.

[snip]

In article <vgk1tpjdkedh6e[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-DE41F1.22113706072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <vgh30i1hl3hod3[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > I think that depends on whether it is popular; but I expect
> > > they never will. It solves a problem Windows does not
> > > have. What they might do is gussy up the taskbar with
> > > QE-style visual effects, once they have a technology like
> > > QE to use for that.
> >
> > Sour grapes. Run through the quicktime video on apple's website, win has
> > nothing like it.
>
> I've seen it. Win has nothing very much like it, but the taskbar
> has been solving the same problem very well for years- sure, with
> less chrome, but chrome's not everything.

I'm glad you like the task bar. It can become usable after much
tweaking, for someone that doesn't use a computer for more one or two
things.

> > I agree MS needs better control of the hardware to
> > even get close in functionality.
>
> I doubt that. MS has most of what it needs in DirectX to implement
> QE on extand hardware. It's the layers above the hardware interface
> they have to do.
>
> However, I do not think they anticipated what a success
> QE would be, and they were caught a bit flat footed. So it
> will be a little while.

Nobody has ever accused MS of anticipating so we won't start now, OK?

> [snip]
>
>

In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >
> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
> > direction with GUI development.
>
> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
>

I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.

Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.

SD

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:31 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <45tjgvg7f42h50f4bicvvmoi1uccmq9ber[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your attention
>> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >switching
>> >> >> >> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of
>> >> >> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> >> >> tasks
>> >> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the
>> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel
>> >> >> >> >because
>> >> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is
>> >> >> >> >with
>> >> >> >> >Exposé.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ...whatever that means.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is
>> >> >> >hardly
>> >> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't appear
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks, specifications
>> >> >> >and feature lists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
>> >> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
>> >> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
>> >> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in any
>> >> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the limitations
>> >> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a good
>> >> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
>> >> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
>> >> >
>> >> >SD
>> >> >
>> >> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
>> >>
>> >> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.
>> >
>> >This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well tuned
>> >graphics subsystem..it is new.
>> >
>> >No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
>> >
>> >You're welcome to give up any time.
>> >
>> >SD
>>
>> It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.
>
>You sound little desperate now, I'd recommend you give it up.

Huh?

>Do you
>really think that silly "tile windows" has influenced GUI design? Is

It's pretty obvious.

>your use of the word "ripoff" a selfjustification knowing 80% of Win
>_has_ been ripped off and very little innovation comes from MS?
>Just wondering,

Just wondering - do you think that's an Apple innovation with no
precedent?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >
>> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
>> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
>> > direction with GUI development.
>>
>> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
>> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
>>
>
>I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
>the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
>as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
>believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
>ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
>where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.

You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
you had a clue of what you're talking about.

>Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
>processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.

In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >
> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
> >> > direction with GUI development.
> >>
> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
> >>
> >
> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
>
> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
> you had a clue of what you're talking about.

I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????

sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.

> >Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
> >processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.

In article <5i8kgvggff10jfb8slr3f7u09ft1i8155k[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:31 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <45tjgvg7f42h50f4bicvvmoi1uccmq9ber[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >attention
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >switching
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> running
> >> >> >> >> >> >> tasks
> >> >> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the
> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
> >> >> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel
> >> >> >> >> >because
> >> >> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is
> >> >> >> >> >with
> >> >> >> >> >Exposé.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ...whatever that means.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is
> >> >> >> >hardly
> >> >> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't
> >> >> >> >appear
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks,
> >> >> >> >specifications
> >> >> >> >and feature lists.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
> >> >> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
> >> >> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
> >> >> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in
> >> >> >any
> >> >> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the
> >> >> >limitations
> >> >> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a
> >> >> >good
> >> >> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
> >> >> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >SD
> >> >> >
> >> >> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
> >> >>
> >> >> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.
> >> >
> >> >This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well tuned
> >> >graphics subsystem..it is new.
> >> >
> >> >No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
> >> >
> >> >You're welcome to give up any time.
> >> >
> >> >SD
> >>
> >> It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.
> >
> >You sound little desperate now, I'd recommend you give it up.
>
> Huh?
>
> >Do you
> >really think that silly "tile windows" has influenced GUI design? Is
>
> It's pretty obvious.

Oh you are right, "tile windows" has been THE standard, THE holy grail
all through which all GUIs are judged. Any system that tries to expose
all open windows at the same time has OBVIOUSLY copied "tile windows".
Through the whole process the developers at Apple had one question on
their mind "How can we improve 'tile windows'"

> >your use of the word "ripoff" a selfjustification knowing 80% of Win
> >_has_ been ripped off and very little innovation comes from MS?
> >Just wondering,
>
> Just wondering - do you think that's an Apple innovation with no
> precedent?

foo, I already said "...Window management is a problem in any windowing
system..." and "...recognize the limitations of _all_ current
solutions...". Where did I mention "no precedent"?

SD

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:24 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >
>> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
>> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
>> >> > direction with GUI development.
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
>> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
>> >>
>> >
>> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
>> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
>> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
>> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
>> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
>> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
>>
>> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
>> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
>> you had a clue of what you're talking about.
>
>I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
>REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
>the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
>WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????
>
>sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.
>

So you talked to some underpaid monkies contracted by MS to handel
their phone support. They couldn't find what you where asking for in
their little database and based on that you feel like you've been told
this feature doesn't exist directly from the programmers themselves.
However if you where to take 10 seconds to look at the task manager
you would see that for all intense and purposes it is still there.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article <f9fkgvsmv3e1fci160ctgkic2ueevlopj6[at]4ax.com>,
Josiah Fizer <jfizer[at]classy.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:24 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> >> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
> >> >> > > tasks
> >> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in
> >> >> > favor
> >> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the
> >> >> > right
> >> >> > direction with GUI development.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
> >> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
> >> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
> >> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
> >> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
> >> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
> >> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
> >>
> >> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
> >> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
> >> you had a clue of what you're talking about.
> >
> >I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
> >REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
> >the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
> >WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????
> >
> >sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.
> >
>
> So you talked to some underpaid monkies contracted by MS to handel
> their phone support. They couldn't find what you where asking for in
> their little database and based on that you feel like you've been told
> this feature doesn't exist directly from the programmers themselves.
> However if you where to take 10 seconds to look at the task manager
> you would see that for all intense and purposes it is still there.

You guys are so funny. The task manager was not intended as a task list
replacement. I am not suprised that the win crowd uses it as a windows
switcher, but that is not its intended use. Task list was replaced by
the task bar. But you knew that...

>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =---

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:24 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running tasks
>> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >
>> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in favor
>> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the right
>> >> > direction with GUI development.
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
>> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
>> >>
>> >
>> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
>> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
>> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
>> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
>> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
>> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
>>
>> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
>> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
>> you had a clue of what you're talking about.
>
>I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
>REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
>the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
>WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????
>
>sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.

....except for the minor fact that the feature you actually *described*
is in Windows....

>> >Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
>> >processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:52:36 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <5i8kgvggff10jfb8slr3f7u09ft1i8155k[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:31 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <45tjgvg7f42h50f4bicvvmoi1uccmq9ber[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >attention
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one you're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >switching
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> tasks
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural feel
>> >> >> >> >> >because
>> >> >> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there is
>> >> >> >> >> >with
>> >> >> >> >> >Exposé.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> ...whatever that means.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow is
>> >> >> >> >hardly
>> >> >> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't
>> >> >> >> >appear
>> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks,
>> >> >> >> >specifications
>> >> >> >> >and feature lists.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
>> >> >> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily yours)
>> >> >> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior knowledge,
>> >> >> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in
>> >> >> >any
>> >> >> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the
>> >> >> >limitations
>> >> >> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a
>> >> >> >good
>> >> >> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end all,
>> >> >> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >SD
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well tuned
>> >> >graphics subsystem..it is new.
>> >> >
>> >> >No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're welcome to give up any time.
>> >> >
>> >> >SD
>> >>
>> >> It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.
>> >
>> >You sound little desperate now, I'd recommend you give it up.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> >Do you
>> >really think that silly "tile windows" has influenced GUI design? Is
>>
>> It's pretty obvious.
>
>Oh you are right, "tile windows" has been THE standard, THE holy grail
>all through which all GUIs are judged. Any system that tries to expose
>all open windows at the same time has OBVIOUSLY copied "tile windows".
>Through the whole process the developers at Apple had one question on
>their mind "How can we improve 'tile windows'"
>
>> >your use of the word "ripoff" a selfjustification knowing 80% of Win
>> >_has_ been ripped off and very little innovation comes from MS?
>> >Just wondering,
>>
>> Just wondering - do you think that's an Apple innovation with no
>> precedent?
>
>foo, I already said "...Window management is a problem in any windowing
>system..." and "...recognize the limitations of _all_ current
>solutions...". Where did I mention "no precedent"?
>
>SD

Because I came out and said that Expose had a clear precedent (tile
windows) in speaking with ZnU, which launched your entire tirade. And
now we're back to square one, and now you agree with me.

In article <ofikgv0lurnsssgmc1mup6682gv8jphoi6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:24 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
> >> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> >> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
> >> >> > > tasks
> >> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in
> >> >> > favor
> >> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the
> >> >> > right
> >> >> > direction with GUI development.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
> >> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
> >> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
> >> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
> >> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
> >> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
> >> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
> >>
> >> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
> >> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
> >> you had a clue of what you're talking about.
> >
> >I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
> >REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
> >the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
> >WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????
> >
> >sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.
>
> ...except for the minor fact that the feature you actually *described*
> is in Windows....

And you recommened ctrl-alt-delete as a window switcher? Sorry guy, its
not even close. Remember MS removed the task-list and came up with the
task bar.

> >> >Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
> >> >processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.
>

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:54:01 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <vgikgvgnrjprhm5b91mt8gsvmhck6vbtjj[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:52:36 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5i8kgvggff10jfb8slr3f7u09ft1i8155k[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:31 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <45tjgvg7f42h50f4bicvvmoi1uccmq9ber[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >attention
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >you're
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >switching
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tasks
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programming....)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would achieve
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid, natural
>> >> >> >> >> >> >feel
>> >> >> >> >> >> >because
>> >> >> >> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that there
>> >> >> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >with
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Exposé.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...whatever that means.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual flow
>> >> >> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >> >hardly
>> >> >> >> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't
>> >> >> >> >> >appear
>> >> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks,
>> >> >> >> >> >specifications
>> >> >> >> >> >and feature lists.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
>> >> >> >> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily
>> >> >> >> >> yours)
>> >> >> >> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior
>> >> >> >> >> knowledge,
>> >> >> >> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem in
>> >> >> >> >any
>> >> >> >> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the
>> >> >> >> >limitations
>> >> >> >> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is a
>> >> >> >> >good
>> >> >> >> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end
>> >> >> >> >all,
>> >> >> >> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >SD
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It
>> >> >> >> isn't.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well
>> >> >> >tuned
>> >> >> >graphics subsystem..it is new.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You're welcome to give up any time.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >SD
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.
>> >> >
>> >> >You sound little desperate now, I'd recommend you give it up.
>> >>
>> >> Huh?
>> >>
>> >> >Do you
>> >> >really think that silly "tile windows" has influenced GUI design? Is
>> >>
>> >> It's pretty obvious.
>> >
>> >Oh you are right, "tile windows" has been THE standard, THE holy grail
>> >all through which all GUIs are judged. Any system that tries to expose
>> >all open windows at the same time has OBVIOUSLY copied "tile windows".
>> >Through the whole process the developers at Apple had one question on
>> >their mind "How can we improve 'tile windows'"
>> >
>> >> >your use of the word "ripoff" a selfjustification knowing 80% of Win
>> >> >_has_ been ripped off and very little innovation comes from MS?
>> >> >Just wondering,
>> >>
>> >> Just wondering - do you think that's an Apple innovation with no
>> >> precedent?
>> >
>> >foo, I already said "...Window management is a problem in any windowing
>> >system..." and "...recognize the limitations of _all_ current
>> >solutions...". Where did I mention "no precedent"?
>> >
>> >SD
>>
>> Because I came out and said that Expose had a clear precedent (tile
>> windows) in speaking with ZnU, which launched your entire tirade. And
>> now we're back to square one, and now you agree with me.
>>
>
>Well, no I don't agree but you have your heart set on this...

If you don't agree with 'no precedent' you agree with me.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:56:22 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>In article <ofikgv0lurnsssgmc1mup6682gv8jphoi6[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:24 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <mj8kgvsfk2d02eiilfn9mq70g9m0uj5u7o[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> >> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Liberty-957AA6.11191307072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> >> >> > > (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list of running
>> >> >> > > tasks
>> >> >> > > in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton programming....)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Win 3.1 had a very nice, very usable tasklist that MS removed in
>> >> >> > favor
>> >> >> > of their current...uh...solution. I think Apple's moving in the
>> >> >> > right
>> >> >> > direction with GUI development.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm curious to know what was better about the Win3 task list compared
>> >> >> to the XP version of the same, now called the "Task Manager".
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I've done some research and I think XP's Task Manager you refer to is
>> >> >the result of ctrl-alt-delete, right? Win 3.1's "tasklist" was designed
>> >> >as a quick way change windows via a two stroke key combination. I
>> >> >believe it was ctrl-tab, alt-tab cycled through open windows and
>> >> >ctrl-tab brought up a simple list. I called MS at the time and asked
>> >> >where the task list was. They remmoved it in favor of the task bar.
>> >>
>> >> You're clueless. It's been in every version of Windows since.
>> >> Alt-Tab works flawlessly. Your arguments would gain credibility if
>> >> you had a clue of what you're talking about.
>> >
>> >I am not talking about alt-tab, I am talking about a feature that was
>> >REMOVED from win 3.1..Got it?! I discussed it with MS tech support at
>> >the time...DO YOU KNOW WHO MS IS?? THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE WINDOWS AND KNEW
>> >WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT??????????
>> >
>> >sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall.
>>
>> ...except for the minor fact that the feature you actually *described*
>> is in Windows....
>
>And you recommened ctrl-alt-delete as a window switcher? Sorry guy, its
>not even close. Remember MS removed the task-list and came up with the
>task bar.

Ctrl-Tab and Alt-Tab are two other things that do exactly as you
mention, and Alt-Tab shows a list of apps you can tab through to
select.

>> >> >Task Manager was designed to kill hung programs (much needed), monitor
>> >> >processes etc, it was not intended to be a quick window management tool.
>>

In article <2gmkgvoduhd00anfk52c4qrqi1m3a5h08d[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:54:01 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <vgikgvgnrjprhm5b91mt8gsvmhck6vbtjj[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:52:36 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <5i8kgvggff10jfb8slr3f7u09ft1i8155k[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:31 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <45tjgvg7f42h50f4bicvvmoi1uccmq9ber[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:27:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <ptkjgvs2svh148n4jaai705us76lj0o6og[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:59 -0700, StormDrain
> >> >> >> >> <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <fcgjgvo0p8gqalnbm6qtbrckdu34kdgcua[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <0e6jgvkolajhd9uiq7bn87ifmrg1htilib[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <tuvigv0onru3ea81ka2qkrfgfkn979igh7[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:27:48 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >hunting mode. Exposé isn't like that at all. Your
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >attention
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >'flows' directly from the current window to the one
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >you're
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >switching
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >(Mayor won't like this post)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Nevermind a mousebutton could easily bring up a list
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> running
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> tasks
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in XP with a bit of creative mousebutton
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> programming....)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >achieve
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sort
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >fluid, natural feel that Exposé does.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well of course not - there's no Apple logo on it!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Uh, no. It wouldn't achieve the same sort of fluid,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >natural
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >feel
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >because
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >there wouldn't be the same continuous visual flow that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >there
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >with
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Exposé.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...whatever that means.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >It means exactly what it says. What's the problem? Visual
> >> >> >> >> >> >flow
> >> >> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >> >> >hardly
> >> >> >> >> >> >some obscure or ill-defined concept.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Oh, but I forget myself. The Windows fans in this group don't
> >> >> >> >> >> >appear
> >> >> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> >> >be capable of comprehending anything except benchmarks,
> >> >> >> >> >> >specifications
> >> >> >> >> >> >and feature lists.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Expose is nice - I'm not suggesting it's not. I think my main
> >> >> >> >> >> annoyance with this thread is some people's (not necesssarily
> >> >> >> >> >> yours)
> >> >> >> >> >> inability to acknowledge that it's clearly based on prior
> >> >> >> >> >> knowledge,
> >> >> >> >> >> including getting something from the tile command in Windows.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Well BFG! prior knowledge...wow! Window management is a problem
> >> >> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> >any
> >> >> >> >> >windowing system...duh! Can you win-types not recognize the
> >> >> >> >> >limitations
> >> >> >> >> >of _all_ current solutions and admit development in this area is
> >> >> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >> >good
> >> >> >> >> >thing?? Or is the (crappy) windows solution the be all and end
> >> >> >> >> >all,
> >> >> >> >> >good through the next century, final word on the issue?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >SD
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >P.S sorry about the word "crappy" :)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Others have argued that Expose is something new and unique. It
> >> >> >> >> isn't.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >This is a new solution to an old problem, made possible by a well
> >> >> >> >tuned
> >> >> >> >graphics subsystem..it is new.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No other system manages windows as does Expose...it's unique.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You're welcome to give up any time.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >SD
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a (better) ripoff of tile windows.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You sound little desperate now, I'd recommend you give it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you
> >> >> >really think that silly "tile windows" has influenced GUI design? Is
> >> >>
> >> >> It's pretty obvious.
> >> >
> >> >Oh you are right, "tile windows" has been THE standard, THE holy grail
> >> >all through which all GUIs are judged. Any system that tries to expose
> >> >all open windows at the same time has OBVIOUSLY copied "tile windows".
> >> >Through the whole process the developers at Apple had one question on
> >> >their mind "How can we improve 'tile windows'"
> >> >
> >> >> >your use of the word "ripoff" a selfjustification knowing 80% of Win
> >> >> >_has_ been ripped off and very little innovation comes from MS?
> >> >> >Just wondering,
> >> >>
> >> >> Just wondering - do you think that's an Apple innovation with no
> >> >> precedent?
> >> >
> >> >foo, I already said "...Window management is a problem in any windowing
> >> >system..." and "...recognize the limitations of _all_ current
> >> >solutions...". Where did I mention "no precedent"?
> >> >
> >> >SD
> >>
> >> Because I came out and said that Expose had a clear precedent (tile
> >> windows) in speaking with ZnU, which launched your entire tirade. And
> >> now we're back to square one, and now you agree with m