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 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.

The precedent comes from the Xerox/Lisa/Mac lineage of innovative GUI
designs. I can't see how those square things butted up against each
other influenced Expose in the slightest.

In article <tgmkgvo227qmq5t2on83rf31sf9rtunc87[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> 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.

You'll have to install win 3.1 to see what I am talking about. Ctrl-esc
controled the list but now runs the start menu (the last time I looked)

> >> >> >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 23:12:55 -0700, StormDrain <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com>
wrote:

>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 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.
>
>The precedent comes from the Xerox/Lisa/Mac lineage of innovative GUI
>designs.

Please demonstrate this by showing what part of the Xerox/Lisa/Mac
lineage Expose is based off of.

> I can't see how those square things butted up against each
>other influenced Expose in the slightest.

Perhaps it's too obvious for you....

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:00:46 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:

>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 that there's no spiffy Apple logo on it!


--

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

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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:33:06 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <7nphgvg7j8q9ooasclv455t4t1rug2uo6g[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>You seem to object on general principle to descriptions of hardware or
>software that involve esthetic factors.

No, I object to people declaring that their sense of aesthetics is the
defining one and generally acting as if the topic weren't 100%
subjective.

>
>> 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.

StormDrain wrote in <Liberty-0E17A5.19022407072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com>:

>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.

Yes, it is, you're that goddamn dumb. Windows 3.1 had a task manager.
It was called Task Manager. It worked by pressing Ctrl+Esc. Since
the start menu now uses this keystroke combo they changed it to
Ctrl+Shift+Esc. You switch windows the same way using either
application; the new Task Manager (introduced with NT actually) is
simply more robust and includes control of processes and some system
stats. Someone in that cobwebbed memory of yours you'll find the
answer.

The feature was never removed.

StormDrain wrote in <Liberty-353E93.21562207072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com>:

>And you recommened ctrl-alt-delete as a window switcher? Sorry guy, its

No one would use the old task manager as a window switcher, they'd use
alt-tab unless they were retarded and couldn't cope.

>not even close. Remember MS removed the task-list and came up with the
>task bar.

There's not even a minor degree of overlap between the two. You're
profoundly confused. Here's what you are basically referring to:

http://toastytech.com/guis/c73taskmgr.gif

It was in Windows 95 but since the start menu took it's shortcut you
couldn't cope and found no way to launch it.

It is in fact the same type of program as the current task manager,
with fewer features. No normal person would use it to switch active
windows.

You're just clueless.

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-EB981D.17350707072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <vgk1p4sb4k4l1d[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > 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?

It will do that if you are not a part of a domain; if you
are it brings up a dialog that can do things like change your
password.

Ctrl-shift-esc brings up the task list on any XP system,
I believe.

> 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.

Win95 did that; however while they removed the Win3 task list
they did not remove the NT 3.1 task list; they've been enhancing
that. So with XP, in effect, the task list is back, and better than
ever, in that it has a bunch more features. Though most of them
have little to do with switching apps.

Alt-tab cycles through open windows still, of course.

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

The task manager does lots of things, and one of them is switch between
windows. It isn't a real *quick* way to do it, next to the taskbar, but it
exists
and works, if that the sort of thing you like.

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-8F92B3.17225309072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <vgp2qt1f3gtt0b[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > Ah, I see. Using terminal windows will tend to balloon the number
> > of windows you need quickly!
> >
> > But I stll only count 11 VMS windows and 2 others;
> > 13 windows would fit in 3 tiers comfortably, would it not?
>
> Yes, the windows will fit but I didn't find the table format very
> workable. 2nd row, 3rd window etc. Adding sessions/programs casues
> task-bar to either squish the readability or add another row (I don't
> remember which but either one I didn't like).

It makes the buttons smaller.

> It was hard to keep track
> of where things were during the day.

Hmm. This is a problem with pretty much any window
selection technique I know of: the placement of the buttons/icons/whatever
is dynamic and not so predictable.

> Making it a pop-out list on the right (1 window, x tiers), I could name
> the session whatever I wanted and it would always be readable, the new
> windows were always added to the bottom, the ones on the top were always
> in the same order. I could quickly find what I needed. To me it was
> very user (myself) friendly.

Hmm. The task bar is always like that in Windows 2000, in any
orientation. But you'll be delighted to know they changed this in XP...

> > > On the Mac I can click an icon on the dock and see a list of documents
> > > using that program, I find it useful.
> >
> > What do you use it for?
>
> I use it for similar things..to manage documents and sessions. I keep a
> lot of stuff open and, for me, it's easier to pick from a list rather
> than rummage through the desktop or decipher a table. :)

It seems to me like it's a list either way you do it. The pattern
I see here is that you like vertically arranged lists. Perhaps so more
of the name is readable?

The task bar, as you know, can do vertical if you want it.

In article <vgrs4e8bl7ge55[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-8F92B3.17225309072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <vgp2qt1f3gtt0b[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > > Ah, I see. Using terminal windows will tend to balloon the number
> > > of windows you need quickly!
> > >
> > > But I stll only count 11 VMS windows and 2 others;
> > > 13 windows would fit in 3 tiers comfortably, would it not?
> >
> > Yes, the windows will fit but I didn't find the table format very
> > workable. 2nd row, 3rd window etc. Adding sessions/programs casues
> > task-bar to either squish the readability or add another row (I don't
> > remember which but either one I didn't like).
>
> It makes the buttons smaller.
>
> > It was hard to keep track
> > of where things were during the day.
>
> Hmm. This is a problem with pretty much any window
> selection technique I know of: the placement of the buttons/icons/whatever
> is dynamic and not so predictable.
>
> > Making it a pop-out list on the right (1 window, x tiers), I could name
> > the session whatever I wanted and it would always be readable, the new
> > windows were always added to the bottom, the ones on the top were always
> > in the same order. I could quickly find what I needed. To me it was
> > very user (myself) friendly.
>
> Hmm. The task bar is always like that in Windows 2000, in any
> orientation. But you'll be delighted to know they changed this in XP...
>
> > > > On the Mac I can click an icon on the dock and see a list of documents
> > > > using that program, I find it useful.
> > >
> > > What do you use it for?
> >
> > I use it for similar things..to manage documents and sessions. I keep a
> > lot of stuff open and, for me, it's easier to pick from a list rather
> > than rummage through the desktop or decipher a table. :)
>
> It seems to me like it's a list either way you do it. The pattern
> I see here is that you like vertically arranged lists. Perhaps so more
> of the name is readable?
>
> The task bar, as you know, can do vertical if you want it.
>
>

Thanks for the info..I'll try to summarize and can put this thread to
rest:

In summary: I mentioned win 3.1 had a nice task list that MS removed and
you verified this in a previous message..thank you! Then I said unless
a person runs only a few programs the task list is unusable without
quite a bit of tweaking...which you also verified...thank you
again...PLUS as an added bonus you listed all the various versions of
the task bar MS created in an attempt to create usability. Well done!
It's nice to end a thread in agreement!

THREAD OVER! :)

SD

"StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
news:Liberty-1B8C5E.17072010072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> In article <vgrs4e8bl7ge55[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the info..I'll try to summarize and can put this thread to
> rest:

No! No! Must... flog... dead... horse...

> In summary: I mentioned win 3.1 had a nice task list that MS removed and
> you verified this in a previous message..thank you! Then I said unless
> a person runs only a few programs the task list is unusable without
> quite a bit of tweaking...which you also verified...thank you
> again...PLUS as an added bonus you listed all the various versions of
> the task bar MS created in an attempt to create usability. Well done!
> It's nice to end a thread in agreement!

<HORSE LASH="OW" RESPIRATION="NONE">
More or less. However, I think we also agree that MS
put the silly thing back in eventually.
</HORSE>

> THREAD OVER! :)

:D

In article <vguana2r1m700e[at]news.supernews.com>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
> news:Liberty-1B8C5E.17072010072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <vgrs4e8bl7ge55[at]news.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > Thanks for the info..I'll try to summarize and can put this thread to
> > rest:
>
> No! No! Must... flog... dead... horse...
>
> > In summary: I mentioned win 3.1 had a nice task list that MS removed and
> > you verified this in a previous message..thank you! Then I said unless
> > a person runs only a few programs the task list is unusable without
> > quite a bit of tweaking...which you also verified...thank you
> > again...PLUS as an added bonus you listed all the various versions of
> > the task bar MS created in an attempt to create usability. Well done!
> > It's nice to end a thread in agreement!
>
> <HORSE LASH="OW" RESPIRATION="NONE">
> More or less. However, I think we also agree that MS
> put the silly thing back in eventually.
> </HORSE>
>
> > THREAD OVER! :)
>
> :D
>
>

<HORSE KEEPBEATING="TRUE" RESPIRATION="NONE">
I went by circut city to play around with XP. I saw the Task Manager and
a few ways to get to it...so I'll go ahead and agree they put it back
in, but that was as much XP as I could take for the day so I left. :)
</HORSE>

StormDrain wrote in <Liberty-774CD4.16273911072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com>:

>In article <vguana2r1m700e[at]news.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
>> "StormDrain" <Liberty[at]MS-Free.com> wrote in message
>> news:Liberty-1B8C5E.17072010072003[at]cnews.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <vgrs4e8bl7ge55[at]news.supernews.com>,
>> > "Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the info..I'll try to summarize and can put this thread to
>> > rest:
>>
>> No! No! Must... flog... dead... horse...
>>
>> > In summary: I mentioned win 3.1 had a nice task list that MS removed and
>> > you verified this in a previous message..thank you! Then I said unless
>> > a person runs only a few programs the task list is unusable without
>> > quite a bit of tweaking...which you also verified...thank you
>> > again...PLUS as an added bonus you listed all the various versions of
>> > the task bar MS created in an attempt to create usability. Well done!
>> > It's nice to end a thread in agreement!
>>
>> <HORSE LASH="OW" RESPIRATION="NONE">
>> More or less. However, I think we also agree that MS
>> put the silly thing back in eventually.
>> </HORSE>
>>
>> > THREAD OVER! :)
>>
>> :D
>>
>>
>
><HORSE KEEPBEATING="TRUE" RESPIRATION="NONE">
>I went by circut city to play around with XP. I saw the Task Manager and
>a few ways to get to it...so I'll go ahead and agree they put it back
>in, but that was as much XP as I could take for the day so I left. :)
></HORSE>

Yeah, it must be sad to see reminders of how far OS X has to go before
it has a decent shell.