On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:37:44 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> Um. They both look the same to me - and NEITHER resembles NS3.04
>> on W3.11 in any way. Are you sure those are the correct shots ?
> The NS in the first shot has no title bar. The second
> shot has an overly busy title bar, with 7, yes, count 'em,
> SEVEN function buttons.
Actually it is the desktop that has the title bar isn't it ? I was
just saying that NETSCAPE looked the same in both and different from
what I am used to. (in W3.1)
> Yes, Linux Netscape 3.04 does have some cosmetic
> differences from the Windoze 95 version, such as the
> pink URL window, and maybe the way certain things are
> sized, or which features are defaultly enabled, but I
> assure you, that is Netscape 3.04. I wonder how much
> difference there is between the look of Win3.11 NS3.x
> and Win95 NS3.x.
Why should they look different ? (rhetorical question)
>> Strangely, your shots showing Arachne look like Arachne.
> "Strangely," huh. ;-)
Strange because Arachne looks like Arachne and Netscape looks like a
very primitive IE.
This seems to suggest that the look of a button is controlled by the
application and not the WM. I shall not beat this dog any longer.;-)
> The one place this isn't true is with GGI apps
> such as Arachne, where the size is set to 800x600.
> I believe this is hard-coded.
No, I believe there are three sizes available, just obscurely hidden
in keeping with all Linux stuff I have encountered to date. <g>
Hey, if you can't joke about it, it's WORK. <G>
- Clarence Verge.
-- Using Arachne 1.66 on DSL.
