I'll have to take your word for that because I have not tried it, but I was thinking the opposite was true. There's a great deal of similarity that's attractive to me but Enlightenment's simple pager design may be more flexible and better suited to my work.
Compiz's cube organization is much like Enlightenment's virtual desktops with a different method of connecting and viewing virtual screens. Compiz gives you transparent cubes you can rotate, E gives you pagers that can be expanded by row and column. I prefer 3x3 and mostly use the center and cross elements, which are five of the six faces of a cube. Productivity wise, I worry about cubes getting crowded and getting around. The zoom out features of Compiz look like an easier method of viewing the whole and switching from desktop to desktop than E16's pager clipping but I've never mastered all of the gestures to know for sure. I only move from one pager to another a few times a day when I change projects, so this is not that big a deal to me. The three screen difference between a nine panelled 3x3 desktop and a 6 sided cube and speed of transferring between any "support" screen and the "main" screen are more important. I don't like to have more than two or three windows on any screen, so I fill up screens quickly. I might also miss Icon boxes, where I store common things like secure shell terminals. On Friday 20 June 2008, Brad Bendily wrote: > Yeah. for some reason multiple desktops are not as productive as > compiz. _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
