David Given wrote: > Mike Anderson wrote: >>[Personally, I run GIMP on Windows, and it looks fine to me. I don't >>understand how you (and other people) can describe it as dreadful] > > > Well, it doesn't use the native widget set, which means it is, by definition, > wrong. GTK on Windows normally uses a skin that tries to make it look more > like real Windows widgets, but there's a limit as to how far you can go with > that approach --- the result is always going to look *nearly*, but not quite, > like the native widget set. (You're typically in a world of pain if the user > changes any desktop settings.) What's more, it doesn't let you change the user > interface to match application standards. Your application is not only going > to look funny, but it's going to behave funny, too.
Real Windows widgets. What, like in Media Player and Office, you mean? I'm not saying you don't have a point, but you are exaggerating. "Dreadful" means it looks really bad, which is not the same as looking non-standard. "World of pain" may describe your experience trying to force the non-standard back into the standard, but it doesn't describe the user's experience using the non-standard experience. "Funny" I'll accept (but I think you mean it perjoratively). Standardization is the enemy of distinctiveness and competetive advantage. You need both. Right, I'm way off-topic now. Mike _______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
