On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 23:10 Asia/Jerusalem, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
OS-X does not have virtual desktops.
When you have virtual desktops you don't urgently need all of those
workarounds just to clear some space.
Let's see. My Mac right now has 12 virtual desktops (via a free add-on)
and my
Why would anyone need to click just to bring a window into focus? I
never do that. Whenever I bring the mouse cursos into a window it will
come into focus.
Yeah, and you know how many times I brought into focus windows which I
didn't intend to?
Why do you minimize windows at all?
I never need
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 13:10 Asia/Jerusalem, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
Actually I'm not sure that MACs nobody needs more than one button on
mouse
Actually, they said that no beginner needs a two button mouse. And if
you ever gave tech support to beginners (or not-so-beginners) you will
On Saturday 30 August 2003 23:50, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
and that means nice looking, _responsive_,
stable GUIs.
_stable_ :-)
Well, that was my underline, you can go and underline your own sentences ;-)
seriously, I think X is stable enough - IIRC last time X crashed on me for no
obvious
On Saturday 30 August 2003 19:41, Nadav Har'El wrote:
I have Voodoo3 card on my Duron (700MHz,256MB) which is a very good 3D
card (for its age) and also has some 2D acceleration. moving any kind of
window - even simple single color boxes results in visible artifact
trails. redraw under
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was: Forthcoming Blitz of
Announcements)
On Friday 29 August 2003 07:13, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1
SF Actually, they said that no beginner needs a two button mouse.
SF And if you ever gave tech support to beginners (or
SF not-so-beginners) you will appreciate that. The OS supports out
Come on. I gave support to five year child (the real one, not proverbial)
and she was perfectly able to know
I think the Herouth is right.
Apple has done a lot of research regarding the user interface.
Unfortunately most Linux desktops follow the path microsoft took.
Microsoft is known for not listenning to there users, so why follow them?
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 12:43, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Saturday 30 August 2003 10:02, John Rabkin wrote:
Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of me why
some people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy. A flashy
interface is a sure sign of a weak
On Sunday 31 August 2003 14:31, Ori Idan wrote:
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having the menu on
each window but I think it would be easy to get used to having the menu on
top of the screen and I also think is is more logical to have the menu at a
fixed place, this
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 14:41, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1. The ability to sort of zoom out where all the
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003, Ori Idan wrote about Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was: Forthcoming
Blitz of Announcements):
I myself do not use the mac and thus more acustomed to having the menu on each
window but I think it would be easy to get used to having the menu on top of
the screen and I also
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:59:01AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Saturday 30 August 2003 23:50, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
and that means nice looking, _responsive_,
stable GUIs.
_stable_ :-)
Well, that was my underline, you can go and underline your own sentences ;-)
seriously, I think X
On Sunday 31 August 2003 10:24, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
e.g.: X has some infrastructure for 3d-graphgics. But not yet any
extention to make the client, window-manager and server agree on such
accelerated zooming. Not to mention that many servers lack hardware
acceleration ATM.
The problems Oded
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1. The ability to sort of zoom out where all the application windows
are resized to be small enough so
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 10:02 Asia/Jerusalem, John Rabkin wrote:
Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of
me why some people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy.
A flashy interface is a sure sign of a weak underlaying system. Please
show me a
On Saturday 30 August 2003 10:02, John Rabkin wrote:
Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of me why
some people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy. A flashy
interface is a sure sign of a weak underlaying system. Please show me a
single instance were
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 23:10 Asia/Jerusalem, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
OS-X does not have virtual desktops.
When you have virtual desktops you don't urgently need all of those
workarounds just to clear some space.
I never use multiple desktops and I don't understand why anyone would
need to. I
HM go. No. What GNU/Linux (or BSD, or my mother) should learn is that to
HM design a good human interface, you need to research that topic and find
Actually I'm not sure that MACs nobody needs more than one button on
mouse, nobody wants two user menus on the screen or user menu attached
to the
HM I never use multiple desktops and I don't understand why anyone would
HM need to. I do use multiple *monitors*, because sometimes it's very
Well, let me assure you there are some people that do understand that :)
HM with the nethack readme is the third one on the top row. That's
HM bad user
On Saturday 30 August 2003 12:51, Herouth Maoz wrote:
Now, for MacOS, the so-called eye candy that was described here was
described a bit misleadingly. We are talking about minimized windows.
Those minimize down to the dock. Then, when you travel over the
minimized windows in the dock, you can
I have multiple desktops on my Linux machine and found this
feature to be much more convenient - don't have to keep
jumping from one desktop to another, can find and switch among
windows in the same desktop quickly, can overview my desktop easely,
the shrinking and the reverse operation keep the
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:00:54PM +0300, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
JR benchmarking or window dragging the only way to measure quality
JR of engineering then that makes a 3GHz machine running Windows
JR 3.11 better engineered than a 333Mhz machine running Linux.
Well, if the benchmarks would
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003, Oded Arbel wrote about Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was:
Forthcoming Blitz of Announcements):
I have Voodoo3 card on my Duron (700MHz,256MB) which is a very good 3D card
(for its age) and also has some 2D acceleration. moving any kind of window -
even simple single color
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:48:46PM +0300, John Rabkin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:00:54PM +0300, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
[ much snipped, including signature ]
All your points are very true. I tend to add my personal fears to the
equation. Thus my arguments.
I'm afraid that by
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:43:50PM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
The whole attitude of We don't need to stinking GUI is fine, as long as you
keep it to yourself. if your objective is to make Linux the best operating
system for your own special needs, then everything is fine - you probably
don't
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003, Herouth Maoz wrote about Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was:
Forthcoming Blitz of Announcements):
I never use multiple desktops and I don't understand why anyone would
need to.
...
The issue is that window overlap is not solved by multiple desktops
because in any case
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003, Oded Arbel wrote about OS-X rules, X sucks (Was: Forthcoming
Blitz of Announcements):
after you do that, you can manipulate the window in hardware - resize it,
make it translucent, swipe it here and there, etc' all in hardware and as
..
Only problem is : you can't do it
On Friday 29 August 2003 11:00, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003, Oded Arbel wrote about OS-X rules, X sucks
...
X and pursue greener pastures. IMO - X is the single reason why Linux and
other free OSs do not have the same desktop market share as they do for
server installation,
My reply was mistakenly sent only to Oded...
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: OS-X rules, X sucks (Was: Forthcoming Blitz of Announcements)
Date: , 29 2003, 12:02
From: Idan Sofer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On , 29 2003, 11:30, you wrote
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1. The ability to sort of zoom out where all the application windows
are resized to be small enough so
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 02:41:39PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:13:03AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2003 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things I think are the most useful in the OS-X interface are:
1. The ability to sort of zoom out where
32 matches
Mail list logo
