Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:07 UTC
Linux "I am proud to announce the official release of Symphony OS Alpha 4. Alpha 4 includes the KNOPPIX version of the 2.6.11 Linux Kernel and an updated base based on Knoppix 3.9, numerous improvements to the Mezzo Desktop environment, includes synaptic for package management, beagle for local searching, supports freedesktop.org .desktop files in the Programs target, and much more."
Order by: Score:
LiveCD?
by ralph on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:16 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

Wasn't there supposed to be a LiveCD of the project, or is the normal download a LiveCD that also let's you install the OS?

As this really looks like an interesting project, I'd really like to try it but don't have a spare partition or spare computer to install it right now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: LiveCD?
by zizban on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "LiveCD?"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

The Alpha 4 CD is both a live cd and an installable cd.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: LiveCD?
by ralph on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: LiveCD?"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Thanks for the answers guys.

Now I'm off to download it, it sure looks intersting and new.

Reply Score: 1

It is.
by Adam S on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:21 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

I downloaded it and tried it yesterday. It is a live CD.

I must say, the Mezzo environment is really quite revolutionary. It's a completely different way of doing things, worlds apart from the Windows/Mac/Gnome/KDE/Photon/BeOS way of doing things.

However, Mezzo is definitely not ready for primetime (or maybe it's SymphonyOS itself). Lots of things didn't work, and eventually it froze (in VMWare) and I had to kill power. But wow, what an interesting project.

Reply Score: 5

interesting
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Indeed a very interesting project. Judging from the 'laws' of interface design quoted

http://www.symphonyos.com/laws.html

it really could end up being very useful. Can't wait for a beta (post-alpha) release.

Reply Score: 1

v YALD
by Smartpatrol on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:29 UTC
Yes!
by Jace on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 16:53 UTC
Jace
Member since:
2005-07-25

This is GOOD use of open source and Linux. Congrats! I am very interested in seeing this progress. The thing most important is that the UI laws are smart and human centric (though, the "instinctively look to the bottom left for programs" comment is totally off... that's based on Microsoft beating that concept into our heads - new users do NOT go looking in any specific place at all; they'd be better off with a PalmOS interface, which is losing ground to Microsoft, as usual). The best statement is that computers should be an appliance. They are, currently, nightmares of endless, targetless, random guesses and faulty research.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yes!
by Ronald Vos on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "Yes!"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Hell yes! Windows Vista just got blown away on features =)

Just yesterday I was wondering: those nested menus are annoying in every desktop I've encountered. What can be done about them? And here this guy provides the answer: don't have any! Just have more menus. I feel really stupid for not realising it.

"(though, the "instinctively look to the bottom left for programs" comment is totally off... that's based on Microsoft beating that concept into our heads - new users do NOT go looking in any specific place at all;"

I completely agree. In fact, just 2 days ago I moved my Windows XP taskbar from the bottom to the top. This is not only easier for multi-windowed tabbed browsing (with tabs on top clicking another programwindow takes more mouse-movement) but now the start-menu suddenly has a logical configuration: quicklinks first, then programs, and you can never accidentally click shutdown based on your finger slipping off the mouse-button.

That, and most computer-using people start reading left-to-right from top-to-bottom. Aka, the top-left corner is where most people who might use this desktop start. There's a reason Mac put the Apple menu with all the programs top-left.

This is the one thing where I go: oh darnit, why couldn't you do this one thing right from the start? (even if it's a seemingly small thing)

Because otherwise the design is awesome. Just all the overview one could wish for by pressing one button in the corner (getting the desktop with everything you might need to know...all that stuff that's hidden on any other OS unless you just specialised admin tools).

Reply Score: 2

Window Decorations
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How ridiculous is that, moving the close button from the absolute edge of the window, further into the middle, to prevent people accidentaly clicking the thing! What's the one usability feature of MS windows which users actually use? the ability to sling the mouse pointer into the upper right hand corner of a maximised window to close it quickly. Most of ideas outlined in that screenshot are extremely backward, especially the idea that users should not be able to move windows past the screen borders, everyone knows that being able to fit the important parts of 2 windows of fairly sizable proportions onto the screen at the same time can be very useful. it's a nice idea to try and shake up GUI design, but this is nearly as twisted as some of Microsoft's ideas.

Reply Score: 1

v yay!!
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:01 UTC
RE: yay!!
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:36 UTC in reply to "yay!!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't know if your excited or being critical, but in case it is the latter consider this: unlike many Linux distros, this one is experimenting with different UI concepts.

While some people may not agree with these concepts, some people may and it is those people who are important. If noone agrees with these concepts, development will come to a halt, and hopefully something will be learned in the process.

The developers have a couple of challenging problems in front of them. They seem to be aiming for the ideal of early UIs. Notably, early interfaces hid very little functionality. This visibility is what made the GUI more successful than early text-oriented UIs, and not the WIMP paradigm.

Unfortunately, our present needs for computers are much more complex than they were 10 or 20 years ago. The trick is finding an effective way of dealing with this complexity. This is one proposal, and I fully intend to look at it (though I don't expect it to win me over for various reasons). It will undoubtedly evolve with time as its authors learn about its benefits and shortcomings.

Another issue which they will have to deal with is the rift between their ideals and the available application software. I'll be interested in seeing what their solution is.

Reply Score: 3

RE: yay!!
by Eugenia on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:02 UTC in reply to "yay!!"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Exactly.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: yay!!
by ralph on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE: yay!!"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Ah, Eugenia trolling along with the flow as always. ;-D

Did you even bother to look at what this LiveCD does? Did it even occur to you that this is not just an other distribution, but a testbed for a new technology? Did it even cross your mind that because of the very special purpose of the distribution this has nothing to do with having yet an other distribution just for the sake of having yet an other distribution?

Well, obviously the answer to all this questions is no, thanks for your valuable input though...

Reply Score: 1

Very inefficient GUI
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They place everything on the desktop, which is a Bad Thing (TM). Most ov the time desktop is covered by windows, so there shouldn't be anything on it that you have to access often. Desktop is OK for storing documents that you haven't yet decided where to put or that you want not to forget about, of for shortcuts to apps for the first launch. But nothing more. Seems like they've done it just to differentiate themselves from the others, without a serious consideration of the usability of this solution.

Artem

Reply Score: 0

RE: Very inefficient GUI
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:35 UTC in reply to "Very inefficient GUI"
Anonymous Member since:
---

From what i was able to read before their site became unreachable, the corner buttons are never covered by applications, so they are always accessible, and the embedded windows on the desktop seem to contain shortcuts to often used programs or files, which would seem to fit your "shortcuts to apps for the first launch" category.

But i can't really tell if it's efficient or not until i tried it, which i have yet to do.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Very inefficient GUI
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:35 UTC in reply to "Very inefficient GUI"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ehm, Im just using it for the first time and I get the impression the primary areas of the desktop they try to use are the corners.

If applications are covering the desktop and you try to access something from the corner menus the apps will automatically be iconified, which works amazingly well from what I can tell after using it for 5 minutes now.

Seems like the only purpose of your post is to flame and whine without a serious consideration of the usability of this solution.

While the concept is probably a long way from being perfect yet, it still is a really new and intersting concept. Kudos to the developers, I sure will follow this project more closely now after I tried it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very inefficient GUI
by hobgoblin on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Very inefficient GUI"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

there is one problem i see tho, the desklets.

while most of them dont perform much of a task (hell i have a samurize config on my windows box that 99% for show) i see that one of their concepts have put im messages into one of the areas along with other system messages.

sure stuff can change color and so on, but there needs to be a way to draw a users attention to them no matter what the person is doing.

and as the original poster pointed out, desktops have a bad habit of being coverd with all kinds of things.

i dont see a desktop corner target, and i dont think relying only on audio clues are good. why? just like with a cellphone, there are times when you want something to be as quiet as can be. and you may be working on a machine that do not have a audio ability.

so, will they be changing say the computer or document icon into a message icon with a diffrent color to indicate that "hey, there is something on the desktop that you need to see!", or do they plan something else?

thats the one thing that no gui have ever realy solved, what do do to draw someones attention without poping it into his face, and do so reliably...

hell, if they can solve that then im all over it. i have focus stealing popups from everywhere, be it save dialogs, download dialogs, im dialogs or whatever else they can pop up in front of you...

Reply Score: 1

Why are they releasing a whole OS?
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 17:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why not just release a standalone Mezzo?

Reply Score: 0

Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

They pretty much are. It's Knoppix with Mezzo and some custom stuff on top.

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Member since:
---

I think what the OP meant (and if not, it's what I wonder) is why can't this be released as just a DE as opposed to an entire distro? I'd personally love to try this out on top of my existing distro. I mean, it's just fvwm with a mozilla backbone and some other stuff, there's no need to brand it as a distro. Or am i wrong?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I stand corrected.

Artem

Reply Score: 0

Brilliant,
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

While still quite rough around the edges I find this quite a new and brilliant way to computer interaction over the common desktop..

Hopefully they'll carry the idea to its full potential.

Reply Score: 0

Damn
by the_leander on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:19 UTC
the_leander
Member since:
2005-07-01

But thats an superb looking concept, it contains a lot of often used bits and bobs on the desktop, all clearly layed out, really, I can see this being a superb starting point for people new to computers.

Well played to the chaps who came up with this, really well played :-)

Reply Score: 1

very nice indeed
by kiz01 on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:30 UTC
kiz01
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow! That desktop looks really cool! And I'm not just saying that because I'm a sucker for new technology (I'm a sucker for new COOL technology; there's a difference). That said, I'm downloading it right now. I hope it's as useable as is looks!

Reply Score: 1

"cache"
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 18:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm digging the interface and the conceptual separation of Files/Apps/System. Where I get cold is the part where they tell us the interface is run by a browser core:
http://www.symphonyos.com/orchestra.html

"Orchestra is made up of two main parts, a localhost only http server and a slimmed down mozilla renderer. Becuase mozilla is used as the base for rendering Orchestra apps can utilize the following technologies:

* Javascript/DHTML
* Perl/CGI
* Java Applets (when plugin is included)
* Flash (when plugin is included)
* Embeded media players (when plugin is included)
* XUL Interfaces
* Any other technologies for which a Mozilla Plugin is available."

Was this any better an idea for Windows?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

IIRC its a localhost-only http server run with the same privilages as the user themself. What could any Orchestra application do that would be any worse then any other application could do?

Reply Score: 0

Yippie! Finally another Live CD!
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 19:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It has been stated many times, by many people and in many threads here that everything new coming out needs to be a combination Live CD and Install CD for numerous reasons. Thank God, someone finally listened. ;)

Personally, I'm not trying anything in the future that does not meet those requirements. Thanks for providing us with a Live/Install CD. ;)

I'm looking forward to checking this out so I'm off to download it right now! ;)

Reply Score: 0

Interesting point....
by Wintermute on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:13 UTC
Wintermute
Member since:
2005-07-30

From the 'laws' page:
5.Configuration gluttony must be stopped. Thank god for open source. There comes a point at when the UI is hidden, drilled, stacked and nested so much, just because there is a knob or button for everything. This has to stop. UI is about making decisions to help the user, not about weaving a rope to hang themselves with, or smoke when they get frustrated.

Imho, this suiteable for people who treat their PC as a simple tool. But for geeks and power users, this is completely unsuitable. I love customization and my particular customizations make it easier for everday computing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting point....
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:25 UTC in reply to "Interesting point...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

so keep using kde. i'll stick with GNOME and see how mezzo works when it's done downloading.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Interesting point....
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:27 UTC in reply to "Interesting point...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I love customization and my particular customizations make it easier for everday computing.

Yes, but how much work could you have done in the time you spent customizing your machine?

When I install my Zeta, I'm basically done. Everything is set properly by default, I can get working *immediatly*. Whereas with almost all other operating systems, I need hours and hours of work to get it to a level where I can finally get to getting some friggin' work done.

A simple method of shortening the time between install and getting some work done, is by limiting the options one can alter. This way, you're basically forcing the user to adapt, but after a few days, you'll have gotten more work done *in total*, than when you first spend hours and hours tweaking it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Interesting point....
by Wintermute on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting point...."
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Yes, but how much work could you have done in the time you spent customizing your machine?

Not that much if you consider my setup (no icons, autohide toolbar, couple of startmenu tweaks). Of course I've spent hours on end trying various shells and customization programs.

[i]This way, you're basically forcing the user to adapt, but after a few days, you'll have gotten more work done *in total*.[i]

Arguable, some degree of customization should be allowed. Perhaps as some sort of easy to install addon module, but the option should be there. Of course sane defaults should also be a priority, so at least most users won't need to waste time on messing around with their setup.

P.S. I never said I have anything against this design. Just IMHO, its not suitable for me and another small minority.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting point....
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting point...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

A simple method of shortening the time between install and getting some work done, is by limiting the options one can alter.

The availability of choice isn't what makes me customize--it's the fact that I don't like the default choice. If an OS gets everything perfect, I'm not going to waste my time tweaking things...but if there's something that I don't like, I damn well want to be able to change it.

If an OS gives me no choice to configure, if there's a behavior I consider a show stopper it means the only choice left to me is to use another OS.

All that said, Mezzo is pretty neat. I just really dislike the design philosophy of deliberately limiting choice.

Reply Score: 0

2 cents
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 20:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

unless there was some button some where that i missed going to the program screen iconifies all the apps, okay fine, but then upon launching or going back to the original screen every thing stays iconified, that ought to be changed. also choosing from favorite apps launches the program and then stays in the apps screen, launching from "all apps" launches and takes me back to the desktop.

as for constraining the windows to the desktop, and needing info from one part of of two apps well can't say it's ever happened to me in such a way that i needed to drag half the app off screen. although personally i like windowlab's constraining just the title bar to the screen better.

though i really fail to see the innovation here. yes it uses corners as hot spots but only at one level, if i want to launch a app i can fling my mouse to the lower left corner great but then i still end up having to pick the app/folder/storage out of a linear menu in the middle of the screen.

Reply Score: 0

so far so good
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 21:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've been messing with it for about an hour, I installed it on a spare hard drive and have installed java and azureus so far. once you get the feel of it, it is pretty nice to use. it found all my hardware so I didn't have to dink with anything.

Reply Score: 0

RE: so far so good
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 21:09 UTC in reply to "so far so good"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I have noticed that there doesn't seem to be any way to change the desktop picture and a lot of things don't work when you click on them.

Reply Score: 0

burning
by re_re on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 21:08 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

burning the disk as we speak... i'll get back to you all with my results

Reply Score: 1

my mini review
by re_re on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 22:38 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

i just played with the livecd and this is no doubt alpha quality software, it is an interesting concept and with some polishing it could be quite useful

now... a few things that drive me nutts
first.... and this is huge..... It dosen't maxamize a window to cover the whole screen.... wasted screen realestate is not acceptable

they do this as to not cover up the corner icons

solution?.... well, they could autohide the corner icons, or they could make them smaller and use some transparency and set them to always be on top of the window

secondly.. not being able to drag the window past the border of my monitor is just annoying. (this is just personal preference.. but i think many would agree

now.. on a good note..... the interface is clean and polished, and it runs smokin fast.. even off live cd and i think it is pretty newb friendly

in addition to that.. the above problems could very easily be fixed/changed (depending on how you look at it) and for me that would make this a much nicer project.

Reply Score: 1

RE: my mini review
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 23:27 UTC in reply to "my mini review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"now... a few things that drive me nutts
first.... and this is huge..... It dosen't maxamize a window to cover the whole screen.... wasted screen realestate is not acceptable

they do this as to not cover up the corner icons

solution?.... well, they could autohide the corner icons, or they could make them smaller and use some transparency and set them to always be on top of the window
"

Autohide is really bad according to Fitz's law, which this design actually pays attention to, unlike so many others. Keeping them on top of the window would make it difficult to access corner areas of the window, which might contain important content. Unfortunatly there is no easy solution to this problem.

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE: my mini review
by re_re on Thu 4th Aug 2005 01:32 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

you are correct about autohide.... but it's better then how it is now

as far as always having the icons on top.....
I don't know if you have played with it, but it seems that the way they have the placement of the close button (X), and the minimize and maxamize buttons that they are planning on doing something like this (the buttons are not right on the upper corners but held in towards the middle just about enough to clear the icons)

maybe if they made the icons more slimmed down on the top and bottom.... i think this would work.

Reply Score: 1

RE: mini-review/autohide
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 02:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

FITTS law doesn't say anything about autohide, hell it doesn't really say anything about usability it only applies to speed/the time it takes to aquire a target as it applies to distance/size.
the reason autohide is frowned upon is because 1. a new user just sitting down now has no clue whats going on and 2. if elements can move, like items on a taskbar or icons on an expanding panel (mac taskbar style) the inconsitent positions make them harder to hit in the first place and with autohide you don't even know where-ish they are before it pops up adding to the difficulty.

also it means you have to wait that fraction of a second for it to pop up before you can click instead of just throw and click.

now number 1 is certainly valid for this thing, but 2, well the targets are unchanging and damn near impossible to miss, so the option to autohide (if popup was instantaneous) shouldn't, in any appreciable way, change the interfacing speed. and hell what with the title bar corners not being used anyway (for no reason I can see) only the bottom two corners would overlap actual content, one of which is the trashcan which isn't used all that often

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: mini-review/autohide
by re_re on Thu 4th Aug 2005 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: mini-review/autohide"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

as i said.... it seems they are planning on maxamizing fully....

"and hell what with the title bar corners not being used anyway"

i think they did this so they could put the corner icons on top of it and not overlap the buttons

remember this is alpha quality..... be careful to judge to early.... a lot could change between now and 1.0

Reply Score: 1

RE: mini-review/autohide
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 03:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>> "now... a few things that drive me nutts first....
>> and this is huge..... It dosen't maxamize a window to
>> cover the whole screen.... wasted screen realestate
>> is not acceptable

> they do this as to not cover up the corner icons

Why not add these 4 icons/buttons on the titlebar of the active window?

This way the whole real estate could be used.

Reply Score: 0

Interesting stab at usability
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 04:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Its interesting the disclaimer that the author puts at the top of his Interface laws, and I like how most of them are simply heuristic from experience; I think that this leads to a more usable desktop than those designed to fit the lowest common denominator since most people eventually grow out of the new user state and require/desire more features.

Why do more people not pay attention to the 5th "dark horse" point, the current mouse position? For me, corners are beyond useless as they are so far away from the mouse. I do not want to hear that my usability needs do not matter; when I want to do something, its faster for me to find a chunk of desktop space than it is for me to find a corner, being that I do not "throw" or "slam" my mouse at all during usage.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting stab at usability
by kiz01 on Thu 4th Aug 2005 14:27 UTC in reply to "Interesting stab at usability"
kiz01 Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do more people not pay attention to the 5th "dark horse" point, the current mouse position? For me, corners are beyond useless as they are so far away from the mouse.

Perhaps the answer would be to have a command (maybe a mouse button or button combo) that brings the corner menus right to where mouse is. A sort of mini-desktop centered around your mouse pointer with the four corner menus right there. You simply call up the menus and choose the one you want without worrying about excessive mouse movement.

Just a thought...

Reply Score: 1

HyperCard
by test on Thu 4th Aug 2005 04:40 UTC
test
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just saw this shot (http://homepage.mac.com/jasonspisak/.Pictures/Mezzo/Mezzo%20GUI...)

That interface (using the desktop) make me think of HyperCard. Simple and intuitive to, in this case, perform administrative tasks on the computer.

I like it.

They should release mezzo independently though. I am ready to download a few packages but not a whole distro.

Reply Score: 1

Looks nice
by Tobbe on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC
Tobbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Always nice to see people trying on new GUI concepts, far too often people stick with the Microsoft/Apple legacy.

I came across this site the other thay (you'll need the Flash plug-in)
http://www.dontclick.it/

They're researching in a new way of navigating - getting rid of all the excessive mouseclicks we do every day. It's not perfect, but i think it feels pretty good nevertheless, and i like it when people think beyond the box so to say.

Reply Score: 1

great start !
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 13:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is a very good start for an os that is alpha. I have
it installed right now and it is very stable, and fast, it booted to the desktop in about 45 seconds.Still alot of work needs to be done,but beta 1 should be great.I love the gui, out of all the operating systems i think its the most easy to use and best looking gui (expect for mac os x).i have been reading on the SymphonyOS forums,and their planing for this OS to be the eaisest to use linux distro EVER !

Reply Score: 0

Window Groups
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 21:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Please let me know if there's a WM out there that already does this, but I would love to be able to hook windows together into window groups, enabling you to basically build a single application window out of lots of smaller application windows. You could then minimize or maximize this grouping as a single unit.

I think a good idea in a window manager would be to eliminate the need for resizing and repositioning windows by making the manager more intelligent, able to figure out such things for you.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Window Groups
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:29 UTC in reply to "Window Groups"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Openbox and pwm do groups

Sorry I dont have links off hand

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Window Groups
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Window Groups"
Anonymous Member since:
---

they do tabs, i think he's talking about something like

-____________x
|gimp .|opera .|
|. . . . .|. . . . . |
|_____|______|
|.... . . . . . . . .|
| xffm . . . . . . .|
|____________|

all snapped together forming a single "window", i.e. a single set of close/minimize buttons controlling them.

Reply Score: 0

enlightenment 16
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 00:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

turns out e16 does window groups rightclick the title bar to make a group then ctrl+drag title bar to add other windows to the group (just make sure it's in the position you want it before adding it)

Reply Score: 0

I like!
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 14:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, I've only spent a few minutes on it, and it's obviusly only Alpha but there seem to be more new ideas in that than everything else I've seen in almost all OS, Linux Windows, whatever since Windows 95 came out.

Lets hope they can get this too Beta, and a full product. And also, I like the price!

Reply Score: 0