Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Mar 2011 19:31 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Gnome I have to admit I've been struggling with this one for a while, most importantly because I haven't used GNOME 3 yet; I'm setting up my own little company right now, so time's a little short. As such, all I can do here is cover the arguments given - which, in my book, have both their strong as well as their weak points. Yes, GNOME 3 will not have buttons for minimising or maximising windows.
Permalink for comment 465229
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Because we can
by lucas_maximus on Tue 8th Mar 2011 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Because we can"
Member since:


I use XP 32bit and 7 32 bit on the same machine and 7 manages resources far better and I spend less time making coffees while the machine catches up.

It manages my dual core processor better than on XP. I see the results everyday ... because I use XP and 7 side to side 9 hours a day ...

Win7 is Vista! God damn, people are impressionable. MS re-jig a handful of UI elements, change the name and suddenly the most maligned OS since ME becomes the most praised.

No it isn't, This is like saying that MacOSX 10.4 and 10.5 are the same ... very similar yes, but not the same.

Vista RTM and Windows 7 RTM have very different kernels. Also 7 is far more modular (We are using 2008 R2 and we have several servers which are command line only). Most of this work started in Vista.

But the myth that Vista and 7 being pretty much the same will continue ... far after they have both been retired.... why don't you actually do some research.

Which is as fundamentally a retarded approach as Gnome 3's insular and carved-in-stone vision. You don't let the computer illiterate design your UI any more than you force all users into one particular workflow.

Snap is an abomination, up there with auto-hiding the taskbar. You don't expose functionality (and functionality that's been there for over a decade, FTR) by making the desktop hyper-sensitive. Most people who had a use for that rudimentary tiling already knew about it, snap just ensures that your grandparents can't avoid stumbling upon it, despite having no use for it and it only serving to disorient them.

Yes the functionality has been there for a decade, but it is a pain in the arse to use. I have to do at least 4 or 5 clicks while holding down ctrl to tile two windows vertically (I know this because I have to use an XP machine at work) or I can just throw the window at either side of the screen ... the first sounds so much easier....

The "my nan" can't do it is pretty much a TM

oh wait it is ..

A far saner and more flexible approach would have been to simply augment move & resize behaviour so that windows implicitly conform to a grid, rather than moving & resizing windows pixel-by-pixel. That's something that would expose itself unobtrusively, actually make manual window management useful and provide far more options to power users than just splitting the screen 50/50.

I had what you are suggesting existed on AutoCad R14 as a auto snap feature. It was annoying as hell because it would snap to the wrong point ... I spent many hours using AutoCad at Uni, and snap was onerous at best.

50/50 split is because most people want to compare two things side by side, I do it everyday, Documentation on the left, code on the right.

Furthermore Windows 7 UI snapping is optimized for Widescreen monitors, which pretty much every laptop or desktop screen on the market today. It is done for most people, which obviously obviously doesn't include you, but that isn't the point.

I find it particular useful. If I need something more complicated I can still resize them myself.

Edited 2011-03-08 10:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2