Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Jan 2013 23:42 UTC
Permalink for comment 549876
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-06-05
Probably because the statement is so non-specific and lacking in context as to become meaningless. Here's what you copy/pasted from Wikipedia:
If your reading of that definition of a window were to be mistaken for conclusive, any visual output from programs in a multitasking OS would qualify as windows. In order to be able to lump full-screen task switching mobile operating systems in with the WIMP crowd, you ignore 40 years of computing history defining what those 'other windows' look and behave like.
In fact, the very Wiki page that you lifted your definition from notes the following, just 2 lines before the sentence you selected: