To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
in linux you can work the way you want to, there is no set desktop in linux.
but gnome and kde use a lot of windows elements as that is what most potential users are used to.
btw, did you just call non-apple users stupid without being direct about it?
anyways, i would say both ways have its issues, and its related to using windows the way they do. i wonder if not one should take a step back to the days before apple introduced free-floating windows.
some of those wm's on *nix seems interesting in that regard.
i wonder if not one should take a step back to the days before apple introduced free-floating windows.
Apple did not invent free-floating windows -- the Xerox Alto and Xerox Star had them long before Apple: http://toastytech.com/guis/altost1.jpg
http://toastytech.com/guis/altost2.jpg The Three Rivers PERQ also had them before Apple: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/perqt2/perqzoom.jpg
Edited 2007-11-18 22:30
I didn't call anyone stupid, I was talking about how it feels to work in the windows style modal paradigm vs the mac classic spatial paradigm. It has nothing to do with intelligence of the users, and everything to do with the philosophy behind the design descisions.
but gnome and kde use a lot of windows elements as that is what most potential users are used to.
I have yet to run across a really spatial WM in linux. There isn't anything that is even equivilent to OSX, and OSX is a far cry from Mac Classic in this regard. Of course, I could be wrong.
And really, I'm not trying to be insulting or anything. Mac Classic had this approach, BeOS had it, OSX has it to a degree, and even though I have never used NeXT, from what I have read it looks like it had it.
some of those wm's on *nix seems interesting in that regard.
twm and ratpoison leap to mind.
That is again, a completely different way of approaching things. I was talking about the mac and the windows approach, and how the taskbar and the dock address the space of task switching differently.
Huh? The Xfce I'm using even has smart window placement, so if I open up 4 terminals simultaneously, not only are they not maximized, but they're automatically placed in separate corners of the screen so all 4 are fully visible at the same time.
Lumping all *nix DE's/WM's together might be a bad idea.
"This effectively embraces the idea that applications are Modes. The taskbar provides a way to switch modes. "
Well, applications are, after all, the reason we use computers. I find it amazing that so much time and energy is spent debating the relative merits of operating systems, when our interaction with the OS comprises perhaps 5% or less of the amount of time we spend working each day.
As for the idea that Windows is somehow designed around full screen applications - hogwash. Windows is designed around choice. You want fullscreen, you get fullscreen. You want to tile 4 apps and switch maniacally between them, bob's your uncle - windows will happily oblige you. On the Mac though, Steve has made all the decisions for you, how dare you try to maximize an application!
What happens when you launch abiword? Cause when you launch Pages, the window doesnt fill your entire monitor, only the size of your document. The "accessory" apps are corner cases, they are treated in a spatial manner, but they are one of the few classes of applications that do.
"In windows/linux, you launch an app and it runs fullscreen"
They don't, surely? They launch at whatever size you set them to the last time you opened them. They don't even start out full screen do they? Now you have me scratching my head and trying to remember how they worked in Win 98 - someone I do work for is still running W98 on one machine, and I don't think even there the apps open full screen.
I just fired up a whole bunch in Linux, and not one opened up full screen. What is this about?
Is there any difference between MacOS and other OSs in this respect? The tiling or tabbed window managers of course, in Unix/Linux, but they are a rare breed.
How applications open is set in the shortcut (.lnk) to that app. You can set it to Normal Window, Maximised Window, or Minimised Window.
The default is Normal Window, which starts the app with whatever window size it was set to the last time you opened it, or a default size as set by the app coders.
This has been the behaviour since Windows 95 and the birth of the .lnk file. It was also possible to do this in the Windows 3.x days by hand-editing the .pif file.
There has never been a "default to maximised" or "always start maximised" setting in Windows.





Member since:
2006-02-05
The dock is more tailored to the Apple UI ideas. In windows/linux, you launch an app and it runs fullscreen. At that point, you want as little OS interference as possible. This effectively embraces the idea that applications are Modes. The taskbar provides a way to switch modes.
The Apple way says that applications arent modes, they are operating system objects. The traditional mac approach is you never run windows fullscreen, you run them as large as they need to be. Transitions between one application and another are more seamless, they all look and act the same, have the same menubar, you can often see the work you are doing in one even if you are in another. It is a concept that is very hard to explain to someone who has never really worked with it, but anyone who grew up on mac classic not only gets it, but finds the fullscreen approach kludgy.