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.
Thread beginning with comment 465200
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Because we can
by Icaria on Tue 8th Mar 2011 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Because we can"
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

have you used Windows 7, lots nicer to use than XP
Hardly.

and VISTA
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.

It not about customers complaining, it about usability studies and watching how people interact with the system
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.

It implemented some features (aero snap) that I didn't know that I wanted.
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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Because we can
by lucas_maximus on Tue 8th Mar 2011 09:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Because we can"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Hardly.


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 ..

http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/linuxforgrandmas/

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

RE[4]: Because we can
by Icaria on Tue 8th Mar 2011 10:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Because we can"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

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.
Whose argument were you making here?

Vista RTM and Windows 7 RTM have very different kernels.
Moderately different and in ways that are largely imperceptible to users.

why don't you actually do some research
We're both making arguments by assertion and offering our own anecdotal experiences. This is just a silly bit of misdirection.

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....
While we're being facetious and misusing ellipses, the first also sounds so likely to trip up people who didn't want their window tiled/maximised but made the mistake of bumping a screen edge. The traditional way of tiling isn't exposed well but it's also not going to negatively impact anyone by getting in the way.

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

oh wait it is ..

http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/linuxforgrandmas/
When you figure out what point you were trying to make, let me know as I'm at a loss as to what you were getting at, here.

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.
Because a 2D field of windows is comparable to a CAD programme. Hell, gridless edge snapping/edge resistance has existed in X11 WMs for years and it's just about a complete non-issue there. Defining a persistent desktop grid would solve what few issues arise from the current gridless snapping/resistance.

50/50 split is because most people want to compare two things side by side
I'm sure most people (the 'most' who maximise every window excepted) would also like to be able to keep a lot more on screen at once, as well but they're fucked if they can do it without fiddling around with manual window management.

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'm sporting a 16:9 display. You were saying?

If I need something more complicated I can still resize them myself.
The irony here is this could equally be an argument against Snap. 'If I want two windows side-by-side, I'll put them there myself'. Of course it takes 10 minutes to line them up properly, which is why you have automatic tiling mechanisms: to get around the fact that manual window resizing and moving sucks and no one likes doing it. The difference is whether the implementation caters to more than a single workflo... wait, are you a Gnome contributor?!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Because we can
by bassbeast on Wed 9th Mar 2011 16:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Because we can"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Not to mention one of the nice things about Windows is if the parent doesn't like AeroSnap then he can simply disable it either from within Windows itself or I prefer using the excellent Ultimate Tweaker..

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/ultimate-windows-tweaker-v2-a-tweak-u...

This tool has no install, can be dropped onto a flash, and pretty much will let you customize any behavior in Windows 7. And I have to agree about being tired of the "7 is just Vista" FUD, as I ran Vista from Beta 1 through SP1 and they were like night and day. Vista was a bloated slow crash prone mess, whereas 7 is actually faster for me than XP while being rock solid and with greater ease of use.

But the nice thing about Windows is you don't need to dig into the guts and rewrite conf files just to change it thanks to third party tools like the above. Just check the checkbox (or uncheck for those things you don't want) save, and that's it.

Reply Parent Score: 1