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 465236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Because we can
by Icaria on Tue 8th Mar 2011 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Because we can"
Member since:

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 ..
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[5]: Because we can
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 8th Mar 2011 11:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Because we can"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Moderately different and in ways that are largely imperceptible to users.

Uh, no.

No more restarts after every update. Completely componetised servers. Easier kernel/low-level Windows development leading to speedier, less buggy updates. Faster kernel/low-level development. Changes in kernel no longer cause negative effects upwards of the stack.

And so on.

These are all very real benefits for users, even if they may not be able to name them specifically. Calling these minor changes or imperceivable is idiotic, at best.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Because we can
by Icaria on Tue 8th Mar 2011 11:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Because we can"
Icaria Member since:

I love how most of what you just mentioned is only tangentially related to the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Because we can
by lucas_maximus on Tue 8th Mar 2011 18:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Because we can"
lucas_maximus Member since:

You make a lot of noise and do the routine of pretending not to understand or you lack signicant lateral thinking ... either way you wouldn't be much fun on a night out.

At the end of the day, Win7 is very different under the hood and there are quite a few nice UI additions which make it useful for the vast majority of people I have spoken to.

The uptake on Windows 7 compared to Vista is a testament to itself.

Reply Parent Score: 3