OSNews

Ah, so a new requirement is that we are supposed to be able to act on them in specific, to-be-determined ways? In Android, which has a similar window picker, you can close them. Does that count?

Or is the next new requirement you're going to come up with that they should be maximisable? Or resizable?

i don't have any requirement. the definition however implies that i should be able to do essentially all of the actions that i could do if it was maximized and the only app on screen. So, if you can only close them , no i don't see that as Wimp interface. i see it as a GUI for a app launcher/closer/selector, but they are not individual windows of individual programs with full or near full capacity.

To expand on this: you do realise that the first windows couldn't be acted upon at all, right? They couldn't be moved or overlapped - heck, they didn't even have visible boundaries!

The gist of what I'm trying to make clear to you: just because you can't think beyond the type of window Windows or Mac OS X gives you doesn't mean that is, by definition, the only kind of window.

To beat this dead horse again: just because modern cars virtually all have airbags doesn't mean the airbag is what defines a car. For a long period of time, windows didn't have all the features you arbitrarily require of it today to be called a "window", and in fact, the Wikipedia definition recognizes this:

"In computing, a window is a visual area containing some kind of user interface. It usually has a rectangular shape that can overlap with the area of other windows. It displays the output of and may allow input to one or more processes."

Edited 2013-01-22 15:42 UTC

do you mean the first Graphical User interfaces? That's why the writer in the wimp article and all of the other commenters make a definition between a GUI and WIMP. THe WIMP definitions is contained in a GUI Environment and each indivual windows contain themselves a GUI for their individual program, but you can't simply reverse the logic.

the first programs with fullscreen, if i understood correctly what you said, were not a "WIndows, icons, menus pointers". They were just GUi for individual programs.

Words take meaning from being useful symbols for concepts. You want to reduce the meaning of the computing concept known as the window to include screens, tabs, cards, views, printouts, and anything else you feel like? I don't agree, but I'd like to point out you're missing an opportunity here to be even more obtuse. Why not just call everything 'things'?

That almost seems like you're describing Windows 1.0?... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0 )