Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Jan 2013 23:42 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Ever since I bought my HTC HD7 way back in October 2010, I have been hooked on Windows Phone. Without even being able to test-drive the new operating system (The Netherlands didn't get Windows Phone 7 until a year later), I imported the HD7 from the US - the minimalist, stark, clean, flat, and textual interface spoke to me, and I just knew I would like it. And like it, I did.
Thread beginning with comment 549881
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Beerfloat
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Beerfloat"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

can you act on them? or are they just "screenhots" of apps for selection?


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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat
by maccouch on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 15:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Beerfloat"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14


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!


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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by Beerfloat
by zima on Fri 25th Jan 2013 17:09 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In the first release of Windows, 1.0, windows couldn't be overlapped...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows1.0.png (apparently except for this "About" window)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat
by Beerfloat on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 15:56 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Beerfloat"
Beerfloat Member since:
2011-06-05

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'?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by Beerfloat
by dragossh on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 18:42 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

No, he's arguing that mobile UIs do contain what we usually think of as "windows, icons, menus" except the windows are full screen. It's the same as OS X's full screen mode, which makes a window chromeless and take over a screen.

I'd also argue that cards *are* indeed windows: you could even open more than one card per app in webOS.

You are right in the sense that each screen in a touch app is a view, but so is the window content in a desktop app. It's really the same technology, but with a slightly different presentation and marketed to sound like it's new ... almost like cloud computing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Beerfloat
by kwan_e on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 00:00 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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'?


Does a glasshouse have windows?

It also applies the other way, when you disqualify something from belonging in a class of objects for completely arbitrary criteria (as you have done), then the class is also meaningless. A class that exists defined by how many things are not in it is useless.

Distinction without difference.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Beerfloat
by zima on Fri 25th Jan 2013 17:30 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Beerfloat"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

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!

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

Reply Parent Score: 2