Submitted by “An interesting patent application recently filed by Microsoft may offer a glimpse at the future of the Windows interface. The patent describes a ‘method for managing windows in a display’ that seems to describe a method of task switching that is neither Taskbar nor Expose, but something in between.” It reminds me of a feature called ‘iconify’, where you can minimise windows into an icon on the desktop (as CDE has, for instance), a feature I miss in most modern desktop environments.
Yeah, it definitely reminds of all those UNIX DEs…
“where you can minimise windows into an icon on the desktop”
Or Windows 3.1 for that matter
This is not minimising a window to an icon on the desktop – it sure does sound like it, but it is not. That’s why I said “reminds me of” in the teaser.
What this patent application details is how when you minimise, say, a browser window showing OSNews.com, a ‘clipping’ will be made of that window (by default, the top left section) which will then be placed on the desktop; not a scaled image of the entire window. So, live previews in Vista, minimising to a desktop icon, progress icons in a taskbar, they are not the same as what is being described here.
Please, read the article before commenting. The Ars article CLEARLY describes the behaviour.
While this idea is kind of interesting, it is of course ridiculous something like this can be patented in the first place, I agree with many of the other posters here on that issue. Software patents like this, lots of them coming from Microsoft and Apple, do nothing to foster competition. In fact, they stifle it.
Edited 2007-07-17 11:57
It’s just an evolution of the original concept. Where as in 1990 the window minimized into a generic icon, today it minimizes into a live-view clipping. Mobile phone might have screens and no wires, but they still have numbers and call people, same as 100 years ago.
“Mobile phone might have screens and no wires, but they still have numbers and call people, same as 100 years ago.”
Warning, Car Analogy Ahead
Flying cars might have jet engines and no wheels, but they still have seats and carry people, same as 100 years ago.
That’s how we as humans advance, by improving what we have and what we know and building on top of it little by little.
Edited 2007-07-17 14:06
Is this a little like a mixup of the features of the OS X dock (status reporting in the icons) and the thumbnailing features of other OSes.
It seems a pretty simple evolution of the ideas present in all other OSes, and especially considering this sort of work was being put into GNOME (similar intention, different implementation) it seems a bit stupid that it can be patented.
To be honest though, it’s not that great compared to the dock for instance. The dock seems a lot better than this idea would be.
Exciting. Instead of scaling the window to the desired size, just show a piece of it. Simpler and less effective.
I should patent a system for promoting movies by distributing a low-quality version. Instead of downsampling the resolution, I’ll just crop it to the upper-left corner and only include the sound for the first fraction of the movie. It’s simpler and less effective than downsampling, but more importantly, nobody’s been dumb enough to think of it before.
Sure, it looks like an interesting concept, nothing revolutionary, but interesting.
My question to every U.S. citizen: Do you like the fact that ideas like this get patented?
For me, this is just another example of how sick software patents are.
In general, yes. Your invention, your rules — for 20 years, at least.
Yes, but it isn’t an invention, yet. It’s just an idea.
Except ideas aren’t inventions.
Pardon, but there is a *GIANT* difference between a person(s) coming up with a really cool idea which enhances their product and doing what the likes of ELOAS does.
One invests money into R&D to create technology that enhances their own products to have a competitive edge over rivals – patents protect that idea from being ripped off.
The other hand, you have scum sucking roaches such as ELOAS who are merely patent harvesting lawyers coming up with far reaching generalised descriptions for so-called ‘inventions’. They then gang up on companies with a band of lawyers hoping that the mere presence will scare the company into submission without challenge.
Microsoft seem to be ‘getting in’ on the patent harvesting industry – I have no problems trademarking names and so forth – but really, when you patenting like the above, you end up in a situation where not only those which directly copy, but those who might even *appear* to have a similar action, come under the spotlight of lawyers who litigate at the drop of a hat.
Edited 2007-07-17 11:37
Again, they are patenting these things to PROTECT themselves against companies like ELOAS in the future. If they didn’t get a patent for this, someone else would have when they implemented it and sued them, and they would probably win because the US patent system sucks.
If that is the case, then it’s fine (and we actually know that Bill Gates himself doesn’t hold software patents in high regard). However, in order to convince everyone of their good faith, perhaps they should get Steve Ballmer to stop making veiled patent threats against Linux and FOSS…
Perhaps they should take the ol’ boy out back and put him out of his misery.
That seems a bit harsh…maybe just have him do his trademark dance, but with Scott McNealy’s penguin suit on. 🙂
In general, yes. Your invention, your rules — for 20 years, at least.
But it’s with things like this that the notion of “software inventions” breaks down.
Let’s say you’re a mechanical engineer and you come up with a new way to make, say, a snack vending machine. You file a patent for it. In your patent application you would have to supply great detail about your invention, and exactly how it works, and so on. Every country has slightly different wordings, but in general the detail should be sufficient to allow somebody else to go away and build your invention purely from your drawings and description.
For software, the equivalent requirement would be at least the algorithms used, if not the actual source code itself.
Furthermore, you would never see a patent granted just on the *idea* of a magic box that gives you snacks when you put money into it. And yet this is what happens in the software world all the time. Rather than patenting a specific *implementation* of an idea, we instead see patents being granted which cover *all* possible ways of doing something.
If software were held to the same standards as physical objects, I don’t think so many people would have a problem with them. Then the person with the best implementation of a specific idea would still be able to benefit from it. But instead we have the absurd situation whereby, to take an example off the top of my head, Red Hat can’t ship an NTFS driver due to Microsoft patents, even though no-one has any idea how Microsoft’s implementation for reading and writing to NTFS actually works.
All in all I’m very glad to live in a country that takes a sensible view with regard to software patents: they’re simply not allowed. Rule Britannia!
Edited 2007-07-17 11:42
In general, yes. Your invention, your rules — for 20 years, at least.
Yes but it is not MS’s invention they are just lifting prior art from the history of the Unix desktop. So the patent is invalid – got a couple of million dollars to defeat it in court.
The patent system is broken.
Fine… the problem is it is not your invention. There is no such thing as “my invention”. You cannot find a single thing which is solely one person’s invention.
If it can be invented it has been done before. Or put differently. Everything is and has prior art.
What a patently ridiculous statement to make. There are obviously a great many inventions that had no prior art – a simple look at the level of technological advancement over the last 200 years demonstrates that quite simply. Not only that, it is offensive to anyone who genuinely has invented something and belittles their achievements.
I really don’t think I need to add anything further, and I don’t know why you would add such a silly comment, unless it constitutes very well hidden sarcasm on your part.
Mention one invention without any kind of prior art in any sense.
The invention of the LASER in 1960 by Theodore H. Maiman for example.
I really don’t think you have the vaguest idea of what “Prior Art” actually means. It is a legal definition applied to patents to test whether there is any evidence that a patent application could be based on the work of someone else.
All works are based on the works of somebody else. The entire notion of something being novel is flawed and based on an irrational line of thinking rather than strict logic.
In regard to the laser there is a lot of prior art. Works by Einstein, Landenburg, Lamb and Retherford just to mention some of them.
There is no such thing as an original invention – at best it can be a discovery of how to make a theory work. But that isn’t original in ANY sense.
OK, now you are just spouting bullshit. The fact that an invention can be devised by building on previous knowledge does not in any way diminish the creative process of coming up with a novel solution to a problem, and there is a big difference between building on existing knowledge by adding something new and simply copying the work of another.
Ad hominem attack. Nice work.
I am simply pointing out that you are either making deliberately false statements, or you have no idea what you are talking about (I suspect the latter). The fact that you cannot mount a coherent argument leaves me with no choice but to suspect your personal motives or capabilities, since you have no actual argument for me to respond to.
If you had some kind of intelligible case for me to debate, then that is what I would do. Since you don’t, I won’t.
One ad hominem attack.
Two ad hominem attacks.
Three ad hominem attacks.
Four ad hominem attacks.
Five ad hominem attacks.
Six ad hominem attacks.
And you wonder why I have ceased to debate with you?
I hope we can agree to disagree. However it seems to be you define “prior art” according to the law, where as I define “prior art” according to what I think it ought to be.
My argument is that the law is flawed, whereas you claim my point of view is flawed since U.S. law uses a different definition. To me the definition of “prior art” is flawed in itself, and the definition in U.S. law is therefore null and void.
You are arguing against me on basis of what the definition is, and I am arguing about what the definition ought to be (and not what it is). As long as we are merely discussing the legal definition on “prior art” we agree (or at least I don’t disagree with your view), but since I am not talking about the legal definition as it is, but as it ought to be, I of course disagree with you.
And there you have it. You are just making things up to suit your agenda, an agenda I and anyone who has ever invented anything would find offensive.
Your argument went beyond merely quibbling over what the definition of prior art should be, you were clearly claiming that no-one has ever invented anything, a claim which is demonstrably false. You made no actual argument to support you rational for disputing what the term “prior art” should mean, either you simply omitted to provide one or you don’t actually have one, and because your comments come across as quite rude and offensive to anyone who has shown the spark of inventive genius, I felt that I had the option of either ignoring you, or attacking your personal credibility.
I chose to go with the latter, due to the offensive nature of your comments and your complete lack of a comprehensible basis for your assertions.
In this instance, ad hominem responses were entirely appropriate, and I will keep supplying them until you present an actual argument for me to discuss.
No, what I actually wonder is how you construe any of you above exchanges as constituting an actual debate. I also wonder, if you claim that you have ceased to “debate” with me, why you took the time to respond to my previous post at all. And again, instead of responding by clarifying your position and the basis for it, you simply keep waffling on about my perfectly justified and legitimate ad hominem responses.
When you have a cogent explanation for your position, I’ll be happy to debate you on it, but if all you are going to do is evade the actual topic and whinge about personal criticism when that is all I am left with to provide, forget it.
Actually it DOES diminish the creative process. There is prior art. In order to be novel in my opinion it must be completely new. Not a single part of an invention can even remotely resemble something else invented/discovered/mentioned or thought of.
The moment your work is (in one way or another) inspired by somebody else your work ceases to be original.
It may not be the definition according to law, but it is my opinion of “prior art”. Law doesn’t matter. Law is irrelevant. Human Law is not an absolute (with the possible exception of fundamental rights – I’ll leave that question to somebody else).
Not true at all. For example, I could build on the design of a car engine by developing an entirely new way of delivering fuel to the cylinders (as has been done before in radically different and original ways by various inventors). What you seem to be missing here is that someone can tack on an entirely original component to an existing invention, or create a novel variation, and provided such inventions are not bleeding obvious to an expert in that particular field, then that inventor will be given credit for their original additions, and rightly so.
Your opinion (without any rational argument to back it up), and it is good that you have finally made it clear that that is all it is, is unlikely to be shared by anyone with a sane, sensible concept of what constitutes original thought, and in fact is likely to be taken with some offence by anyone who has put time and effort into inventing new solutions to our problems.
I don’t think you understand the amount of creative genius that has gone into even seemingly minor improvements on existing work, let alone major inventions, and the way you want to trivialise and diminish the hard work and intelligence of inventors is frankly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[q]Law doesn’t matter. Law is irrelevant.[/i]
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to explain this viewpoint to the next person who is robbed, assaulted, slandered or has their intellectual property violated etc.
I think you will find that the law is very relevant if you go around violating people’s patents and copyright, and the law is designed to serve the interests of society, not to countenance every weird and extreme opinion that pops up.
Law is what binds human beings together into a functioning society, and if you really think the law doesn’t matter, you are an anarchistic fool. I hope for your sake you don’t get in trouble with the law, because you will very abruptly find out how wrong you are if you do.
The bad thing is that there the EPO also granted a lot of Software patents with a judicial base that can be enforced as soon as Software patents are legal in the EU.
Which they never will be.
Software patents died in june/july 2006. They are not valid in EU even if software patents became a reality, which is not going to happen for quite a few years. It is not even being discussed anymore. That battle is over (for now).
“Software patents died in june/july 2006. They are not valid in EU even if software patents became a reality, which is not going to happen for quite a few years. It is not even being discussed anymore. That battle is over (for now).”
That only works if you are prepared to ignore interoperability with a whole country when Apple;Microsoft are based there.
Let me rephrase:
Software patents died inside EU in june/july 2006.
In regard to USA software patents are mostly irrelevant due to recent court rulings rendering most software patents invalid (which is why nobody wants to go to court).
Software patents are far from dead, only because we hear nothing does not mean that there is nothing.
A lot people try to enforce software patents, like EU Commissioner McCreevy
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39gwcz
In fact a lot of people are against software patents as well, yet the “war” is not over, it’s just a small break before the next campaign.
Software patents ARE dead. The war isn’t over forever – but the war is over. They have lost. They just cannot understand it yet.
I’ll be anxiously awaiting the Ardenner-campaign of the Patent Lovers.
My question to every U.S. citizen: Do you like the fact that ideas like this get patented?
My answer as a U.S. citizen: No, I do not like it.
Or even better, how about this one: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-microsoft-patents-the…
Yes, they are.
<Sure, it looks like an interesting concept, nothing revolutionary, but interesting.
My question to every U.S. citizen: Do you like the fact that ideas like this get patented?
For me, this is just another example of how sick software patents are.>
I am against software patents but the thing about this that is the most annoying is that I would be supprised if microsoft ever uses this.
That being said, the only reason they patented this is to keep others from competing against them using that concept.
It should most certainly be illegal to patent something you have no intention of ever using only to stifle competition.
I could be wrong about this, but it just sounds fishy to me.
Edited 2007-07-17 20:59
looks a little bit like the KDE4 extenders … or at least nothing that could not be achieved by Plasma.
Anyway, another useless patent.
Edited 2007-07-17 10:14
It makes me wonder if all MS patents claims that we hear about when linux distro signs a deal with MS are build on such patents, what if MS will get this patent before KDE team will release KDE4 and those extenders will be very similar to MS interface? Will they have a valid reason to sue KDE?
No they will not, every line of code in a public source repository counts as published, even if it’s not in the main branch. And fortunately those revision control systems are really good at tracking which code went in at what time.
I know the US patent system is a bit fscked up, but that seems to be mainly because applications don’t get checked for validity of its claims properly. No patents can be filed on previously published concepts, so this and many many other stuff already realized in some window manager or the other cannot be claimed as invention by Microsoft – they simply didn’t come up with it first. Now the responsibility is with the patent agencies to dismiss their intellectual property claims as invalid. In either case, people WILL switch. How is anyone (including US patent system or the DMCA) gonna stop them?
That’s good to hear, but will it also stop MS from spreading the news that another patent they own was stolen by “linux” ?
Of course not- but who cares? They will fail in court and people will simply stop using their products in favour of better alternatives…
Reality is when you don’t wake up after getting twitched. They’ll soon wake up… by christmas at teh latest
Gnome already updates the window icon for several windows based on the status of the task at hand. For example, if you copy or move a lot of files, it has an empty bucket that fills up as the move progresses, representing the current status, or a CD burning is representing by the CD filling up. I really like how you can tell the progress of things by just looking at the taskbar. The originality of this idea, though, is about non-existant. I know people use desklets that are designed to copy OS X style showing the icon only, and since the icon has the info in it, it creates this exact affect.
This is interesting, but it’s hardly original. The same kind of thing has been done for years on Linux.
FVWM-Crystal has this, thanks to Rox:
http://polishlinux.org/apps/fvwm-crystal-speed-and-transparency/
It looks to my (very ignorant) mind that MS is trying to patent something that is already being used by Linux etc. is this the way MS goes about business and then says that Linux is abusing MS patents?? Sounds like it to me!
No. It’s to protect themselves from getting sued if they use it.
When are Microsoft going to come up with something original?
This is kind of similar to a feature iv been using in RISC OS for 15 years, where the window minimises into an icon to the side of the pinboard.
IS that all you do? Post about how RiscOS already did this and that 15 years ago?
Yes, although I haven’t read the article yet, as soon as I saw the words ‘iconify’ I immediately thought of RISC OS’s Pinboard’s feature.
Yes, although I haven’t read the article yet, as soon as I saw the words ‘iconify’ I immediately thought of RISC OS’s Pinboard’s feature.
Yeah, until you were to actually read the article and realise that it is not the same as iconify.
Yeah, until you were to actually read my post and realise that I never said it was the same as RISC OS’s. I just said it made me THINK of RISC OS’s iconify. 😉
Yeah, until you were to actually read my post and realise that I never said it was the same as RISC OS’s. I just said it made me THINK of RISC OS’s iconify. 😉
pwnd.
Excusez-moi
. +1, too.
Edited 2007-07-17 13:29
Not a problem! I didn’t mean to offend anyone. Just wanted to say that it made me think of RISC OS!
“This is kind of similar to a feature iv been using in RISC OS for 15 years, where the window minimises into an icon to the side of the pinboard.”
Except that these are actually live windows, and not icons. So I guess that may be a bit different.
It sounds familiar… oh yeah.. Windows 3.x
Prior art: NeXTSTEP in 1987. yawn.
And ArthurOS / RISC OS too.
Which makes it hard for Microsoft to enforce. Which is fine. They are most likely applying for it to protect themselves, like with almost all their other patents.
Also important to remember this is merely a patent application… Not a granted patent (which some people posting here seems to think).
All they need are some lawyers and they can pick who they want to go after. Then they have to go through the mess of having to get their own lawyers and defeat this in court.
Very bad thing when the court systems can be used as a tool by the wealthy to oppress folks. The founding fathers did what they could to try to keep the legal system from being this way, but even their ideas are being rejected (current patent law is perfect example of this).
Isn’t this just stuff I’ve implemented in kasbar for years? eg. I can overlay progress information, modified status, context information (using the context sensitive window icons provided by konqueror etc.). I also support thumbnails and overlaying window state information.
Doesn’t WindowMaker have something like this too? IIRC there was even a command called “iconify” (or something alike)?
Sans the 3D stuff, of course (?).
Edited 2007-07-17 12:08
its literally just a more detailed taskbar. nothing more. its not even iconifying the window. in no way is it comparible to iconifying a window. think of this as a standard taskbar with slightly more usefull info in it.
will this prove to be usefull? if implemented correctly it could be very usefull. but i think if its left in this free form state of the programs maintainer allowed to put whatever they want in it its going to end up being very un-uniform and will give a hodge-podge feal to the OS.
I actually am sick of the Desktop and the idea or the *important* part of a window being used to relay visual information on wasted space on a widescreen monitor…and it being a standard feature, both attractive and useful. I hope to see more of this implimented.
I don’t get the patent stuff, which is why I avoid such threads. I was under the impression that *obvious* ideas, and *extensions* of *ideas* are not patentable. This seems to fall into both.
I’m actually bemused by sappyvcv constant posting about Microsoft protecting Microsoft by saying that Microsoft is protecting itself, not that I’m not saying its true. But if *prior art* exists and it definitely does in this instance, isn’t Microsoft less able to defend itself as its legitimizing, an idea that is already *obvious* or an *extension* of an idea.
I suspect strongly that, Microsoft is hoping to have deep enough pockets to pay of the patent trolls, to make them the only legitimate OS…If that ever happens well thats the end of competition.
I’m actually bemused by sappyvcv constant posting about Microsoft protecting Microsoft by saying that Microsoft is protecting itself, not that I’m not saying its true. But if *prior art* exists and it definitely does in this instance, isn’t Microsoft less able to defend itself as its legitimizing, an idea that is already *obvious* or an *extension* of an idea.
The patent system is broken so they probably will get the patent granted, prior art or not. Having a patent does make it much less likely they can get sued for it. So I’m not sure why you are bemused.
I suspect strongly that, Microsoft is hoping to have deep enough pockets to pay of the patent trolls, to make them the only legitimate OS…If that ever happens well thats the end of competition.
I don’t follow what you’re trying to say.
Sorry. The idea of patents in this instance is an *original idea* is worth money. This patent has lots of *prior art* and isn’t original. If a company has prior art, and we see that lots of open-source companies are being invested in becuase of the *potential* that they possess prior art. If the *prior art* is patented Microsoft have *no* defense that the idea is not original becuase *they* patented the idea, so they must *believe* it is. They can only defend that there idea is *different*. I suspect because they have a stack of cash they can just pay them off, so they are the only ones who can use an unoriginal idea.
Listen. If they have the patent, it’s a HUGE argument point in a court battle. That’s the reality of the broken system. Prior art almost becomes irrelevant unless it’s Microsoft suing someone else.
It doesn’t matter if it’s original. It’s not.
“Listen. If they have the patent, it’s a HUGE argument point in a court battle. That’s the reality of the broken system. Prior art almost becomes irrelevant unless it’s Microsoft suing someone else.”
I understand there is no justice. I understand that even the very idea of patents is flawed, and there implementation is too.
But the thing I don’t understand is why any capitalist country would want to legitimize a monopoly. I was merely pointing out how even an unsuccessful patent claim by Microsoft, would still benefit Microsoft.
If we want to talk about patents *if* the idea was a *legitimate* one, and your arguing simply by patenting it, it is. We see a possible good feature essentially a smaller version of the *actual* application showing only the critical parts. It limits several things, extensions on these patents; how you interact with these views, but then I’m unclear as to how an extension of an idea can be patented or how this affects applications that take advantage of these ideas.
More importantly in a world where we see interoperability and cross-platform becoming the norm, not the exception. This feature which is tied to a platform through patents, even though the application is what is actually implementing it, but then I’m unclear how a patent built on another patent works. Although I imagine people in dark suits will be visiting people who do just this, and we will hear nothing of it.
But then I’m confused how a Monopoly that *sets* standards of how applications interact with the Desktop, can actually patent any of it, or how any of it can be original.
Edited 2007-07-17 15:26
But the thing I don’t understand is why any capitalist country would want to legitimize a monopoly.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. What the hell does that have to do with this? Nothing.
I’m talking about realities of the court system and patent system, and that Microsoft is protecting themselves and if they get the patent, it will be hard for them to be sued. Nothing more.
“Microsoft is not a monopoly. What the hell does that have to do with this? Nothing.
I’m talking about realities of the court system and patent system, and that Microsoft is protecting themselves and if they get the patent, it will be hard for them to be sued. Nothing more.”
Microsoft is not only a monopoly its a Convicted Monopoly. You ask what it has to do with this. I will let Bill Gates answer that one.
Quote:
Ref:http://eupat.ffii.org/archiv/zitate/#bgates91
Microsoft is not only protecting themselves, they are threatening *me* personally with them. Unfortunately as I have said if Microsoft get sued, Microsoft probably gains from the situation…and everyone else loses more.
If Microsoft wanted real protection against patents, we would see them actively lobbying against them, like they do for say ODF
Also AmigaOS3.5+
As a side note the author of the article says all might be implemented in the successor. Quite a sense of humour if he didn’t meant it.
Browser: Links (1.00pre12; Linux 2.6.21.5-ph-grsec i686; 157×54) (Debian pkg 0.99+1.00pre12-1.1)
Man, there isn’t too much under the sun that’s new in GUI design. Even though the concept is not new, the implementation is. I can see similarities to the Next OS dock, and the app icons in Win 3.1, but these are live windows, which are updated by the applications they represent. It’s a new twist on an old idea. The US patent system is seriously broken, so companies are forced to patent the littlest damn thing to protect themselves against lawsuits. I wish it wasn’t like that, but it is. Unfortunately, US patent law affects a lot more than just US citizens, even in countries that have saner patent laws.
If MS puts-up the money and has insider backing of the USPTO they can patent anything and use their political power and legal staff to stop others from developing UI software. There’s nothing novel about what this patent text describes. It’s pure bulltickey.
The facts are that this patent application is worthless. There are several cases of prior art. Just because Linux infringes on Microsoft’s patents doesn’t mean they are valid.
Here is a good example where Microsoft was granted a patent for sudo-like functionality:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d…
From http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html :
Sudo was first conceived and implemented by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer around 1980 at the Department of Computer Science at SUNY/Buffalo. It ran on a VAX-11/750 running 4.1BSD.
Mr. Ballmer, “Linux” infringes your sudo patent. See how quickly your patent will be thrown out when you try to enforce it.
I am not a lawyer.
RISC OS, Linux Mac OS X (minimizes to icon in dock) and so on. They call this innovative. Wait… the they said that all of vista’s features are innovative like glass and stuff from os x and linux. Yawn…
and here I thought it was going to be called MS Dock.
« It reminds me of a feature called ‘iconify’, where you can minimise windows into an icon on the desktop (as CDE has, for instance), a feature I miss in most modern desktop environments. »
Xfce 4.4.x can minimise a window into an icon on the desktop. Look at the desktop preferences in the Xfce settings manager. By default, Xfdesktop (the Xfce component which manages the desktop’s root window) is configured to manager URL/file/launcher icons, but you can switch to minimized windows icons if you wish.