kingtj said:
The analogy made about Windows "full screens" being equivalent to someone putting away all of their writing tools and paper except for the one they're currently drawing with is an interesting one, but not quite fair either. At least since the days of Windows '95/'98, the "taskbar" along the bottom makes it easy to bring a "minimized" app to the foreground with a single click.
The taskbar is hardly a replacement for being able to see multiple applications and there documents at once. A button on a taskbar can not replace seeing the open document.
Also, though many Windows users can go their entire lives without using a Mac, the same can not be said about Mac users with Windows. I was not speaking of Windows 3.x or before, I was talking about 95 and later. I was force to work on a Windows system for quite a few years and am very aware of it's short comings compared with Macs.
You can see what's running just by glancing at the taskbar and seeing which apps are listed in there.
There is the failing... I don't care what is running if it is not providing me with any information.
I don't, however, think the tendency of Mac apps to not take over the full screen makes the Mac somehow "inherently better" for people who multitask. Any properly written Windows app should allow resizing its window so it only takes up a portion of the desktop. Making it zoom up to full screen size is just one option. (And why not use all the screen space available, when you happen to only be using a single app??)
Well, I never said that Photoshop was a
properly written Windows app, but why should it require a root window at all? What functionality does that root window give to Photoshop? The only thing it does (for me) is block my view of other applications running behind it. Some of which are running and displaying the document in which the image is intended. If I resize that root window in Photoshop, all my image windows start disappearing in it. Why? Why aren't those Windows able to stand alone?
Of course the answer is very straight forward (which I'm sure that you already know), it is that in Windows every app is given one Window for every instance of the application. Hence the need for a root window and sub-windows for applications like Photoshop. Resizing the root window (instance) only reduces the viewable area in which the sub-windows can be used.
On a Mac (and on my SGI) a window is a window. Apps can have multiple windows, all of them independent. I can have multiple windows from multiple apps all inner mixed on my desktop as if they were all being used for one goal... which they are or why would I have them open to begin with.
In Windows, the idea is that you are working in one app at a time. You work in one, finish and move to the next, finish and move to the next. If you want to see the place in GoLive or InDesign where an image you are using in Photoshop is going to go, you have to perform... flipping. Flipping between apps in the taskbar. On a Mac, you can see the other applications through Photoshop because it only displays the window needed for the image. It doesn't require a root/instance window.
And zooming to full screen in Windows rarely gives the users any more space, it usually just covers the background with a gray root window so you can't see the rest of the computer.
I spent many years working with, working on and servicing Windows systems. I know that many Windows users think Windows is Word. Some only use Word and could not navigate their computers with Windows.
I was in a meeting yesterday with an advisor for the Mathematics department at my school, and he was using Windows. He was using the online information at the schools sight to help me and clicked on a link which brought up a new window (full screen of course). When we were done with what we needed in that window, he was completely lost as the back button wasn't working. The place he wanted to be was hidden behind a full screen window.
What full screen windows is really like is getting a paper memo that normally wouldn't fill up half a page of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper but getting it on a 36x48 sheet of paper that rolls out to cover everything on a desk.
Things that need space can have space, things that don't shouldn't be taking over the display. Windows does not get this
by design.
And if you don't get this, then maybe you've spent way too much time on Windows... or you can't multitask. This is not a bad thing, some people can't.
I, while servicing Windows systems, had to replace a monitor for someone. There was room in the budget to get her a very nice 19" monitor, so I did. I set it up for her and it was working great. Later that day I get a call from her saying that it isn't working. When I stop by I find that the main app she used wouldn't go full screen anymore (it was design to go full screen at 800x600) and now it was a window. It bugged her that she could see the desktop and other apps running. We ended up resetting the display to 800x600 so she could have that app run at full screen.
Some people just can't handle that type of freedom. You are most likely one of them. If so, Windows is the system for you.
IBM themselves were preloading Windows on their computers, and often not even offering or certifying given machines for use with OS/2.
I'm sure you didn't miss the antitrust trial against Microsoft (it was in all the papers for a while). During that case it was found that Microsoft was forcing hardware makers (including IBM) to pre-install Windows on
all there systems in order to not be charged a higher rate. As I work with IBM systems (have a ThinkPad sitting right here beside me) and have OS/2 (2.0, Warp 3.0 and 4.0), I was wondering which IBM systems were unable to run OS/2? Are we talking about systems that came out after the release of a version where they don't have the drivers for the hardware? Exactly what were you trying to say here?
