Re: The relationship between Desktop and Panel

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>Isn't that a little presumptuous, that every rip on Microsoft's
>software is in reality a shallow attack on the company's
>character?  Microsoft has _earned_ its reputations.  Persistently
>and continuously.

The number of people who bash Microsoft for doing the same things they do
are incredible.

For crying out loud, people complain about Microsoft bundling software while
Debian comes with FIFTEEN HUNDRED packages.

>I think that's already happened.  I've heard many high-quality
>comments on the limitations of the Microsoft Start Menu.  I'm not
>sure which inaccuracies you're talking about.


Most flaws already listed refer to implementation bugs.

>To add to the fray:


And quite an addition--this is quality stuff :-)

> [Start menu is bogged down by backwards compatibility]

Didn't know about this.  Solution is simple--as has been said by George, a
single object should be able to be both a file and a folder.  In other
words, next to "GIMP", you have a triangle, click that and you get GIMP
docs, GIMP FAQs, etc.


I don't think people realize what a pain in the ass backwards compatibility
is.  I mean, for all the moaning about Redhat, people don't really have a
problem recompiling everything because old software doesn't work.

NT4 runs 15 year old applications.

>This backward compatibility, as much as anything, leads to
>everything ending up in the Programs submenu.  You can change
>that, as a user, after the fact, but it's a lot of work.  You can
>add your own custom menus above the Programs menu, but few
>install programs give you that option up front.


I've never seen one that doesn't.  Every time I install, it's "what folder
do you want to instlal in?"  then it shows me a list of the folders inside
of my programs menu.


>[Apps have related icons, if they were in the main menu it'd be hell on
earth]

Agreed.  Either use the system I mention above or have folder names go by
app category then app title.

>> This isn't a bug of the start menu.  It's a bug with the default
>> implementation.  There's a big difference.
>

>[Can't change the name or order of default menus]

OK, I admit it, you got me, the Start Menu has a little bit of
inflexibility.  I also can't put Cut below Paste in the edit menu, nor can I
rename Copy to Plagiarize.  :-)

Agreed, this is a flaw, but it's not a showstopper.

>Not only is the Start Menu poorly organized, it's also very hard
>to change, aside from the Programs submenu.  This goes much
>deeper than the default implementation.


Would have been nice if there was a shortcut to \WINDOWS\START MENU\ right
there in the menu.  I mean, there are no .rc files or anything...the start
menu just follows a directory structure.

>[George, does GNOME have these flaws?]

If it does, it's less of a big deal than the small icon controversy.

>> [Example of how putting checkboxes everywhere ends up OK for new users
but
>> is just ugly and distracting all around]
>>
>> What about giving the selected gnomeprint menu item an "enpanel/depanel"
>> button, or a checkmark, and then italicizing/underlining any entry that's
>> existing on the panel?  Would that self-document sufficiently while
>> preventing the admittedly high level of repetitive ugliness you refer to?
>
>I think you're trying too hard.  The foot menu should be as clean
>and straightforward as we can make it.  I agree that the
>checkboxes or text formatting, or whatever, would be helpful (if
>done tastefully), but not in the lime light.  The users shouldn't
>have to fish through it every time they open up an application.
>I like the idea of putting it in the menu editor, out of the way.


Do you agree with me that icons on the desktop aren't exactly the most
efficient way to do things?  If so, how do YOU suggest we make it
self-documenting that there are easier things to do than put the icon on the
desktop?