Re: A try at GNOME MDI

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero wrote:

> >>  _______________________________________
> >> | GnoWord                               |
> >> |_______________________________________|
> >> | ________    ________    _________     |
> >> |/Doc1.doc\__/Program1\__/Cat&Moose\___ |
> >> ||            ---------  -----------   ||
> >> ||        There comes a time...        ||
> >> ||                                     ||
> >> ||_____________________________________||
> >> |_______________________________________|

> What is the relation among a doc file, a program and a cat&mouse? and why
> should they appear under GnoWord?
> I thought that MDI was about doc with images and text (for example), where
> you need to have the Gimp tools plus the GnoWord tools, or a way to link all
> Gimp windows. But maybe my thoughs were wrong.

	A good way to get an idea of what I'm talking about is to look at
Photoshop.  The tool palettes are held in small windows.  A few different
information boxes are usually assigned to one window.  (So the channel
editor and the layers editor are in the same window.)  You can chose to
show and hide each tool.  You can tell how many tools are in a window by
looking at the tabs.  (3 tools?  3 tabs!  And each one is labelled.)  You
can drag the tabs into other tool windows, or onto the desktop -- which
creates a new window.  

	My idea is to replace MDI with a scheme like this.  Of course, I
agree with other's comments about having a "leader" window which, when
iconized, iconizes all the other windows.  I remember WindowsMaker
supports this already.  

	As for my drawing -- no, those tabs were not supposed to relate to
each other.  The point I was trying to show was that you could allow more
than one type of information in each drop window.

> >This looks like a great idea. I definitely think we need something like
> >MDI, no matter how bad some people dislike it (I don't think it's too
> >great myself). The main problem of X-applications (apart from the general
> >lack of them so far ;) is that they tend to generate dozens of windows. This
> Yeah, lots of windows (and the fvwm95 bar becomes crowded). But the tab
> solutions will look poor with Gimp and all its subwindows, for example.

	Ah!  But the idea is this: When you need to see two windows at the
same time, you just drag the tab out.  And certain windows are "designed"
to be grouped together.  The idea isn't to make one mama window which
holds all the information, but a hybrid of multi-windows and MDI.  

> Why not (I think it was proposed before, or maybe not) a way to allow parent
> children relations (swarm: queen and working bees?)?

	Yup.  I agree with this totally.

> You minimize the parent, and all children do the same. You maxime, and all
> children return to the preminimize status (minimized or normal). You move
> the parent, and all children move the same amount. You move a children, and
> only that windows moves. And removable menus/icon bars be considered as
> normal windows (childrens of a parent, so same rules apply).

	Hmm... The moving idea?  I'm not so sure.  I think WindowMaker and
olwm have the better idea there.  Rubberband windows and move them all at

> Just like when I close Gimp (all children windows close too), but extended
> to all window operations (resize? no, global resize will not look good, IMO).

> In Windoze and Mac, it is easy, cos all subwindows go inside the parent.
> In X, well, if you use desktops, you can work fine too, but you must start
> from the begining, and corrections are painfull.

> A question: are we mixing with WM tasks? Or WM as no relation here?

	We're touching on WM tasks, of course.  :^)

> >doesn't do much good to the idea of multitasking, because eventually you're
> >still working with only one app at a time (try to have Gimp, Netscape, and
> >an X irc client open at the same time, you won't be able to follow the
> >discussion while doing your image manipulation without moving some windows
> >aside)

> <JOKE>
> 1 CPU <-> 1 brain
> Good.
> Multitasking OS <-> mono task human?
> Kids, you need more mentat training.
> </JOKE>

	Actually, I usually work on 3+ applications at the same time.  You
should see how fast I can move the mouse to get to a new window, or use
Ctrl-arrows to get to a new virtual desk.  (I'm limited only by having one
keyboard, mouse, and screen.  ...  Oh, and a 486.  :^) )

> And now serious, while I apply (correction, Gimp applies) a Gaussian blur, I
> can talk on IRC, or search more RPM with FTPSearch to upgrade my system.
> You do not need to pay attention to everything; to say the truth, I have not
> seen a computer faster than I can be, computers are always redrawing pics,
> calculating things (hehehe POVRay), transfering to/from HD, or doing stupid
> icon animations (Windoze)... maybe out there a fast machine with a tuned OS
> exists, but I have not seen it. And speaking of networks, networks are
> slower (most of the times) than computers.
> I can manage some browser windows, or some irc channels at the same time,
> maybe my brain have mutated, maybe I learn to multitask (when phone bill
> rules, body can do rare things).

	Oh.  You said the same thing.  Nevermind.

> >Haven't seen Handleboxes (never even got as far as compiling everything),
> >so I can't comment on those. 
> Me either. Anybody want to do some (fake) screen captures?

	Yeah!  Anyone?


------------------------------------ |\      _,,,--,,_  ,) ----------
Benjamin Kahn                        /,`.-'`'   -,  ;-;;'
(212) 924 - 2220                    |,4-  ) )-,_ ) /\ --------------- '---''(_/--' (_/-' ---------------
 If you love something, write it in C; if it compiles, it is yours; 
                     if it doesn't, it never was. 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]