 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> A window that had gained focus didn't automatically become the top-most
> window. This was really useful if you are trying to type something into
> a document while looking at something else. Today I find myself
> fiddling about with resizing and moving windows unnecessarily so I can
> type while seeing some other window.
This has been hit upon a few times in this thread, and Windows can do a
stay-on-top thing...if you're using particular skins with WindowBlinds.
Haven't really played with it in a long time, so don't know what
practical things it can do now. Skinning apps was, for me, really just
a passing fad from around the turn o' the century. Nowadays I'm just
concerned with the application space, not what colour the edges and
things are. When the layout is identical, the skin on top hardly
changes much, unless it's something *really* different from the base.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I saw a demo of a drag-and-drop idea I've been lusting after ever since.
>
> What I really miss in Windows which was the norm on the Acorn GUI was to
> be
> able to drag-n-drop to *save* a file from an application. Quite often I
> find myself having the explorer window open of some folder deep on our
> network drive and I want to save my document in there. On the Acorn you
> could just click save and drag the file icon to the explorer window, but
> on Windows you have to navigate in the save dialog to the folder,
> copy&paste the path name into the save box, or save to the desktop and
> then move it in explorer.
Mac supports that.
Applications that handle "documents" show a document icon in the titlebar.
You can drag it to a Finder window.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> A window that had gained focus didn't automatically become the top-most
>> window. This was really useful if you are trying to type something into
>> a document while looking at something else. Today I find myself
>> fiddling about with resizing and moving windows unnecessarily so I can
>> type while seeing some other window.
>
> This has been hit upon a few times in this thread, and Windows can do a
> stay-on-top thing...if you're using particular skins with WindowBlinds.
Or with menu addons like PowerMenu.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Ah, while we're ranting anyway...
>
> Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
> rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
> /too/ difficult to implement, right?
Get Taskix for Windows.
For KDE, I heard they're working on it... But since the taskbar is just
another plasmoid, I think you could "easily" write your own. Even in an
interpreted language.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Why do people have icons on their desktop?
>
> I only have stuff I'm working on. It bugs me to no end that I'll download
> something and it'll get put in some obscure "downloads" directory. No, I'd
> like to work on it. I have icons on my desktop just like I have papers and
> pens and coffee mugs on my desktop.
>
> I don't put *programs* on my desktop, like so many others do.
>
> If you want really quick access, that's what the "quick start" bar is for.
> And honestly I only ever use that at work where it's the same 4 programs
> I'm using to do my job over and over.
KDE4 desktop doesn't support icons anymore. The feature was removed.
Instead, there is a "folder view" plasmoid that you can put anywhere on the
desktop, and shows the contents of an arbitrary folder.
If that folder happens to be ~/Desktop, and the plasmoid is resized to cover
the entire screen, you get quite close to the previous behavior. But who
would want *that*? Now you have way more flexibility!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> This has been hit upon a few times in this thread, and Windows can do a
> stay-on-top thing...if you're using particular skins with WindowBlinds.
Interestingly, i read about one person's travails with trying to get the Mac
to do this. Apparently, because the Mac application software is written
expecting the window with focus to be the window on top, giving focus to
lower in the stack breaks a number of things like menu accelerators and so
on, because the app's menus aren't initialized unless the app is on top. So
if the app gets a key and looks thru the menus to see if it is a menu
shortcut, it can crash.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Windows does have a system clipboard - something that RISCOS lacked. Then again,
> > it didn't really need it, given the behaviour I described - you could save any
> > selection in most apps so I guess the question never arose.
>
> It sounds more like "RISCOS presented a drag-and-drop UI for the clipboard." :-)
:D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-11-2009 19:01, Stephen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Aydan wrote:
>>> Drag whatever you want to drag onto the target app's taskbar button
>>> and that app
>>> will get focus and then drop it in there.
>>
>> Oh my. I'll have to try that next time. A new trick. :-)
>>
>
> It is amazing the *new* things you learn from watching other people work :)
>
> BTW don’t try to drop the target on the target app's taskbar button.
> Windows whinges like a POM :)
Don't know what that acronym means but it is one of those surprising
windows things. It known what goes wrong but refuses to behave as expected.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-11-2009 18:34, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> What can I say? Word sucks. :-)
>
> Actually, metafile is standard on Windows and is pretty much the same
> thing as "PICT" format on Macs. It's a list of the graphics
> operations/calls it takes to produce something, so it's basically
> postscript-like - a list of resolution-independent instructions.
> Without being a full-blown language.
>
> You can get a metafile out of any program by printing. That's what the
> "save to file" on the print dialog means.
>
Are you talking about the format where it first rounds the vertices to
the nearest pixel on screen before output or are you talking about
another vector format that I totally missed?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Are you talking about the format where it first rounds the vertices to
> the nearest pixel on screen before output or are you talking about
> another vector format that I totally missed?
I think it depends how you save it. It's the graphics context recording the
stuff, so it gets rounded to whatever resolution the graphics context is
using, I'd guess. I never really looked into it much past what I already
described here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
