Is anyone here using The GIMP? If so, do you find it awkward that it
doesn't feature a root window as in PhotoShop, PhotoPaint, PSP,
Painter and virtually every single graphics app out there?

I do. I hate accidentally clicking outside the image area and have a
background application pop up. Also, I hate it when I have to alt-tab
through a dozen GIMP windows, all with the same icon, to find the
right one.

So here is what I did to teach the GIMP to behave well:

%cat thegimp

#!/bin/sh

Xnest -name 'The Gimp' -ac -nolisten tcp :1 -geometry 1024x768+0+0 \
       & sleep 2; icewm --display=:1 & sleep 2; gimp --display :1

Then in the K menu I just start this script. Of course you can put the
whole command line in there too, no difference at all.

I have yet to find how to spawn the Xnest window with a) the GIMP icon
and b) no border. I am using KDE so if anyone has tips in this
direction, I'll appreciate them.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6cag501f24h46qi2i4vp32foaugvdegi6c@4ax.com...
> Is anyone here using The GIMP? If so, do you find it awkward that it
> doesn't feature a root window as in PhotoShop, PhotoPaint, PSP,
> Painter and virtually every single graphics app out there?

Photoshop never featured a root window on the operating system it was
orginally designed for. It only does so on Windos because originally it was
considered to be "good" Windos application design to use this window in a
window mess.  Of course, Microsoft has long abandoned this nonsense for most
of their applications...

    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:11:02 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>Photoshop never featured a root window on the operating system it was
>orginally designed for.

I believe it was not the case back when I used it on MacOS 7
(PhotoShop 2.5.1 and 3.0). I am aware of the fact this is so on MacOS
X but you have to agree, if you have ever used the GIMP, that the
difference in useability and workflow is vast. Of course one should
solely attribute it to lacking a root window because Adobe shows how
it can be done well. But on MacOS X it actually makes sense. In KDE,
it does not (nor in Windows).

>It only does so on Windos because originally it was
>considered to be "good" Windos application design to use this window in a
>window mess.

And indeed it makes sense when working under Windows.

>Of course, Microsoft has long abandoned this nonsense for most
>of their applications...

Really? Can you please point examples?

Is root-window-less design really considered more efficient and if
yes, why? Can you point some useability studies that prove the point?
I am asking from a professional point of view, not only from pure
curiosity.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:40:38 +0200, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > Of course, Microsoft has long abandoned this nonsense for most
> > of their applications...
>
> Really? Can you please point examples?

BCB and Delphi of Borland use it. AFAIK BuilderX does not.
Other builders for UI does not root window too.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

I usually run Gimp in its own virtual desktop (with no other
applications running in the same desktop). Should be as good as
a root windowed version...

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Mar 2004 08:59:18 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  I usually run Gimp in its own virtual desktop (with no other
>applications running in the same desktop). Should be as good as
>a root windowed version...

Yes, that solves the problem of lacking a root window but doesn't
solve the alt-tab annoyance.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:03:55 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

>BCB and Delphi of Borland use it. AFAIK BuilderX does not.
>Other builders for UI does not root window too.

And? Is it more intuitive to work that way than in, say, Eclipse or
Visual Studio?


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:12:19 +0200, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > BCB and Delphi of Borland use it. AFAIK BuilderX does not.
> > Other builders for UI does not root window too.
>
> And? Is it more intuitive to work that way than in, say, Eclipse or
> Visual Studio?

Hard to say, I do not use it too often. Sometimes it is handy to see window of
other application in background and work on space of IDE with full toolbars
and helper panels.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:urtg50lm2mpi7jsgm2ri5u8op2gos7jo84@4ax.com...
|
| Yes, that solves the problem of lacking a root window but doesn't
| solve the alt-tab annoyance.

Have you considered using another WM under KDE? The KWin WM usually used
with KDE is AFAIK not very configureable. FVWM, as an example, would
allow you to use sloppy focus with The Gimp (turning any blank desktop
page into a root window) and to thumbnail all of The Gimps windowss onto
the root window for easy selection. FVWM alt-tab list can be configured
to show names as well as icons for each of The Gimp's transients, so the
alt-tab annoyance would disappear as well.

FVWM configuration would be simple, as KDE already provides all needed
menus and panels.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

In article <shhg50t59qu1pn7a21ffg57vhgqfsngbnq@4ax.com> , Peter Popov 
<pet### [at] vipbg>  wrote:

> Really? Can you please point examples?

Internet Explorer? Outlook Express - I noticed when writing that post on
Windos, actually - the window in which I types was independent.  The same
goes for recent versions of Office.  And M$ Developer Studio can only have
one project open per instance, so it is a hybrid (it also uses windows in a
window).

> Is root-window-less design really considered more efficient and if
> yes, why? Can you point some useability studies that prove the point?
> I am asking from a professional point of view, not only from pure
> curiosity.

The point has much less to do with windows inside windows, but with the
location of the menu bar.  The point being that screen borders are faster to
reach than any other point on screen with a mouse.  Hence a menu bar at the
top of the screen (with menus really get activated when the mouse is in the
topmost pixel row) cannot be missed if you just move the mouse up.  Anyway,
as any usability discussion in these groups in the past lead nowhere other
than showing surprising amounts of ignorance of the validity of objective
studies versus personal perception, I try to avoid any detailed discussion
of the subject.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message