4 ms·

Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wastef

by carbon8 17y ago

Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.

antigua 17y ago
OS X's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having icons, menus and windows bolted on to a desktop is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
- danieldon 17y ago
  How does that make any sense whatsoever as a response to the OP?
  - antigua 17y ago
    Linux distributions can get all the face lifts in the world, but at the end of the day they were not designed to be cute and accessible.
rbanffy 17y ago
OSX's biggest downside is having a fixed region of the screen that changes according to the context of the selected window on the desktop. That makes it impossible to check what two windows can do or even what program is responsible for them until they are selected. That's terribly inelegant solution that separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data (the menu). Admit it. That's a draw.
- carbon8 17y ago
  "what program is responsible for them" This is handled by title bars in Gnome, OS X and Windows, not window menu bars. "separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data" The menus don't just act on what's in the window. At least some menu items act on the application itself. In a multiple document interface with a system that ties menus to windows, the menu of one window acts on multiple other windows. The other windows are either sub windows shoved inside the main window or they are windows floating independently from the window with the menu, which means you need to return focus to the main window to use the menu. In a single document interfaces, the same menu, application controls and all, is repeated on each individual window. Furthermore, in both of those cases, once you close the window with the menu bar, you no longer have access to any controls for the application, which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    > which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open. As opposed to "application buildup" MacOS users experience since the OS7 days, when they are on a clean desktop and five applications running for no particular reason.
Daishiman 17y ago
What are you talking about? OSX's menu bar is useless when you have huge monitors or multiple screens, and the menu bar and other behaviors makes focus-follow-mouse impossible.
- yoden 17y ago
  Moving my mouse 2000 pixels to get to the menu bar on my other monitor... shudders
s3graham 17y ago
I find the menus ridiculous on OSX.
sid0 17y ago
OS X's biggest downside is that it doesn't allow an interface without menus. :)

by carbon8 17y ago

Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.

antigua 17y ago

OS X's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having icons, menus and windows bolted on to a desktop is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.

danieldon 17y ago
How does that make any sense whatsoever as a response to the OP?
- antigua 17y ago
  Linux distributions can get all the face lifts in the world, but at the end of the day they were not designed to be cute and accessible.

rbanffy 17y ago

OSX's biggest downside is having a fixed region of the screen that changes according to the context of the selected window on the desktop. That makes it impossible to check what two windows can do or even what program is responsible for them until they are selected. That's terribly inelegant solution that separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data (the menu). Admit it. That's a draw.

carbon8 17y ago
"what program is responsible for them" This is handled by title bars in Gnome, OS X and Windows, not window menu bars. "separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data" The menus don't just act on what's in the window. At least some menu items act on the application itself. In a multiple document interface with a system that ties menus to windows, the menu of one window acts on multiple other windows. The other windows are either sub windows shoved inside the main window or they are windows floating independently from the window with the menu, which means you need to return focus to the main window to use the menu. In a single document interfaces, the same menu, application controls and all, is repeated on each individual window. Furthermore, in both of those cases, once you close the window with the menu bar, you no longer have access to any controls for the application, which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  > which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open. As opposed to "application buildup" MacOS users experience since the OS7 days, when they are on a clean desktop and five applications running for no particular reason.

Daishiman 17y ago

What are you talking about? OSX's menu bar is useless when you have huge monitors or multiple screens, and the menu bar and other behaviors makes focus-follow-mouse impossible.

yoden 17y ago
Moving my mouse 2000 pixels to get to the menu bar on my other monitor... shudders

s3graham 17y ago

I find the menus ridiculous on OSX.

sid0 17y ago

OS X's biggest downside is that it doesn't allow an interface without menus. :)