3 ms·
That's odd, I found the Compiz cube to be helpful actually. As a graphics effect it's about as basic as it can get -- even the venerable GLX Gears is more comp
by dale_glass 6y ago
That's odd, I found the Compiz cube to be helpful actually.
As a graphics effect it's about as basic as it can get -- even the venerable GLX Gears is more complex. And I found it to actually increase usability because it visually and very intuitively showed you the movement, so it made organization a bit neater. It made it easier to keep a mental map of what was where, because it could be arranged spatially.
If anything, it didn't go far enough. I wanted more faces, and the possibility of working in a "zoomed out" state, for when I need to look at a whole bunch of stuff at once.
The real novelty stuff to me were the Enlightenment effects like the water effect on the bottom of the screen -- now that chewed up CPU and did nothing of actual use.
- Nursie 6y agoI liked the cube for the same reason - virtual desktops just kinda clicked when I could rotate the cube to get to the stuff running just off screen. I've never really bothered with them before (or since). You could make the 'cube' have an arbitrary number of faces, but I don't think there was the zoom mode you talk about.
- dale_glass 6y agoI recall not being able to use the top and bottom faces, for instance. But maybe that was just the KDE implementation.
- Nursie 6y agoTrue, you could not when using compiz with gnome either, as I did back then. You could add more faces to the cube so that it became a slice of a pentagonal prism, hexagonal prism, heptagonal, octagonal etc. Or take one away so you were working on the sides of a triangular prism. But you're right, there was no vertical freedom of movement. You couldn't use a Rhombicuboctahedron, cool as it might be :) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombicuboctahedron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombicuboctahedron)