Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!ames!indri!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!gorby!mnkonar
From: mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: System 7.0 and tear-off menus
Message-ID: <27324@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 89 22:45:32 GMT
References: <269.24AE0D88@bmug.FIDONET.ORG> <908@accuvax.nwu.edu> <26944@srcsip.UUCP> <13005@well.UUCP>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 18

In article <13005@well.UUCP> svc@well.UUCP (Leonard Rosenthol) pointed out
some advantages of the TOM way of implementing tearoff menus vs. the Radius
way. The advantages were:
- TOM is able to handle menus longer than the screen height.
- TOM properly handles menus with heirarchical menus.
- Because of the way TOM works, it is more likely to be compatible with
  non-standard MDEF menus.

My response:
These advantages are all very real.  My point was that the developers could
have gone that extra mile and made TOM "feel" better.  Clicking and holding
to make a menu selection from a tear off menu feels unnatural to me.   


____________________________________________________________________
Have a day. :^|
Murat N. Konar        Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)