Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!mephisto!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Can't resize windows? (was Re: Windows 3.0 & the Mac)
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.053458.22053@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Jul 90 05:34:58 GMT
References: <3114@gmdzi.UUCP> <1990Jul10.022352.4138@bdmrrr.bdm.com> <3097@gmdzi.UUCP> <90195.153543Q8N@psuvm.psu.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 59

In article <3114@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
[...]
> Therefore I think that the concurrent *use* of two or more
> applications (i.e. have two copies of the notepad editor and
> one kermit running and cut and paste between all three
> while composing a message, for example) is to my knowledge 
> more common under Windows than on the Mac, which makes it less
> attractive for applications to give up screen space, on the Mac.
> (I do not doubt that it is possible to cut and paste between
> different running application. But how much and how smooth
> is it used?)
> Of course this is how a Windows user/programmer with nearly no 
> Macintosh experience (me) sees it, so please take the above 
> statements as a question: is this observation correct? If not, why?
No. Some Mac users don't use MultiFinder because 1M isn't enough
to make it worthwhile. I use it all the time; screen space is
not a serious problem (I use a 1-page monitor; I still coped when
I used to use an SE/30). Cut and paste has always been a Mac
strong point, long before Windows appeared, and is much enhanced
by MultiFinder. Mac applications are expected to always supply
the cut and paste functionality using the same menu and same
keboard commands. They are also expected to store the clipbaord
in both a standard format (TEXT or PICT), as well as their own
internal format (which may contain more information).
[...]
> This indicates that the resizing capability alone is not enough 
> to get applications to share a screen without either confusing 
> or keeping the user busy. MS Windows tries to tackle this problem
> by giving the user the option to run an application in one of three
> modes: minimized (i.e. as an icon), normal size (resizeable or not),
> and maximized (resized to the maximum size the application allowes),
> and a fast method to switch between these three modes.
> 
> So, if I want to use two applications concurrently, I put them
> side by side by resizing the windows. If an application's windows
> clutter the screen, I shrink it to an icon. If I use an application
> exclusively for some time, I maximize it. All this is only a click or
> a keystroke away. And its not a *new* feature of Windows.
> 
The Mac may not iconize in commonly distributed versions of the system,
but a similar feature is on the way. For quite some time, zoomable windows
have been supported (toggle between 2 sizes). When I use MPW for editing
lots of text windows, I use its tile feature to fill the screen with
lots of small windows, then temporarily zoom up the 1 or 2 I'm currently
interested in. You can certainly put 2 application's windows side by side.

Another point... if you can't afford a 19" color monitor, a useful
alternative is to buy a 13" color monitor and a 1-page mono. You can drag
windows from 1 to the other. Really useful if you need a color preview to
look at detail, but can live with mono or grayscale to see the overall
layout. How does Windows cope with multiple monitors? Can the user
dynamically set the number of grays or colors? Can you add a new (different)
monitor just by adding a video card and powering up, or do you have to
manually configure it? (On the Mac, everything is automatic, unless you
want to change the default settings for number of colors/grays, or the
logical layout of the monitors - all easy to change in the Control Panel.)

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu