Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!agate!ocf!rgm From: rgm@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Rob Menke) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Message-ID: Date: 4 Mar 91 06:44:25 GMT References: <91058.234938CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <11628@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29159@cs.yale.edu> <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: TEAM CS -- Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today! Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de's message of 3 Mar 91 04:28:31 GMT In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the variations you describe above. "One size fits all" is a bit harsh in describing the Standard File Package. A better description would be "lowest common denominator." The Standard File Package allows the programmer to use the regular dialog box (SFGetFile/SFPutFile) or make their own (SFPGetFile/SFPPutFile). A good example is when Apple switched from MFS (Macintosh File System) to HFS (Hierarchical File System), they went to great pains figuring out how to change the nonstandard dialogs to support the new system even though they had given warning that nonstandard dialogs might not be supported in future releases of the OS. It's all rather technical, involving checking the resources for certain configurations (another good reason for allowing USERS to edit resources--I've altered a few old dialogs myself) and if you are really interested, I'll explain it via e-mail. No need to bore the rest of the net. -- >GIVE COIN TO CHARON | Robert Menke "So educated," giggles the voice in | rgm@OCF.berkeley.edu your ear... | ...!ucbvax!OCF!rgm