Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:10178 comp.windows.ms:10859 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!opal!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: give me solid facts: Word for Windows Message-ID: <4408@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 27 Mar 91 20:11:18 GMT Article-I.D.: gmdzi.4408 References: <1991Mar24.025913.29727@amd.com> <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Mar26.011127.28302@amd.com> <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> <1991Mar26.132012.26071@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <91086.011415CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 22 CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.132012.26071@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, >tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) says: >> >>This is strictly a Word for Windows problem. Applications that do not >>support multiple active instances are supposed to check for one already >>running, and if one is found, activate that running copy and bring its >>window to the top (see Microsoft Systems Journal, Dec/90 for details). >I find it *terribly* ironic that a major Microsoft product fails to >conform to the guidelines specified *by Microsoft* for Windows >applications. Recently I read in a Macintosh magazin that now, finally, Hypercard adheres to Apples Human Interface Guidlines. This implies that earlier versions (which have been distributed with most Macintoshs, as far as I know) did not do that. Was that magazine wrong? Does Apple always follow all its own guidlines? Wolfgang Strobl #include