Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!think!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!tecot
From: tecot@apple.UUCP (Ed Tecot)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Better Windows? (LONG)
Message-ID: <784@apple.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 16:52:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.784
Posted: Mon May 18 16:52:44 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 19-May-87 06:10:49 EDT
References: <565@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1987May12.233757.24441@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: tecot@apple.UUCP (Ed Tecot)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 21
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:4947 comp.sys.mac:3300 comp.sys.atari.st:3576

In article <1987May12.233757.24441@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> pete@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Peter Santangeli) writes:
>
>
> Hi Yall,
>
> On the subject of Window recursion, the one part of most windowing systems
>I find counter -intuitive is the difference between the desktop and a window.
> Wouldn't it make more sence to allow WINDOWS to have there own menu systems?
>These could be modal (only the active windows menus available) or semi-modal
>(active and desktop available). This kind of scheme would make multitasking
>much more intuitive.

The advantage of having all the menus in one place is that the user knows
what all of his options are.

> Now if someone could come up with a graphic rendition of Pipes and
>I/O routing, we'd be laughing...

You obviously have never seen a Silicon Graphics IRIS with visual pipes.

						_emt