Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Enlightenment GUI

Interview: Mandrake Answers 49

Monday a whole bunch of people had questions for Mandrake, one of the heavies behind Enlightenment. Slashdot Moderators picked the best ones. We forwarded them, unedited, to Mandrake on Tuesday. His (excellent) answers appear below.

Peeler asks:
I run both KDE and Gnome, It would be great if the two would play nice with each other. My question is: Are there currently any plans for getting kde and gnome to work together, and if so how far along is the gnome team? Is the gnome team even talking to the kde team?

Mandrake answers:
Well, I can't say I know all the progress of all of this, but I know at least there are some plans under way to make a more universal set of window manager hints that both KDE and GNOME share. I got to meet Matthias Ettrich from the KDE project last week during Linux World and that was one of the things that we were talking about. I honestly can't say what the better solution is these days, KDE or GNOME - but I know that enlightenment will be able to support applications from both by the next release (I just got done working on implementing KDE hints for 0.16) - and my advice to the average user is use either or both or none, or whatever suits you best.

But the one GOOD thing about both is they're working on bringing more applications to the linux desktop, which is something that we need pretty sorely right now.

Trashman asks:
How soon do you expect a 1.0 release of E?

What features, arenn't in E .15 yet that you would like to see?

Mandrake answers:
1.0? Eek. I have no idea. There's a little bit of a roadmap sometimes, and there's kind of a plan right now as to what all we want in there EVENTUALLY and I suppose that some day there will be a 1.0 release, but not today. Enlightenment is still under pretty heavy development, and I tend to get the 1.0 feeling when you've got most of what you want done in there, at least to a basic extent.

Some people call something 1.0 the first time you ship something, but I know at least that raster doesn't care what people think of the version number (and I suppose that has rubbed off on me, too). So I have to go with the "when it gets done" answer, as usual. There's a lot of stuff left to go into E before a 1.0 even that is planned now (including a lightweight file manager, some more network integration, etc) - and then there's a lot of stuff I'm sure that hasn't even been thought of. And with the addition of some other folks like Christian Kreibich who is working off the codebase now, I'm sure there will be even more stuff added in before release too.

Ale asks:
Whenever I try to compile Enlightenment, I get an error saying my fridge is out of ale, even though it isn't. I tried stocking my fridge with different kinds of ales, to no avail. I even tried removing everything not beer from my fridge, and that didn't work either. Can you help me figure out what's wrong?

Mandrake answers:
Well, I'd have to say that it's likely that you forgot to connect up your refridgerator to the PC again. Quite often, I find that as I walk out of the kitchen towards the living room, the serial cable I have running into the office from the fridge comes unplugged. You might want to check to make sure it's still plugged in. If it is plugged in, I know that those cables are long and prone to fraying, so make sure your cat hasn't chewed through it. If all else fails, make sure your libFridge is up to date.

Syd asks:
You've been involved with some of the later XF86 development, and you run xinerama on your machine, (as evidenced by your screenshots) so my question is this: Can Xinerama run on two monitors at different resolutions? I know they have to be the same bit-depth, but it would be nice to be able to buy a 19" monitor and use it alongside my existing 17".

Mandrake answers:
Xinerama is still pretty new - you can run at different resolutions on different monitors (not bitdepths, however) but due to backwards compatibility reasons you'll have an unmapped area - you have to have a rectangular desktop.

Anonymous Coward asks:
Hey Mandrake! How is the perl/gtk book coming along? I'm already drooling in anticipation! Can you give us a ballpark figure on when it will be published? Or how about a topics list? Any info would be greatly appreciated!!! Keep in mind you have at least one guaranteed sale!!!

Mandrake answers:
It's kinda on hold right now. Mark Stone from O'Reilly (my main contact there) will prolly give me a call as soon as he sees this (I was supposed to talk to him during Linux World last week but was too busy to get around to it).

Anonymous Coward asks:
On my P1-233MMX-Matrox Mill II system, GTK applications like E, the Gnome suite, and stand-alone applications like FreeCiv display (at times) sluggish interface response and slow screen draw times. Complex interfaces can often be seen drawing in or updating widget contents in sequence.

It can be oddly reminiscient of my old 25Mhz Amiga running a 3rd party widget toolkit like MUI.

My questions for Mandrake are:

1) Where does the fault lie - X, GTK, E, the application, or "all of the above"

2) What efforts are being made to increase performance?

3) Do you think we'll ever see optimisations like hand-tweaked assembly in the GTK event loop, or in the widget redraw code?

Mandrake answers:
Well - to be honest with you I'll point out that in many cases you eat a lot of overhead by communicating over the X protocol. Context switches, IPC, etc, it all eventually eats into your performance bit by bit. Of course, the more graphics you throw at it the more overhead you're going to add into that. It's everyone's fault, and it's no ones fault. Fun answer, isn't it? You probably won't see hand-tweaked assembly in the GTK event loop, because most of where you're losing time won't necessarily be helped by it.

I wish there was a happy answer for that question. It's usually an applications fault if refreshes seem lagged though - there are a lot of things you can do to optimize out a lot of the "slow spots" that are visibly slow to the user... enlightenment does a lot of this - peaking through and optimizing out as many refreshes/moves/etc as possible. In a lot of areas there's some more serious work being done to increase performance - at least in the image rendering area, raster has been doing some work on imlib2 with some MMX assembly code in various places (for x86 only - there's C code for other platforms) to help speed up some processing. There's hope yet.

Anonymous Coward asks:
May I have your children?

Mandrake answers:
My girlfriend might have some beef with that. I suggest you ask her.

mindslip asks:
Microsoft, as much as we love to hate them, spends tons of money (which I'm sure Enlightenment doesn't have by comparison) on useability and the human interface.

I can rely on the same keystrokes, the same mouse clicks, a consistant Clipboard, the same file dialogs, etc. etc., no matter what Windows app I run.

Linux apps, be they for KDE or Enlightement, or any WM, seem to be as different from one another as possible. This is all in the name of "We're Unique!", which seems to translate to "We're Unusable and have a HUGE learning curve!"

What, if anything, is going to make Enlightenment/ Gnome/ KDE/ Anything else, more usable than one another? Themes are lovely, but a pretty face is only skin deep.

Can we at *least* "steal" some of MS's better ideas for use in "our" environment?

Mandrake answers:
Pretty much one of the tenets of enlightenment has always been to let the user decide all this stuff. on an application by application level there's not really a whole lot that you can do to add consistancy, that's really up to the app and/or the underlying toolkit that it uses. I know that GTK+ and QT both provide stuff for a lot of this... you'll notice that most GTK+ apps look the same, etc. But as far as stuff like enlightenment goes, we let the user define as much stuff as he wants to, right up until he gets into application land. which is a place where the window manager pretty much has no right to tromp over. (kinda like my opinion about letting applications have control over root window clicks. gmc, IMNSHO, shouldn't take mouseclicks on the root window)

As far as how you want your overall desktop (outside of applications) to behave - you can emulate it as closely as you want to (within current limitations of enlightenment) - set up all the keybindings you can to behave and respond the same, etc. But I will tell you one thing - they spend a lot of money on UI research that doesn't do me a lot of good - I have a hard time sitting down in front of a windows box and getting any work done because I CAN'T change enough of my settings to make it how I like to use my desktop. To me, that's what it's all about - giving the user choice. Even if enlightenment isn't the end-all-be-all system for everyone, I hope we at least up the bar a little bit on making people offer you more choices.

Zurk asks:
Is enlightenment going to go the 3D way of desktops ? Some companys were promoting kewl 3D accelerated desktops and with the Xfree 4 accelerator support can we expect 3D accelerated desktop support in E?

Mandrake answers:
I am of the opinion that to do a 3D desktop we'll have to throw away a lot of the current notions of computing. I've got some cool ideas about a lot of that stuff, but I'd rather implement it a much different way later (hopefully I'll get a chance to write a paper on my ideas on wearable computers) than put together something hackish today.

pos asks:
Do you think that a newer release of X will be sufficient to carry linux for a few more years or do you think a project like berlin (or some other windowing system) deserves more programming weight put behind it? Is X11 fit to carry all of the linux graphical weight or is it becoming a dinosaur?

Mandrake answers:
Well, there's a lot you can do with X the way it's set up now (there are lots of ways to invent shortcuts through the system). Unfortunately there is a bit of dead weight behind it, though. However, I have said for a while that people are cranky enough giving up windows apps (for the most part), a lot of people are going to be even crankier giving up all their X applications. Backwards compatibility would be key for a new system - even though that tends to be a lot of the weight dragging most systems down. It's a vicious cycle. I met the berlin folks a year or more ago at Linux Expo in Raliegh - and I was thinking at the time that they would have more to show sooner (but then again the enlightenment ACTUAL release cycle is slow as xmas, so who am I to talk?)... I'm hopeful of new solutions but I don't necessarily see anything in the immediate future, but I have to say for now that xfree86 3.9 is pretty cool (4.0 will be a good release, by my gut feeling).

Note: if you have anyone in particular you'd like Slashdot to interview, please send your suggestions to roblimo@slashdot.org. I read 'em all.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview: Mandrake Answers

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm...

    for document-based appications you could have 'pluggable menus', you could do a merge of predefined menus with customized ones..
    like a 'File' menu could be

    "New" (1)
    "Open" (1)
    "Save" (1)
    "Save As" (1)
    --------
    Print Setup (2)
    Print (2b)
    --------
    Preferences (3)
    --------
    Exit (4)

    The programmer chooses which menus he would like to use (I would use all the above) and they are automatically pulled from the settings so you get the actual text to be displayed, the key combinations, etc.
  • I use Window Maker with the excellent DFM file manager. It uses the GTK widgets and it's very lightweight. You can drop file icons on Window Maker icons to open them.

    Drawbacks: It parses directories slower than GMC, and it's weird and uncomfortable until you learn the keyboard shortcuts. Other than that, it's great.

    Check it out:

    http://www-c.informatik.uni-hannover.de/~kaiser/ dfm/dfm.html

    Groucho
  • I have both running on my machine as well... but it is an SGI O2... :)

    KDE is slow, GNOME w/ Enlightenment is slow, Window maker is fast, and 4Dwm, SGI's default, is the fastest... the sad thing is that I cant use GNOME or Window Maker with MAYA... the key combo for rotating the scene is the same as moving the window... alt-mouse button...

    And I almost had my IRIX box fully GNU'ed out...

  • In regards to the question about GNOME and KDE working nice together, the answer is yes, at least for the KDE 2.0pres I run. KDE and GNOME (and for that matter, some Motif apps) use CORBA for communication (ORBit for GNOME, MICO for KDE). Also, GNOME's panel has an option to work with KDE's menus (I don't know if it goes the other way). My desktop is Window Maker, with GTKstep, KDE's Step theme, Tkstep, and neXtaw (Athena), with a GNOME panel I can launch the standard KDE or GNOME apps from. Not only do they all interoperate, they all look the same. What would really be nice is a layer between KOM and Baboon to make them interoperate.

    If you're extremely masochistic, I suppose you can run panel and kpanel on the same desktop. I tried (in kwm, and it managed to eat 128MB RAM within seconds.

  • There's also the User Interface Hall of Shame [iarchitect.com], with various UI design mistakes (in the view of the authors) in various UIs, including but not limited to Windows (they alo have a User Interface Hall of Fame [iarchitect.com], for stuff they deem sufficiently praiseworthy).
  • Hoy, hoy, hoy!
  • It's just that an application doesn't need to handle root window clicks.

    For example, if you have the Gnome/enlightenment combo (the one that comes with redhat 6), the default behaviour is that the middle mouse button call the enlightenment menu, and the right mouse button calls the gmc menu. But if you upgrade to a later version of E (where all three mouse buttons have menus) you get a conflict between the E right button menu and the gmc right button menu, and both show up, often with less than useful results.

    It could be a matter for discussion which should take the root window clicks, the window manager or the integrated desktop, but there should be only one, or at least some way to specify or arbitrate the response, and I think this is kind of what Mandrake is getting at. Besides, gmc is an app, and it probably shouldn't get the clicks anyway. They should go to either the WM or the gnome panel.
  • Gnome panel is an app, of sorts. The reason I mentioned it in the context of the root window is that the gnome panel also contains the application menus. While the WM is the logical choice for handling root window clicks, if one of the Gnome apps is going to do it, it should be the panel, rather than the file manager. At least then, the mouse click could bring up an application menu, rather than the anemic menu like substance created by gmc. :)
  • I am currently interested in this myself, however
    it will require an OpenGL Xserver.
  • Forgive the question, but I haven't upgraded E beyond the one that came with RH6. Is this something you can configure? Mandrake was talking about how important it is to him that things be configurable by the user. Since this conflict would seem to be an obvious problem when using E with GNOME (which, I assume, many people do), I would imagine that it would be a good candidate for such configurability.

    Of course you can configure it, at least from E's side. You can change the binding for the right-click menu to something else (e.g., left button). I don't know if you can change gmc's behavior, though.

    And, for what it's worth, I think that if you're going to impliment a desktop on the root window, it makes much more sense to have the file manager do it than the window manager, since it is supposed to be just a graphical representation for a directory, right? You would want it to look and behave like all the other directories do...in the file manager you're using. But, then, since you might be primarily using one of any number of file managers, you need the ability to turn off such functionality in each.

    That is a Windows philosophy! Evil!

    In X, the "desktop" is a window, not a file or a directory, and the window manager is in charge of it. If a file manager wants to trespass on what has always been window manager territory, it should ask nicely first. gmc doesn't.

  • *sigh*

    Of course *somebody* needs to get the root window clicks. Enlightenment does that. So does just about every window manager on the planet. What he is trying to say is that any application that is *not* the window manager should *not* intercept root window clicks. It's Naughty(tm).

    This is not to preclude the concept of an integrated environment. There should certainly *be* a desktop, and objects on that desktop, but it should be up to the window manager, not the file manager, to handle them.

    If you ask me, a truly integrated environment requires that the window manager and the file manager be intimately intertwined, so the best practice is often to have them be the same application.

  • Umm...I thought the "desktop" was a Windows philosphy.

    Apparently you've never heard of "Macintosh" or "Amiga." :-)

    I didn't say it was bad to have a paradigm where the desktop acts like a directory. I meant that it is very Windows-ish to say that the desktop IS a directory.

    Asking would be good. But, then you need a standard way to ask, don't you? Is there or could there be one?

    Of course there could, and there should, be one. And the designers of the subsystem should have created it *before* snarfing mouse clicks that didn't belong to them. :-)

  • Actually an application cannot intercept them - only one client can select for the clicks on the root window - the WM gets in first so it gets them. if you run somehting else that grabs these events before E runs then it will fail to run.. simple E then if it doesnt have anything bound to that click combo will pass the vent on to a special event-passing window it has for apps like gmc to get these events. you can configure E to not have anything bound to these buttons and thus pass the clicks thorugh to whoever else. there was a bug for a while where E passed the click on anyway - that's been fixed in cvs in the meantime :) in the end E will have its own filemanager built in so it will manage files on the "desktop" itself and thus will need all the clicks :)
  • Lat I checked, enlightenment was passing the mouse clicks to gmc through the GNOME wm hints. If enlightenment does not pass the mouse clicks to gmc, then gmc will not display menus.

    Yes, the root window is the wm teritory, so apps need the wm's cooperation to make use of it. That is why the gnome wm hints (soon to be replaced with a desktop neutral set of hints, which is a joint effort between wm and desktop authors) were created.
  • Then delete the offending keybinding in the window manager's config file.

    When you say gnome is slow, which parts are slow? If you run it without gmc, is it still slow? If you run it without panel does it speed up? Or do you find the apps slow? One of the nice things about gnome (and kde) is that you don't have to run everything all the time.
  • I wanted to say something really important,
    so i begun a thread on a new story.

    LAST POST!
    Anyone posting after this post will die painfully.
    You can continue on this thread if you worship budhah and have only 3 fingers -
    But you'll have to use the subject line "Oogah majihombi".

    Anyone refusing to this rule will die a slow and painful death,
    while snails will eat you alive.

    Enjoy!


    ---
    The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
  • Congratulations (to Roblimo, I believe?) on coming up with an interesting and informative new Slashdot feature... I hope these interviews will continue to be a regular part of Slashdot.

    Who's next... Linus? ;-)
  • Besides, gmc is an app, and it probably shouldn't get the clicks anyway. They should go to either the WM or the gnome panel.

    It should definitely be the WM, since the gnome panel is just an ordinary app that happens to look like the Windows9x/NT taskbar, although far superior to it (the system doesn't get unusable if it crashes (which it doesn't do anyway :))
    ---
    Ilmari

  • This type of Q&A article is definitely something I'd like to see more of. It's something unique to the /. approach - big pot of communal Q's to A.

    It works! Keep it up!
  • In response to the interface consistency issued discussed above, it would seem fairly easy to create a user replacable dictionary of interface hints. This could not only help standardize things like keyboard shortcuts and menu item placement, but could also help make applications easier to internationalize (swap the english vocabulary for the swahili, sanskrit, or tagalog).

    See the June '99 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal article on concept oriented programming. I don't thing the guy's ideas are as general as he claims, but a dictionary of simple data items would be a really useful thing.

    Anyone want to start a standard with me? Email if you!
  • which is a place where the window manager pretty much has no right to tromp over. (kinda like my opinion about letting applications have control over root window clicks. gmc, IMNSHO, shouldn't take mouseclicks on the root window)

    While I can see where he's coming from regarding this (purity and correctness of the application), in order to have a "Desktop" --a la Windoze, Mac, BeOS, and anything with a remotely decent Desktop Environment, you NEED to be able to get root window clicks. Now, one can debate the usefulness of a desktop, but let's not (though my experience has shown me that it is a very useful, time-saving thing), how else could you implement aa desktop?
  • About a year ago, I happened upon a web page which enumerated various UI inconsistencies and quirks with Windows, along with some other programs. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. Does anyone know about a site like this?
  • jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh

    jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh

    jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh


    jdhflajksdhfahf asd f ajhafjksd faf ad fajksdfjs f afka kf a a as fak jlasdkjfkasd f;kasd ajkh jklasdh fjksdh flasjk hjklasdh klh asdjklfh jklasd fhlasdjk fhlasjfhal hflaj hasdjklhasdjkl la l ljh lj hjl l lhjasdhla jlasdh jklasdh klasdj asdjklasdjklfh asdkl sljfhsdl hasdljk fhasdklj dfhklj asdhkljf asdhklj asdhklj asdhl sdhlasfjkd faljk fhalksdjfhlasdj hf lasdkjh faljk hasdlj afhkl fhasdlj fh lasdjh flasdjkfh asjklh


  • 1234567890


    1234567890


    1234567890


    1234567890


    1234567890


    abcdefghijklm


  • 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
    1234567890
    1234567890

    abcdefghijklm

  • I think he just means that apps shouldn't handle root window clicks.

    For example, look at WindowMaker, it takes all of the root window clicks. I don't see why Enlightenment can't do this as well. The right click menu for GMC is pretty weak any way.
  • I think the most interesting way to use a 3d card for the desktop would be to make things like the pseudo-transparency in Eterm non-pseudo. The desktop would appear 2d. The problem with this is the memory usage (have enough windows open) and that everything i've seen in gl has been really blurred (satify the people who want anti-aliased fonts).
  • wouldve like to see a quick and dirty hack of a 3D desktop...oh well..cant have everything.
  • may not. all you need is the mesa GL library and a really fast cpu.
  • the problem with the MacOS is that the designers have made it very simple to do the things which they believed were important...sometimes at the expense of ease of doing things which they believed weren't. I find it very easy and quite intuitive to do a lot of things on a Mac. I also find it incredibly frustrating to try to figure out how to do other things (which are blatently simple to do in Unix).

    Windows I just never was able to figure out. Every single time (which is not many, mind you) that I have ever tried to use Windows, I have ended up frustrated. After receiving my NT laptop here at my latest job, it took less than 2 days for me to decide to scrub the disk and load Linux on it. There was just no way I was going to be productive in Windows...
  • Maybe I've just missed it, but the single biggest feature I've missed since switching from fvwm to E is the ability to bind keys and clicks to "contexts". Sometimes it makes sense to have keybindings and special clicks for the root window or the title bar of a window...and I REALLY miss the ability to have key bindings which work everywhere EXCEPT in an app window (the use for this is fairly obvious if you're an emacs user ;-)

    Is there a way to do this now in E? If not, is it planned for the future?
  • i couldn't agree more
  • What version of Windows is mindslip using? I've always found Mac OS applications to be a thousand times more consistent than Windows applications. Maybe he's just talking about MS Office, though, which apparently will be part of Windows soon enough.

    And Microsoft spending money on usability and human interface testing? Puh-leaze! Apple wrote human interface guidelines back in the mid-80s before Windows even existed. Microsoft simply copied the Mac's GUI, and did a poor job of it at that. Windows 95 and 98 were much better than 3.1 (and even added a few features that Mac users envied and eventually copied), but 'consistent interface' are not words I'd use to describe any version Windows or its various applications.

    More research needs to be done for human interface guidelines and usability in general, though. Neither X nor Mac OS nor Windows is anywhere close to the ultimate GUI.

    See Jakob Nielsen's [useit.com] book, Coordinating User Interfaces for Consistency [useit.com] and his Alertbox [useit.com] column for May 1997 titled "Web Design vs. GUI Design" [useit.com] for more talk about user interface design. The Anti-Mac [acm.org] paper is also interesting reading.

  • I think he wants the Window Manager to handle them. QVWM, a Windows-clone wm, implements icons on the desktop. However in both GNOME and KDE, it's the file manager that does this.

    I believe that it should be the wm that handles this, but that gets in the way of the wm independence that GNOME, and to a lesser extent, KDE try to achieve.
  • I wonder if anyone has any specific examples of the 'inconsistancy' of Windows. I've used both Windows and the Mac extensively, and while the Mac is prettier, the consistancy pretty much seems the same.

    The only specific problems I've seen on Windows are:

    + Dragging an icon in the explorer does different things in different places - better to just right-drag and make sure that it does the right thing.

    + The Windows standard file dialog is confused by shortcut icons. Microsoft is too retarded to fix this prominent bug.

    + Some older programs don't have a File menu, instead having a Game menu or something. Some Mac apps have this problem too.

    + MS Office has it's own standard file dialog. Why? Who knows. (Some Mac apps also do this.)

    + The IE-based Explorer doesn't seem to remember view settings very well.

    On the other hand, the Mac is not free of problems --

    + Toolbars are often absent or inconsistantly implemented. Chalk this up to MS giving away toolbar widgets with VC and VB, which means that most Windows apps have similar toolbars.

    + Many Mac applications don't recognize keys on an extended keyboard. I think Apple owns this - their standard controls don't seem to support Ins, Del, Home, and End.

    + Keyboard navigation is very inconsistant if you try to do anything other than Cut/Copy/Paste/Quit.

    In short, the Mac's UI advantages largely lie in system features which make it easier to configure your computer. I don't see that the actual applications are all that much better or more consistant than Windows.
    --
  • good questions/answers,.. over all

    the "may i have your children?" really got me

    hoo! what a riot!

Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.

Working...