Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows
you
have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common
frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open
folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Cheers Jason
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
And what about tabs + MDI, as in opera?
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com] Im Auftrag von Martin Fuchs Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2004 16:22 An: ros-general@reactos.com Betreff: Re: [ros-general] Ok guys...
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
And what about tabs + MDI, as in opera?
Mhh, yes. Would be a possible new feature. If you want to give it a try. ;-)
But I don't think this is what Richard and Jason had in their minds, is it?
What I also like with MDI is that I'm able to position two folder windows side by side an compare their content by visual comparison. This would of course also be possible with your MDI solution with tab extension.
Regards,
Martin
personally speaking, I like the desktop-windws solution of explorer sometimes i have 10 of them open.
Martin Fuchs schrieb:
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
This option could be a configurable option, the default could be non MDI, but the user could change to an MDI interface.
Robert Köpferl wrote:
personally speaking, I like the desktop-windws solution of explorer sometimes i have 10 of them open.
Martin Fuchs schrieb:
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
And for this reason, I don't like tabs.
But as long as you could open folders in new windows by default, that'd be fine.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Fuchs" martin-fuchs@gmx.net To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Ok guys...
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
-- Martin Fuchs martin-fuchs@gmx.net
GMX ProMail (250 MB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS, Virenschutz, 2,99 EUR/Monat...) jetzt 3 Monate GRATIS + 3x DER SPIEGEL +++ http://www.gmx.net/derspiegel
+++
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Actually you could drag and drop with tabs, just like you do when dragging and dropping via the taskbar (first hover over the tab you want to drop on until it opens, then drop on that window).
Martin Fuchs wrote:
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
I think the tab itself should accept the drag and drop. I hate hovering waiting for it to open...
On another note -- is multiple desktop support going to be added? One thing I think MS missed out on and only partially got right in XP (with fast user switching) is a multi-desktop aware shell. The tab grouping and hidden notification icons are cool as well.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Jasper van de Gronde Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:04 AM To: ros-general@reactos.com Subject: Re: [ros-general] Ok guys...
Actually you could drag and drop with tabs, just like you do when dragging and dropping via the taskbar (first hover over the tab you want to drop on until it opens, then drop on that window).
Martin Fuchs wrote:
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Well, but with tabs you can't use drag and drop to copy files as you only see one child window at once. You have to use copy&paste instead.
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
On 15.02.2004 21:42:21 Brian Palmer wrote:
I think the tab itself should accept the drag and drop. I hate hovering waiting for it to open...
On another note -- is multiple desktop support going to be added? One thing I think MS missed out on and only partially got right in XP (with fast user switching) is a multi-desktop aware shell. The tab grouping and hidden notification icons are cool as well.
There is already basic multi desktop support in Explorer. It doesn't use "true" desktops because that's not compatible with notification (aka tray) icons. It simply hides any window not on the current desktop like XP's explorer does.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Fuchs wrote:
On 15.02.2004 21:42:21 Brian Palmer wrote:
I think the tab itself should accept the drag and drop. I hate hovering waiting for it to open...
On another note -- is multiple desktop support going to be added? One thing I think MS missed out on and only partially got right in XP (with fast user switching) is a multi-desktop aware shell. The tab grouping and hidden notification icons are cool as well.
There is already basic multi desktop support in Explorer. It doesn't use "true" desktops because that's not compatible with notification (aka tray) icons. It simply hides any window not on the current desktop like XP's explorer does.
There also are APIs such as CreateDesktop or SwitchDesktop, I believe those are what the VWM PowerToy uses. Note that iirc those are truly separate desktops though, ie. on each desktop there's a separate instance of the shell. Then again, given the list this is posted on, I probably just stated the obvious. ;)
There is already basic multi desktop support in Explorer. It doesn't use
"true" desktops because that's not compatible with notification (aka tray) icons. It simply hides any window not on the current desktop like XP's explorer does.
There also are APIs such as CreateDesktop or SwitchDesktop, I believe those are what the VWM PowerToy uses. Note that iirc those are truly separate desktops though, ie. on each desktop there's a separate instance of the shell. Then again, given the list this is posted on, I probably just stated the obvious. ;)
I know. I treid to implement the multiple desktops using this functions, (thats's what I called "true desktops") but had to see it isn't possible to get it right this way. If you want, you can look into my explorer source code. It's still there - just disabled. Using CreateDesktop() and SwitchDesktop() shows the following problems: - It's not possible to share the notification area among different desktops. - If you want to launch programs from those additional desktops, it's not enough to create a new thread per desktop, you have to launch an explicit new explorer processes for each of the desktops. - You can't (simply) move one application from one desktop to another. (However it could be possible by using a thread-/DLL-injection technic, I didn't try this.)
The XP powertoy desktop switcher also doesn't use this CreateDesktop() API, it's also just hiding windows when switiching from one "desktop" to another.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Fuchs wrote:
Using CreateDesktop() and SwitchDesktop() shows the following problems:
- It's not possible to share the notification area among different desktops.
- If you want to launch programs from those additional desktops, it's not
enough to create a new thread per desktop, you have to launch an explicit new explorer processes for each of the desktops.
- You can't (simply) move one application from one desktop to another.
(However it could be possible by using a thread-/DLL-injection technic, I didn't try this.)
The inability to move application windows is by design, desktops wouldn't count as a "secure object" otherwise. You can move threads across desktops, but only as long as they don't have windows and other similar things.
About sharing the tray, you could do this by creating a memory mapped file or some other kind of shared memory which holds the internal NID list. At least if you want to use separate instances of Explorer. If you just want a single instance it's easier to share data, but it's more difficult to implement the rest. =) You need to create one thread per desktop and duplicate all UI elements in all those threads. I have never tried to implement this particular scenario, but it appears to be possible. Personally I'd go the one-process-per-desktop route with shared memory.
Note that if you're just after VWM-style functionality, you don't really need to use those APIs. What Litestep does is simply moving the windows off-screen, for example 10000 pixels to the right. Except for some glitches with the recent XP Styles, this has worked fine since '97 or '98. I can point you to some GPL'ed implementations if you want; if you want to test the binaries go to www.litestep.net, register (requirement by the host, we don't complain for $0 hosting), and download the installer.
The inability to move application windows is by design, desktops wouldn't count as a "secure object" otherwise. You can move threads across desktops, but only as long as they don't have windows and other similar things.
Sure. But I would like to be able to implement this feature, so I choose not to use the CreateDesktop() API.
About sharing the tray, you could do this by creating a memory mapped file or some other kind of shared memory which holds the internal NID list. At least if you want to use separate instances of Explorer. If you just want a single instance it's easier to share data, but it's more difficult to implement the rest. =) You need to create one thread per desktop and duplicate all UI elements in all those threads. I have never tried to implement this particular scenario, but it appears to be possible. Personally I'd go the one-process-per-desktop route with shared memory.
Well - this may be possbible. But it sounds a bit complicated. The approach to hide windows using SW_HIDE or move them somewhere abroad into non-visibility is simple and effective.
Note that if you're just after VWM-style functionality, you don't really need to use those APIs. What Litestep does is simply moving the windows off-screen, for example 10000 pixels to the right. Except for some glitches with the recent XP Styles, this has worked fine since '97 or '98. I can point you to some GPL'ed implementations if you want; if you want to test the binaries go to www.litestep.net, register (requirement by the host, we don't complain for $0 hosting), and download the installer.
Well, my implementation also works already (if you don't count a few bugs that are included), so I will leave it this way.
Regards,
Martin
Good Idea! Perhaps we could add the drive-buttons as preloaded-tabs then?
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Filby Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2004 16:17 An: ros-general@reactos.com Betreff: Re: [ros-general] Ok guys...
Martin Fuchs wrote:
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows
you
have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common
frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open
folder
I think that tabs, as in Mozilla, is a better solution.
Cheers Jason
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
-
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood -
Brian Palmer -
ilmcuts -
Jason Filby -
Jasper van de Gronde -
Martin Fuchs -
Michael -
Richard Campbell -
Robert Köpferl