>On 17 Dec 2003 at 7:26, Phil Daley wrote: >> I don't get it. Why would it be hard to find? That's how I work all >> the time and any window is just a mouse click away. > >Mine aren't. Some windows are two clicks away because MS changed the >behavior of a click on a taskbar button to toggle the window's state >between Restore/Minimize, instead of having the click restore focus >to the window represented.
I always minimize a window I am not using. I only have one open window in the desktop pretty much all the time. (IE excepted)
>> If you hover the mouse over the taskbar, it will give you, not only >> the window name, bur also the open document, if, for some reason you >> don't know what button to press. I can't imagine not knowing which >> button goes to which program window. > >The point of expose is that it gives you the information without >needing to scrub the mouse over taskbar. It gives you that >information with an easy mouse movement (going to the hot area in one >corner, a corner that is always the same once you set it), rather >than with a mouse movement that requires you to navigate horizontally >across a vertically narrow space.
The information in the taskbar icon is sufficient to distinguish any one program from all the others. I never find it necessary to hover over a button to see what it is. I was just suggesting that people who lose windows could do this. I never "lose" a window.
>1. Microsoft Office 2000 programs or later.
Word and Excel. I might have 2 instances of Word rarely, I would never have 2 instances of Excel.
>2. Internet Explorer.
Sometimes I have 2 or 3 instances when I am googling. But then I do not use the task bar, I just click on the portion of the visible window. I know which instance is the main search one by its screen location.
>All of these programs proliferate taskbar icons, by (ill-conceived) >design. WinXP groups windows of a process into single icons >accessible through a pop-up menu.
Never have seen that one.
>The feature of accessing child windows of all running apps from a >single location is one that Expose has over Windows. WinXP can group >multiple windows of one application (i.e., if you open Word and >launch 3 documents, they are represented in WinXP as a single taskbar >button, whereas in previous versions of Windows, they were three >independent buttons), but other versions of Windows cannot. But WinXP >*cannot* give access through the taskbar to the document windows of >multiple-document interface programs, or to the tabs of Mozilla, for >instance.
It does not do that on my system. I get a separate button for each instance.
Seems like a useless Windows feature.
>Sounds like you are happy with what you have simply because you have >it.
It works well, it is not broken and it is fast. But I hate a screen full of open windows, so I work in a method that minimizes that aspect of running multiple programs simultaneously. Also, I have been working that way for 20? years, since Win2.1 came out. Perhaps Mac users, since they only had the possibility of running multiple apps more recently, are less familiar with the concept. Also, I agree that it takes a large screen to make managing multiple windows easier. I have a 21" monitor cranked up to its highest resolution. Most Macs I have seen have much smaller screens. I could never use a laptop. The screen is abysmal and their substitutes for a mouse are useless.
>I have always been frustrated by the limitations of the Windows >Taskbar, and have complained about it from the very beginning. Apple >is trying to solve those problems in its implementation of the >onscreen representation of all the programs running, in order to >improve navigation between apps. This is a good thing. I hope that >when Microsoft copies it, they do better job than with their usually >UI copying from Apple.
I hope they skip it. I like it the way it is.
Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://personal.monad.net/~p_daley
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
