[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: KDE Standards - Basic - Windows
From:       Dave Leigh <dave._leigh () mindspring ! com>
Date:       1999-09-23 3:05:48
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter Penz wrote:

> Shouldn't we wait with that, until MDI is really supported by X-Window?
> I never saw a real implementation of MDI on KDE and I think there will
> never be one, until X supports it (with "real" implementation I don't
> mean a imitation of a MDI like Gimp does).

While I sympathise with your dislike of the MDI, there are some good reasons for using them, not the
least of which is that it can be less memory hungry than opening seperate copies of an application just
because you want to work with more than one file (which is one reason I prefer Opera to Netscape).

However, given a choice of applications, the GIMP is the last one I'd pick out as an example of an MDI.
(personally I think the GIMP has the UI From Hell in nearly every regard, but that's another story).

Here are some better examples:  StarOffice is an MDI (although it's an odd one, with the parent window
doubling as a sort of desktop).  Opera is a fine example of an MDI running under X (see
http://www.opera.com/graphics/linux.png).  And, although Opera is not KDE, it does rely on QT, so at the
very worst it's a close cousin technologically, if not philosophically.

Obviously, people aren't going to wait around for a "real" implementation to produce real MDI
applications, no matter what you or I think.  The time for a standard is before KDE is stuck with a bunch
of slightly different MDI interfaces, not after.


--
    mailto:dave.leigh@cratchit.org
    http://www.cratchit.org/dleigh

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]