de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (08/10/90)
In article <26010@bellcore.bellcore.com> mo@bellcore.com writes: > >The same thing as the Amiga screen-stretcher has been around >for years on the Mac as well, I *think* even before X11 appeared, >and probably before Solbourne was even founded. As I already pointed out in comp.windows.x, I think what Solbourne's trying to protect is not the concept of a virtual screen larger than the physical screen, but rather the way their `virtual desktop' allows one to move windows into, out of, and around in the scale model of the virtual screen. I've seen lots of windowing, and even non-windowing systems that have the virtual screen concept, but I've never seen anything like Solbourne's method. It's clever, unique, intuitive, *but not obvious*. For those who're not familiar with it, I'll try to explain it. But to appreciate it, you really have to try it out yourself. Imagine your typical X setup with the addition of a 2"x2" window in the upper right hand corner of the screen. In the window is a small-scale representation of your virtual root window, which is maybe 20-30 times larger than your physical screen. Windows are represented by dark outlines. The visible portion of the virtual root is represented by a light outline. You can move windows around by dragging them, and you can also move the display viewport to a different area of the virtual root. But the neat part is that you can grab one of those little window outlines and drag it right out of the virtual desktop onto your real root window. When your pointer leaves the virtual desktop window, the window you're dragging becomes full sized. The inverse works too: moving a full-sized window into the virtual desktop window causes it to shrink to scale. Anyway, it's unfortunate Solbourne is taking the `threaten the little guy with legal action' approach here. I mean, they *are* a hardware manufacturer. Do they honestly think that by preventing others from implementing this feature that people are going to buy Solbournes instead of DECs and Suns? I'd think they'd be more harmed by the `ill will' their actions will generate. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
barry@ADS.COM (Barry Lustig) (08/11/90)
> I've seen lots of windowing, and even non-windowing systems that have > the virtual screen concept, but I've never seen anything like > Solbourne's method. It's clever, unique, intuitive, *but not obvious*. The idea of using a panner is not particularly unique. Solbourne's use of a panner was predated by the InterViews folks at Stanford. Their code implements a panner that is very similar to that used by Solbourne's window manager. Who is copying from whom? Barry Lustig Advanced Decision Systems barry@ads.com --
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (08/11/90)
barry@ADS.COM (Barry Lustig) writes: | The idea of using a panner is not particularly unique. Solbourne's |use of a panner was predated by the InterViews folks at Stanford. |Their code implements a panner that is very similar to that used by |Solbourne's window manager. Who is copying from whom? well perhaps someone with firsthand experience can comment on the similarities among swm, interviews, pre-rooms and various micro things. perhaps solbourne will comment? certainly they have software interests as well as hardware interests since they've licensed some part of their c++ environment to AT&T. more light, less heat.