12 Apr
2007
12 Apr
'07
4:51 p.m.
On 12 Apr 2007 at 9:25, jvdg at sparcpark.net wrote:
What's meant here is that the Chris M has a point:
you *do* cheat yourself of some
functionality when using a non-windowed environment "these days". However, you
also cheat yourself of functionality exactly by using a windows environment. There
are things that are much more efficient if you don't have to wrestle the
point-and-click interface.
My point was that graphical capabilities are perhaps sufficient, but
not necessary for a windowed environment. Similarly, a windowed
environment does not require graphics. I have a copy of Mewel
(including source code) here that illustrates that quite nicely.
If I look at the screen I'm working with now under MS Windows, one
thing that strikes me is that, with the exception of a few icons,
it's almost entirely text. By and large, the graphics aspect is
being wasted on me at this time.
On the other hand, when I'm working on musical scores, the complexity
of the notation demands that I always keep the screen as a single
window. Windowing is pretty much wasted there, although graphics is
not. In fact, music programs that have modal command entry, using
windowing to display sub-menus are incredibly annoying and slow to
use.
Whether windowing serves games, I can't say. I've not played one
since the days of SIMCGA (when I got my fill).
To some, windowing implies only a message-passing event-based
operating system interface, with keystrokes, mouse movements, etc.
going to the window currently holding the focus.
When we carelessly say "windowing is the same as GUI", we're simply
displaying fuzzy thinking and can easily fall into the trap of
thinking that there's only one way to accomplish a task. Judging
from the number of repetitive stress injuries and
eyestrain that
industry endures, perhaps graphical message-passing windows
aren't
the best way.
Canon Cat owners are invited to comment.
Cheers,
Chuck