Hi,
I'm an ungruntled Win user. I'd like to try Linux but it seems I have to go back to the dreaded command line. I did conquer this in CP/M and DOS but having used Win since v.3.0 I have forgotten a lot about command lines! The Linux 'language' is akin to Terry Pratchett and you 'lug' members seem to have a bit of a sense of humour.
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!! Something I haven't managed so far. Then there is the problem that I absolutely need to be able to run QuarkXPress and Photoshop (PS). I understand that 'WINE' can be used to a degree with older versions.
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS! I already use OOo v 1.3 (in Win) in preference to MS Office. I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
Cheers,
BD.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:35:22PM +0100, Bob Dove wrote:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!! Something I haven't managed so far.
I wouldn't agree that installing Win is much easier than installing Linux, I had to reinstall Win on a laptop the other week, it took me about 5 hours given the time I had to spend hunting drivers and downloading patches etc. compared to a Linux install on that same machine which took about 1 hour You may want to try Ubuntu Linux, there was a new release today and it really does rock. You won't have to use the commandline unless you don't want to.
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS! I already use OOo v 1.3 (in Win) in preference to MS Office. I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
Heh, I would counter that PS is crap compared to Gimp, I use Gimp in preference to PS and have done for over 5 years. Horses for courses anyhow as you said most PS users will confirm that Gimp isn't an equal to photoshop most Gimp users will confirm that PS isn't an equal to Gimp.
Anyhow...
If you need to split your C partition into two bits to install Linux then there are many ways to do this with free software, first of all you will have to work out what kind of filesystem Windows is installed on (fat or ntfs) then you will need to google for some linux tools like ntfsresize and parted (which I think are probably included on the Ubuntu bootable live CD) to help you split the disk.
If this sounds too daunting then there is commercial software which runs within Windows that will be able to split the disk for you, something like Acronis disk director suite 9.0 which is available from Amazon or ebuyer for about 20 quid.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Apparently your anti-virus software needs updating ;)
Adam
The message 20050408101340.GM3140@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
You won't have to use the commandline unless you don't want to.
Heh! Now *THAT'S* a Pratchettline if ever I saw one!
Knoppix is a good way to start, too.
Have a browse over www.linuxemporium.co.uk
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS! I already use OOo v 1.3 (in Win) in preference to MS Office. I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
Heh, I would counter that PS is crap compared to Gimp, I use Gimp in preference to PS and have done for over 5 years. Horses for courses anyhow as you said most PS users will confirm that Gimp isn't an equal to photoshop most Gimp users will confirm that PS isn't an equal to Gimp.
Anyhow...
Well - I tend to use one graphics program for (say) cloning, another for paintbrushing, and another for line work and Irfanview for viewing and resizing, so I have about five or six pogroms in my Wintray and Godknowshowmany lurking in Linux - mainly still on CD, I have to admit.
/snip of partitioning bit/
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Apparently your anti-virus software needs updating ;)
With decent mail/newshandling programs and some care when connected to the WWW this isn't really an issue. I've been on the 'net now for more than nine years, with no firewall and no AV program, running my net software under Windows, and have never been infected with any sort of malware. (Yes, I've checked with all sorts of programs)
<touches wood>
Thobut if/when I get round to affording ADSL I shall pass everything through Smoothwall...
Welcome to the list, anyway.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:56:11AM +0100, Anthony Anson wrote:
Apparently your anti-virus software needs updating ;)
With decent mail/newshandling programs and some care when connected to the WWW this isn't really an issue. I've been on the 'net now for more than nine years, with no firewall and no AV program, running my net software under Windows, and have never been infected with any sort of malware. (Yes, I've checked with all sorts of programs)
Aye, you said decent software which I quite agree with the relative safety that using decent software would give you on windows although, the original poster is using Outlook Express ;)
Adam
Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:56:11AM +0100, Anthony Anson wrote:
Apparently your anti-virus software needs updating ;)
With decent mail/newshandling programs and some care when connected to the WWW this isn't really an issue. I've been on the 'net now for more than nine years, with no firewall and no AV program, running my net software under Windows, and have never been infected with any sort of malware. (Yes, I've checked with all sorts of programs)
Aye, you said decent software which I quite agree with the relative safety that using decent software would give you on windows although, the original poster is using Outlook Express ;)
Mustn't forget that some viruses can be 'implanted' in websites, rather than emails. And all this is irrelevant to the use of a firewall. If someone's portscanning, it doesn't matter what mail user agent you have, they're going to be able to get to your computer anyway.
Adam
The message 20050408111432.GN3140@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:56:11AM +0100, Anthony Anson wrote:
Apparently your anti-virus software needs updating ;)
With decent mail/newshandling programs and some care when connected to the WWW this isn't really an issue. I've been on the 'net now for more than nine years, with no firewall and no AV program, running my net software under Windows, and have never been infected with any sort of malware. (Yes, I've checked with all sorts of programs)
Aye, you said decent software which I quite agree with the relative safety that using decent software would give you on windows although, the original poster is using Outlook Express ;)
I didn't like to point that out...
Outpuke and Outlurk Depress were the first two bits to be unisntalled when I got this pre-fenestrated box.
Hi Bob.
On Thursday 07 April 2005 18:35, Bob Dove wrote:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
Well, I spent a large chunk of yesterday rescuing an attempted Windows installation that went horribly wrong. Whereas Mandrake went on the same box with no problems at all. It just depends what you're used to and whether you're lucky (or careful) with hardware.
I think the biggest and scariest hurdle with Gnu/Linux is partitioning and installing without losing the OS that's already installed. Windows avoids this hurdle by blithely ignoring it.
Something I haven't managed so far.
Never mind, I'm sure you'll be a fully gruntled Gnu/Linux user soon.
Then there is the problem that I absolutely need to be able to run QuarkXPress and Photoshop (PS). I understand that 'WINE' can be used to a degree with older versions.
I don't know about Quark, but Photoshop 7 runs fine for me under Crossover Office.
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS!
Well, I'm a PS user and I'm not sure I'd immediately rush to that conclusion. The two programs have very different user interfaces and I find it hard to evaluate the Gimp since I've never taken the time to get to know it properly. I'm hoping the new Gimpshop (a PS-like UI for the Gimp) patch will make it easier for diehard PS users like us.
I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
Mandrake (er, Mandriva) is a fairly good choice for newbies and the installer features tools for partitioning your drive.
Good luck,
Joe
The message 001401c53c20$54ee4a90$02332850@bdf from "Bob Dove" bdfoto@tiscali.co.uk contains these words:
I'm an ungruntled Win user.
Win's OK so long as you know which bits you can dump without borking the rest.
I'd like to try Linux but it seems I have to go back to the dreaded command line.
Nope.
I did conquer this in CP/M and DOS but having used Win since v.3.0 I have forgotten a lot about command lines! The Linux 'language' is akin to Terry Pratchett and you 'lug' members seem to have a bit of a sense of humour.
Command-line is fun! You can do *ALL SORTS* of nasty things in Linux. Linux *TRUSTS* you. Linux expects you to know what you're doing. If you tell it
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
or
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda
it will do so - without question...
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
Having tried (and failed) 22 times to install Win 2000 on one of my boxen (PIII), on which Debian went on without a murmur, I'd contest that statement.
Win 2000 installed perfectly well on another box (PII) from the same CD, but the PIII fell over when I tried grafting the Win 2000 PII-loaded HD into it.
Something I haven't managed so far.
You don't need to. There are plenty of Linux distros which run straight from CD - Knoppix; ATmission Live CD; Mempis, to name but three.
Then there is the problem that I absolutely need to be able to run QuarkXPress and Photoshop (PS). I understand that 'WINE' can be used to a degree with older versions.
Why not have a dual boot system, then?
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS! I already use OOo v 1.3 (in Win) in preference to MS Office. I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
Humph! PS is OK for some of its functions, but crap at others.
Bob Dove wrote on 07 April 2005 18:35:
I'm an ungruntled Win user. I'd like to try Linux but it seems I have to go back to the dreaded command line. I did conquer this in CP/M and DOS but having used Win since v.3.0 I have forgotten a lot about command lines! The Linux 'language' is akin to Terry Pratchett and you 'lug' members seem to have a bit of a sense of humour.
There's always KDE, Gnome or one of many other window managers out there that can take care of your graphical needs.
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
I can do multiple Fedora installations in less than 20 minutes, it can take over an hour to do a decent Windows installation and bring it up to date.
Something I haven't managed so far. Then there is the problem that I absolutely need to be able to run QuarkXPress and Photoshop (PS). I understand that 'WINE' can be used to a degree with older versions.
Photoshop works just fine under Wine. As a film effects company, we have many users using Photoshop just fine with Wine. We're working towards getting a fully functional Photoshop CS going, and we're close to doing it.
GIMP is not in anyway equal to PS as any PS user will confirm, in fact there is no other program equal to PS! I already use OOo v 1.3 (in Win) in preference to MS Office. I like it and looking forward to using v 2.0. I need to know what program to choose as a starter, how to partition my C drive to install Linux into &c.
This is something that you and many artists agree on. Many people aren't favourable to Gimp here, but it's a personal choice.
Regards,
Martyn
Martyn Drake wrote:
Bob Dove wrote on 07 April 2005 18:35:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
I can do multiple Fedora installations in less than 20 minutes, it can take over an hour to do a decent Windows installation and bring it up to date.
Presumably you're an experienced Linux user though?
Martyn
On Friday 08 April 2005 12:12, Martyn Drake wrote:
Bob Dove wrote on 07 April 2005 18:35:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
I can do multiple Fedora installations in less than 20 minutes, it can take over an hour to do a decent Windows installation and bring it up to date.
I just installed SuSE 9.2 by FTP on a 500k ADSL line. It took most of a day for a 3.5GB installation, requiring practically no intervention from me beyond the obvious stuff needed for Windows as well (like setting up network names). As others have noted, there's no special skill needed in sorting out drivers, no repeated reboots and no need to ask Microsoft's permission to do the job in the first place. I keep a Windows 2000 partition for the decreasing number of (mainly multimedia) tasks I can't yet persuade Linux to handle, but with every new release they get fewer.
-- GT
On Thursday 07 April 2005 18:35, Bob Dove wrote:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
Many times we see articles on how (allegedly) difficult it is to migrate from Windows to GNU/Linux - What is it like going the other way....
The first Windows install I did entailed swapping six 1.44Meg floppies in and out before having to hunt down the driver disk(s) for the graphics card.. Moving up to Ver 95, things were a little easier as it all came on a single CD, but each time a new driver was installed, the whole system needed a reboot - This also applied when changing simple things like network settings. Version 98 was no better in this respect, and if you had any non Dos partitions, the dumb OS wouldn't see them.. I gave up on trying to install M$ after 98.
From the user perspective, I found Windows to be very limiting.. Only one virtual desktop, and no text consoles. Many a time, I would be punching Ctrl-Alt-Fn when an app went in to zombie mode. Then there were all those "General exception faults" that occurred that required a reboot to clear... And why, oh why, did Bill Gates have to implement a BSOD when an app did an illegal operation (and you thought *nix error messages were terse)..
For what I do, a system that allows programs to terminate gracefully when a critical error occurs is a major plus - That and multiple virtual desktops, six (or more) text consoles (plus login sessions via ethernet or serial)..
Could I go back to Windows ? Not unless it supports multiple sessions, allows me to have total control over hardware at the lowest level and can do hard realtime control. If I identify a bug, can I have the source code to fix and recompile (some how, I think not).
Regards, Paul.
The message 200504081254.55693.bdi-emc@ntlworld.com from Paul bdi-emc@ntlworld.com contains these words:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 18:35, Bob Dove wrote:
I must say that installing Win is much MUCH easier than installing Linux!!!
Many times we see articles on how (allegedly) difficult it is to migrate from Windows to GNU/Linux - What is it like going the other way....
The first Windows install I did entailed swapping six 1.44Meg floppies in and out before having to hunt down the driver disk(s) for the graphics card..
Mine was on 5Œ" discs...
Moving up to Ver 95, things were a little easier as it all came on a single CD, but each time a new driver was installed, the whole system needed a reboot - This also applied when changing simple things like network settings. Version 98 was no better in this respect, and if you had any non Dos partitions, the dumb OS wouldn't see them.. I gave up on trying to install M$ after 98.
I missed out 95 until I really needed a 32-bit OS, and by that time 98 was out. My 98 installation showed Linux partitions. (And knew what they were.)
From the user perspective, I found Windows to be very limiting.. Only one virtual desktop, and no text consoles.
I've never worked out why you would need more than one 'desktop'.
Many a time, I would be punching Ctrl-Alt-Fn when an app went in to zombie mode.
Fn? And I seldom get zombie mood from any app - and when I do, it's often my own fault, and I've only ever managed completely to crash Windows of any flavour once, since v. 3.0
Then there were all those "General exception faults" that occurred that required a reboot to clear... And why, oh why, did Bill Gates have to implement a BSOD when an app did an illegal operation (and you thought *nix error messages were terse)..
Never had a 'general exception fault' AFAICR, and only the one BSOD mentioned above. That was after installing Eudora, and trying to run it, resulting in a big sheath of error messages, culminating in one which told me Windows was irrevocably borked, and I'd have to reinstall it. (This I ignored, and after a reboot all was back to normal.)
For what I do, a system that allows programs to terminate gracefully when a critical error occurs is a major
Lack of memory, perhaps? I just never seem to get that promble - but then, I seldom have more than 6 apps open at the same time...
plus - That and multiple virtual desktops, six (or more) text consoles (plus login sessions via ethernet or serial)..
Yes, I've already asked about that!
Could I go back to Windows ?
I don't intend to dump it entirely, Wine notwithstanding.
Not unless it supports multiple sessions,
Multiple sessions? What they? (And, why?)
allows me to have total control over hardware at the lowest level and can do hard realtime control.
Whatever that means.
If I identify a bug, can I have the source code to fix and recompile (some how, I think not).
Well, I can see Bill's point of view - how many Linux distros are there? Why, FFS?
On Friday 08 April 2005 18:02, Anthony Anson wrote:
I've never worked out why you would need more than one 'desktop'.
For activity grouping and to save hunting through taskbar for the window you want. Some people seem to like typing the same command over and over again, but I hate anything repetitious so I do every task in its own window or tab and group them together for the kind of work I'm doing.
On my work machine I have six desktops. Two contain browser windows, each with several tabs; one has a large multi-tabbed shell for testing the software I write, one is reserved for Eclipse running full-screen, one is for mail, IM and BugZilla, and the last one is for lunchtime, where I do stuff unrelated to work. Even running at 1600x1200, putting all this lot on one desktop is a major nightmare (I know - my previous employer was a Windows shop), requiring much guesswork as to which abbreviated taskbar icon is the one I want, when all of them show just an icon and the first few letters of the program name.
-- GT
The message 200504082026.03259.gt@pobox.com from Graham gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Friday 08 April 2005 18:02, Anthony Anson wrote:
I've never worked out why you would need more than one 'desktop'.
For activity grouping
Not acquainted with this term.
and to save hunting through taskbar for the window you want.
Nor this concept.
Some people seem to like typing the same command over and over again, but I hate anything repetitious so I do every task in its own window or tab and group them together for the kind of work I'm doing.
Sounds untidy to me. I think I'd soon be lost amongst it.
On my work machine I have six desktops.
I'm not greedy: I have one for each OS, and ATM, one OS on one machine, and the rest are in trays in (or not in) another, so effectively, one at a time.
Two contain browser windows, each with several tabs;
Sorry - tabs? I have two browser icons on the taskbar, and several more which can be conjured from directories if needed.
one has a large multi-tabbed shell for testing the software I write, one is reserved for Eclipse running full-screen, one is for mail, IM and BugZilla, and the last one is for lunchtime, where I do stuff unrelated to work.
I can understand the last. But I can open any number (FSVO 'any') of panes, and just minimise them until required.
Even running at 1600x1200, putting all this lot on one desktop is a major nightmare (I know - my previous employer was a Windows shop), requiring much guesswork as to which abbreviated taskbar icon is the one I want, when all of them show just an icon and the first few letters of the program name.
I'd forget which one each was on...
Fortunately, the software I test is the mail/news handling program I use, and I don't get to write much of that (a few function icon buttons to date). Still, I'm always using the beta, which now is quite stable. In the early days it used to fall over quite often...
The only time the taskbar becomes a bit cramped is if I'm writing HTML pages, when I might have an HTML editor, two browsers, a text editor, and several graphics programs open at the same time.
On Friday 08 April 2005 22:15, Anthony Anson wrote:
For activity grouping
Not acquainted with this term.
Perhaps I just made it up. I mean grouping together a collection of things you need at the same time, for performing a given work (or other) activity, and ignoring everything else currently running. An analogy: my house has a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom and several bedrooms. If it were an MS Windows house it would have to be one large room with a pull-down bed, foldaway kitchen and a bath that rises out of the floor. A bit like living in a motor home or caravan; lots of faffing about every morning and evening changing modes.
Two contain browser windows, each with several tabs;
Sorry - tabs? I have two browser icons on the taskbar, and several more which can be conjured from directories if needed.
Do you not run a tabbed browser? I thought only Internet Exploder failed to offer this essential feature.
Even running at 1600x1200, putting all this lot on one desktop is a major nightmare (I know - my previous employer was a Windows shop), requiring much guesswork as to which abbreviated taskbar icon is the one I want, when all of them show just an icon and the first few letters of the program name.
I'd forget which one each was on...
You can rename desktop tabs, just as you can shell tabs. A six-letter acronym is more than enough to identify which is which. Anyway, I don't need labels on the doors to remember which room of my house is which.
-- GT
The message 200504090858.05163.gt@pobox.com from Graham gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Friday 08 April 2005 22:15, Anthony Anson wrote:
For activity grouping
Not acquainted with this term.
Perhaps I just made it up. I mean grouping together a collection of things you need at the same time, for performing a given work (or other) activity, and ignoring everything else currently running. An analogy: my house has a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom and several bedrooms. If it were an MS Windows house it would have to be one large room with a pull-down bed, foldaway kitchen and a bath that rises out of the floor. A bit like living in a motor home or caravan; lots of faffing about every morning and evening changing modes.
I suppose it's all down to how you arrange your time on the box. I try to limit myself to one task at a time, and usually succeed.
Two contain browser windows, each with several tabs;
Sorry - tabs? I have two browser icons on the taskbar, and several more which can be conjured from directories if needed.
Do you not run a tabbed browser? I thought only Internet Exploder failed to offer this essential feature.
No idea. What's a 'tabbed' browser? I run Firefox, and have Opera as a backup, Firebird is still there, Mozilla on the other box, and IE is only on any of the HDs because it's bundled with the OS.
Even running at 1600x1200, putting all this lot on one desktop is a major nightmare (I know - my previous employer was a Windows shop), requiring much guesswork as to which abbreviated taskbar icon is the one I want, when all of them show just an icon and the first few letters of the program name.
I'd forget which one each was on...
You can rename desktop tabs, just as you can shell tabs. A six-letter acronym is more than enough to identify which is which.
I can't imagine wanting to have several different functions going on in my house at the same time. Perhaps this comes of having a small cottage and a fairly small (by modern standards) box.
Anyway, I don't need labels on the doors to remember which room of my house is which.
Not unless you rearrange it every time you go in, of course.
On Saturday 09 April 2005 09:48, Anthony Anson wrote:
Do you not run a tabbed browser? I thought only Internet Exploder failed to offer this essential feature.
No idea. What's a 'tabbed' browser? I run Firefox, and have Opera as a backup, Firebird is still there, Mozilla on the other box, and IE is only on any of the HDs because it's bundled with the OS.
In Mozilla, click File | New and select Navigator Tab. Other browsers do it different or the same; in Konqueror go to the Window menu. It saves having multiple windows open when you're only using one at a time.
-- GT
The message 200504091615.11102.gt@pobox.com from Graham gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Saturday 09 April 2005 09:48, Anthony Anson wrote:
Do you not run a tabbed browser? I thought only Internet Exploder failed to offer this essential feature.
No idea. What's a 'tabbed' browser? I run Firefox, and have Opera as a backup, Firebird is still there, Mozilla on the other box, and IE is only on any of the HDs because it's bundled with the OS.
In Mozilla, click File | New and select Navigator Tab. Other browsers do it different or the same; in Konqueror go to the Window menu. It saves having multiple windows open when you're only using one at a time.
I do something similar (offline), but I just minimise the one(s) I'm not using.
Online I very nealy only ever use Firefox.
I have a sort-of feeling that you play with your toys differently.
Strange, isn't it? One new member introducing him/herself generates a handful of follow-ups, and another sparks of a plethora of plethorae innit.
On 08-Apr-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 200504081254.55693.bdi-emc@ntlworld.com from Paul bdi-emc@ntlworld.com contains these words:
From the user perspective, I found Windows to be very limiting.. Only one virtual desktop, and no text consoles.
I've never worked out why you would need more than one 'desktop'.
Aside from a bit of ambiguity about "desktop" (I assume this is meant to be the lots of different screens you can switch to from the screen you're working on at the moment: I used to call these "desktops" but now call them "workspaces" because of the usage of "desktop" in KDE and GNOME to mean the whole layout of the screen), I have a number of motives for using several of these.
For instance, my laptop has 10 of these on the GNOME desktop.
In normal kitchen-table use, I reserve: -- No 1 for my calendar and addressbook (running on my fixed box A and sending these over the LAN using X); -- No 5 for email things: the MUA (XFMail) window for reading & composing etc (sent from fixed box A)., an xterm to fixed box A for accessing my home dir on A; an xterm to root on A for adminny things including triggering the mail sending when I go on line; an xterm to my fixed box B which has the modem attached, so that I can initiate the dialup. And it also has windows for kppp when I'm dialled up so that I can monitor traffic if I want to. -- No 10 for my browser.
The other 7 workspaces get used for a variety of things, but I'm in the habit of keeping certain things on specific ones so that I know where they are without thinking. E.g.
-- When I'm doing statistical analysis with R, typically this goes in WS 8, where there will be 2-4+ windows (1 for R, 1 for showing graphics output, 1 for editing command files, 1 or more for displayiong help files); I may flick some of those windows over to WS 9 (you can do this by dragging the thumbnail from one panel of the Workspace Swticher to another)
-- If while doing this, I'm also writing a report, I will have groff typically in WS 7, where there will be an editing window using 'vim', a 'gv' window showing the formatted text, an auxiliary xterm for accessing system files when needed, and the xterm from which I started all this (on which any error messages from groff will be posted).
This leaves me, so far, with 5 which do not have habitual roles, which I use any time I want to do something else without cluttering the above workspaces. Often I use one or more for logins to boxes A and B (e.g. if I want to refer to documentation stored on B).
The point of all this is that a group of windows which are involved in a single task sit on the same workspace. They do not need to be interefered with by other windows when I switch between tasks, since all I need then is to switch to another workspace where all the windows for that other task are sitting, ready and properly arranged. This is much easier than maximising and minimising all these windows on a single screen (or, worse still, simply dumping them on top of each other like a pile of unsorted underwear -- and yes, Tony, I'm mindful of your comment about top-posting!).
Another instance where multiple workspaces come into their own was illustrated recently: I've spent a good fraction of the last few weeks sitting in at a public inquiry, and I had the main Proofs of Evidence on my laptop as PDF files. There are 182 of these documents (including appendices) and, at any time, people are examining from 5-10 of these.
So I just put up each one in a separate instance of Acrobat reader on a different workspace, and was able to follow the proceedings by flipping around between desktops. Again, much quicker than the equivalent operation would have been using the single screen you get in Windows. If a new document is called up I just switch to a new desktop and start a new instance (I already have an xterm in each of the 10 so that I can quickly scan a directory for the document needed and start the Reader).
There are many other advantages of multiple workspaces (OK desktops if you prefer), but the above illustrates the reasons why I find them so convenient.
Best wishes to all, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 08-Apr-05 Time: 20:39:46 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
The message XFMail.050408203946.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
/snip of 'desktops' use/
There are many other advantages of multiple workspaces (OK desktops if you prefer), but the above illustrates the reasons why I find them so convenient.
Yes, fine. You can though, even in Windows, get the same results in most programs just by minimising one document and opening another, minimise that, etc.
Which is more-or-less the same thing by a different door.
How many Windows could cope with before falling over is anyone's guess though.
On Friday 08 April 2005 22:20, Anthony Anson wrote:
There are many other advantages of multiple workspaces (OK desktops if you prefer), but the above illustrates the reasons why I find them so convenient.
Yes, fine. You can though, even in Windows, get the same results in most programs just by minimising one document and opening another, minimise that, etc.
But why bother when it's so much easier to click a taskbar icon and get a pre-prepared environment?
-- GT
The message 200504090845.01735.gt@pobox.com from Graham gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Friday 08 April 2005 22:20, Anthony Anson wrote:
There are many other advantages of multiple workspaces (OK desktops if you prefer), but the above illustrates the reasons why I find them so convenient.
Yes, fine. You can though, even in Windows, get the same results in most programs just by minimising one document and opening another, minimise that, etc.
But why bother when it's so much easier to click a taskbar icon and get a pre-prepared environment?
I would dispute that it is any easier - in fact, I'd think it was quite the reverse.
But that's not an objective opinion because the only time I tend to have several programs running at the same time is when I'm making web pages, and they're all on the one incarnation of the 'desktop'.
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:30:13 +0100 Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
The message 200504090845.01735.gt@pobox.com from Graham gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Friday 08 April 2005 22:20, Anthony Anson wrote:
There are many other advantages of multiple workspaces (OK desktops if you prefer), but the above illustrates the reasons why I find them so convenient.
Yes, fine. You can though, even in Windows, get the same results in most programs just by minimising one document and opening another, minimise that, etc.
But why bother when it's so much easier to click a taskbar icon and get a pre-prepared environment?
I would dispute that it is any easier - in fact, I'd think it was quite the reverse.
But that's not an objective opinion because the only time I tend to have several programs running at the same time is when I'm making web pages, and they're all on the one incarnation of the 'desktop'.
JSpager is the only stable virtual workspace app Ive seen for windows and its quite stable.
Regadrs
OWen
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Bob Dove -
Graham -
Joe Button -
Martyn Drake -
Owen Synge -
Paul -
sheridan -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk