home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: fc.hp.com!news
- From: koren@hpsrk.fc.hp.com (Steve Koren)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: MUI 3.2
- Date: 20 Feb 1996 09:09:27 -0700
- Organization: HP Fort Collins Site
- Sender: koren@hpsrk.fc.hp.com
- Message-ID: <oj691hy9dxk.fsf@hpsrk.fc.hp.com>
- References: <311ce713@karkis.canit.se> <68771501@0humpty.tomate.tng.oche.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsrk.fc.hp.com
- In-reply-to: humpty@TOMATE.TNG.OCHE.DE's message of Mon, 12 Feb 96 8:59:19 GMT
- X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0.9
-
-
- humpty@TOMATE.TNG.OCHE.DE (Andreas Mixich) wrote:
-
- > For the _basic_ features for users which you may need every day:
- >
- > * FULL (!) keyboard control. I *love* it. I hate to always grab the mouse.
- > Tab cycle through all gadgets in your GUI. I never would do a GUI engine
- > without this.
- >
- > * Iconification built-in. And with a nice gadget in the window.
-
- I'd add to your list: window snapshotting. If you snapshot the window,
- the next time you open that same window it'll appear in the same
- position and location (and even the same public screen if you want). I
- love this. Apps that don't have it annoy me.
-
- I go out of my way now to look for MUI apps specifically, and I've been
- on a kick to replace my old non-MUI apps with MUI versions. This is
- because I know if it is a MUI app, it *will* support iconification,
- snapshotting, full keyboard support, window resizing, font settings, and
- all the other things MUI provides. Otherwise, it almost never does.
- Better if this stuff had been provided but C=, but they didn't, so
- getting a reasonably standard solution now is a good thing no matter
- where it comes from.
-
- > Okay.... I agree that MUI is very resource hungry, and maybe this is no
-
- That's a matter of what you consider "resource hungry". To a
- A1000/68000/2-Mb user, sure its a real hog. But I routinely run major
- applications which together allocate over 30 Mb of data space, never
- mind code space. MUI is so small I don't even *notice* it. Its down in
- the noise. Anyway you can consider its few hundred Kb to be divided
- between all your running MUI apps, and I often have 6 or 8 running, so
- its not that much overhead per app. The functionality is definately
- worth the nominal cost. If all apps had to implement the functionality
- separately, you won't have a nice single lib to complain about, but
- overall you'd use more memory, and lose the consistency.
-
- - steve
-