Re: Raw Convertors

In article <87skg4mo1x.fld@xxxxxxxxxx>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I need at least one that allows me to designate the focus
(i.e. where keyboard entries go to) by having it last touched with
my mouse. No clicking, no "window to the top". Does Windows
offer that and if so, through how many hoops do I have to jump
to get that?

this is an insanely bad user interface, and one that causes enormous
amounts of misdirected input, which can be a disaster in some cases.
i've seen the fallout from it far too many times.

Oh such BS. I've been using that interface for 20
years, and dislike using anything else.

just because you like it doesn't negate what i've said. some people do
like it. the point is that it makes it *very* easy to misdirect text
input and i've seen *so* many fuckups from it, that it's not even
funny.

Ever heard of something ... no, of course not. Windows is
still, at heart, a one-machine-one-user system, not something
where multiple users, especially multiple concurrent users, are
confortably served with. So of course you have to assume that
it must be *one* user that needs different desktops.

most computers are used by a single person,

But *not* by a single user.

yes by a single user. computers are so cheap these days, people
generally get their own rather than try to share.

or do you really think people share their laptops? do you think office
workers use their co-worker's computers? there are exceptions, but the
vast majority of users have their own computer and don't share it.

Of course there are other possiblities too... I am
currently not running any desktop manager as such, just
a window manager. And I am currently logged into the
machine running it with 5 different user names. In
addition it is displaying processes running on two other
machines (each with two logins going). Hence I have 9
logins active, on three computers (8 total cpu's). I
use 15 virtual windows on the machine running the X
server.

That is quite simple to do with any Unix variation.

do you really think this is a common scenario?

Not all Windows software will run under Windows,

then it's not actually windows software.

and no, claiming that a newly released app won't run on win95 or an app
from 1995 won't run under vista does not qualify. the same happens with
other operating systems too.

But of course apps for Linux from 1995 *can* be made to
run on any current Linux (because we do have the source
code).

most software companies update their software since they'd like to keep
selling more copies. worst case, the old software can run in a
compatibility mode or just install the older operating system in
vmware.

on a mac, old apps run under classic, including apps from 1984 written
for a 128k mac with a completely different processor and operating
system.

Apps from 1995 for Windows that won't run on
Vista are things you kiss bye bye and toss into the
round file...

if an app hasn't been updated in 15 years and nobody else has written
anything to take its place, then there's obviously very little interest
in what it did. in other words, who cares.

and more will run,
but not even understand the file format de jour.
Just look how Microsoft forces users to upgrade their office
packets to even read what others, using the latest version (with
the latest new file format) write.

they don't force anything.

Oh, of course not. You can just stop working with, take your
pick, everything you had or everything anyone else has...

nonsense. for instance, os x opens .doc and .docx files natively,
without *any* microsoft software installed. kinda tough to upgrade
what's not even there.

That's not forcing anything, is it!

no. they'd *like* you to upgrade but it's not required.
.

Loading