🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8804091916.AA20039@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> 	Placing the menu bar on the screen rather than in each individual
> window makes sense because at any one time, the user will be manipulating
> only ONE menu.

Yah, and if you switch back and forth between two tasks in non-overlapping
windows, you have to wait for the new menu bar to get redrawn each time.  No
thanks.

> ................ So instead of having to manipulate a menu which is limited
> to the window width (kind of hard if you make the window really small), one
> manipulates a full-width menu at the top of the screen. 

But under Windows 2.0, when you want to make an application window REALLY
small, you just make it into an ICON instead of a window!  The app is still
loaded and active, it's just been "smalled" all the way down.  You can do
this on the Amiga, I am told, with a program called `Iconify.'

> 	It makes no sense to put ALL the application's/accessory menus into
> one menu bar because at any one time I might have a dozen installed, and
> I don't even want to *see* their menus until I need them, much less have
> said menus hinder me.

Maybe it makes no sense to you, but it does to me!  You could select
something like `global reformat' in the word processor, and then go back to
your spacewar game without waiting for the `global reformat' to finish and
release it's menu bar.  This is, of course, opinion, both mine and yours :-)
-- 
    /\              - " Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -        Schiller       -     obie!wes