|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/30/08 22:54
In article <0U6oj.9160$421.1460@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-9C4F1B.08520931012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
> >> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
> >> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
> >> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
> >> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
> >> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
> >> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
> >
> > I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
> > one too.
>
> They did.
>
> Windows, at least, allows one to specify the size of menus and other such
> things.
Refreshing to hear good things about Windows.
I was not happy with the lack of the flexibility, up to Tiger at
least, on Macs. One gets used to it and it still looks nice.
There are all sorts of mouth watering flexibilities in Mac for
Finder views so it might seem ungrateful of me to complain.
In the case of Mac, there are a world of things in what is known
as Resource forks, resources like notices and system icons and
other stuff and these perhaps have been carried over from earlier
OSs. It is perhaps a big deal to alter all this stuff or provide
for variability in it to suit different users.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|