f



the new interface

hi, i have used rb 5 and mac and now use rb2005 on linux (and mac) i don't  
hunderstand why some people don't like new ide, it is more clear and  
functional that rb 5.0 (and have a more professional look, rb 2005 look  
like visual studio and rb 5 look like vb 4)

good 2006

-- 
Creato con il rivoluzionario client e-mail di Opera:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
0
michelangelo
1/2/2006 3:50:06 PM
comp.lang.basic.realbasic 2744 articles. 0 followers. spam127 (8) is leader. Post Follow

56 Replies
661 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

michelangelo giacomelli wrote:
> hi, i have used rb 5 and mac and now use rb2005 on linux (and mac) i 
> don't  hunderstand why some people don't like new ide, it is more clear 
> and  functional that rb 5.0 (and have a more professional look, rb 2005 
> look  like visual studio and rb 5 look like vb 4)

Hi,
Most Mac users dislike the new look because, as you said, it looks more 
like visual studio than before. It's not that Win32 products are evil, 
but RB was first a Mac program and is now rather a Win32 product. So, 
obviously, Mac users complain that a software is going away for them/us.

Furthermore, complains from Win32 or Linux users for this matter are rare.

Also, for example, some functionalities are no longer available in RB 
2005, sometimes because the new interface is not compatible with the old 
behaviour. The "splitter view" to separate the code editor and the fact 
that a window can no longer been seen in the same moment than the code 
editor are common problems, for example. For this point, we can hope 
Realsoftware find how to include these in the future (RB 2005 is new, RB 
5.5 is therefore more stable). About the first point, I think Mac users 
(or firstly-Mac users, also) are actually mainly using RB 5.5 because 
Realsoftware will not go back.
0
Arnaud
1/2/2006 5:54:01 PM
> It's not that Win32 products are evil

Yes it is.  ;)

I find it interesting how so many of the Mac based RB05 users feel that 
it's too "windows like" when a single window interface has become the 
mac standard (take a look at any iLife software).

Anyway I have to agree with Michaelangelo.  Heck, I upgraded to RB05 
BECAUSE of the new interface.  Once one gets used to it, they're likely 
to find that it's actually much more productive.  I know I have.

Of course no one can deny that this rewrite has created a whole new 
series of bugs.  However RS's new rapid release model should squash a 
lot of these in a small amount of time, so we just need to hang on 
through the hard stuff.  It'll be over in due time.

0
John
1/2/2006 7:14:59 PM
John Ponsano wrote:
>> It's not that Win32 products are evil
> 
> Yes it is.  ;)

Indeed. It was a joke.

> I find it interesting how so many of the Mac based RB05 users feel that 
> it's too "windows like" when a single window interface has become the 
> mac standard (take a look at any iLife software).

Do they like the iLife (and such) interface?
Maybe the iLife is becoming a "windows like" interface but Mac users 
prefer to use it anyway.

But I rather think that the single window interface is not made for 
multi-documents-based applications in MacOS X (like QuickTime, 
AppleWorks, TextEdit, etc. which keep the multi-window interface).
I can't speak for anyone else, but, for me, the previous interface was 
more appropriate for a product such as Realbasic.
I believe the RB2005 interface was designed so that it mixes a 
Mac-and-Win32 interface. Problem: it's much Win32 compliant than Mac 
compliant.

> Anyway I have to agree with Michaelangelo.  Heck, I upgraded to RB05 
> BECAUSE of the new interface.  Once one gets used to it, they're likely 
> to find that it's actually much more productive.  I know I have.

I don't think Realsoftware made RB 2005 by thinking "No one will like 
the new interface";-). There are 2 kinds of preferences: people who like 
the new interface and people who dislike it. Afterall, the important 
part is to like it or not. Not if RS is going to the right way (they are 
responsible for that).

> Of course no one can deny that this rewrite has created a whole new 
> series of bugs.  However RS's new rapid release model should squash a 
> lot of these in a small amount of time, so we just need to hang on 
> through the hard stuff.  It'll be over in due time.

What has changed (what is the new rapid release model of RS)? I don't 
know about that.
(please don't take this message as if I was angry; I have some problems 
to create my sentences in english).
0
Arnaud
1/2/2006 9:00:36 PM
"hunderstand why some people don't like new ide, it is more clear and  
functional that rb 5.0 (and have a more professional look, rb 2005 look  
like visual studio and rb 5 look like vb 4)"

=

In case you didn't know, version 5.0.0 is considered to be one of the
worse releases of RB, its a buggy piece piece of crap; and if I recall
correctly its when RS decided to introduce a new built-in database (he'll
RS didn't even bother to update its Language Reference, actually mixing
code from the earlier database and the newer one - code examples dragged
from the LR crashed RB). If you are going to use the Mac version of RB
then use 5.5.5 (which you should know if you are a Mac user as you
claim).

If you used a Mac for years then you'd know the new interface does not
follow the multi-window interface as used in other professional grade
applications on the Mac, such as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. Large
one window interfaces are WHY I don't use Windows products (lets see here,
I have multi-screens connected to my Mac, but I am suppose to keep
everything in one window; he'll why have two screens?).

"Furthermore, complains from Win32 or Linux users for this matter are
rare."

Yes, this makes perfect sense the entire purpose of the new interface was
to get rid of the MDI interface on the Windows version of RB, which
Windows didn't like due to the lacking behavior of Windows. This was not a
problem on the Mac since we don't have to deal with the ignorant issues of
MDI, which the original poster of this thread would also know if he is
actually a Mac user as he/she claims.

"Also, for example, some functionalities are no longer available in RB 
2005, sometimes because the new interface is not compatible with the old 
behaviour."

This is true; however, this is an understatement; there are a HUGE number
of items in RB that do not work. Just take a look at RB feature request
page - many of these so called feature requests are actually people asking
for features to be put back into RB. For example the code spliter, the
ability to export code as plain text, etc... (all because RS decided to
remove them from the product). Then there are dozens and dozens of more
features which do not work because RB lacks the ability to hire competent
coders to work on their product (just clicking an item in the LR can cause
RB to crash because of a unhandled nil object error - assuming of course RB
actually gives you an error message before it crashes).

"About the first point, I think Mac users 
(or firstly-Mac users, also) are actually mainly using RB 5.5 because 
Realsoftware will not go back."

I will not be using RB until I am able to use it in a fashion similar to
5.5.5 - I do not want to see or use the tabbed interface at all. I could
care less if people want to use the new interface, BUT RS better offer an
alternative out of respect to its original customer base who built their
company. Considering how flexible RS says RB is then they should not have
any problem adding a IDE preference. But you are not going to see that
because the people that run RS are evil and have no conscience what so
ever; they are little better than the people than ran Enron. Hell, one of
their main engineers, Aaron Ballman, is blantantly Anti-Macintosh in posts
and on his blog.

"I find it interesting how so many of the Mac based RB05 users feel that 
it's too "windows like" when a single window interface has become the 
mac standard (take a look at any iLife software).

Anyway I have to agree with Michaelangelo.  Heck, I upgraded to RB05 
BECAUSE of the new interface.  Once one gets used to it, they're likely 
to find that it's actually much more productive.  I know I have.

Of course no one can deny that this rewrite has created a whole new 
series of bugs.  However RS's new rapid release model should squash a 
lot of these in a small amount of time, so we just need to hang on 
through the hard stuff.  It'll be over in due time."

Please get clue! iLife applications are consumer level application
intended for your average homeowner to fiddle with at home. RB Pro is
intended as a professional grade piece of software which is uppose to be
in the same realm as Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator in that its suppose
to be the best in its field. When I edit photos I don't use God damn
iPhoto, I use PhotoShop because I can run circles around iPhoto. When I
code with RB I use a multi-window interface, not a tabbed interface where
everthing is stacked over the top everything else, because the old
interface is more productive. I will not "get used to" the new interface
because I can run circles around it using the old interface. THE NEW
INTERFACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING MORE PRODUCTIVE - IT WAS DONE TO
MAKE THE IDE MORE ACCEPTABLE ON Windows RB. Exactly what is wrong with YOU
that you can't use the old interface in a faster manner than the new one
(who gives shit what it look likes, its how fast you can code with it).

Their rapid release is nothing more than a marketing program in which they
charge you money for the priveldge of being a beta tester for them, for a
product which RS management expects you to get down on your knees and beg
them to put in features they they removed and which you've already paid
for. If you truely believe that then I have a bridge to sell you here.

I suspect this post is nothing more than a fake post made on behalf of RS
since the original poster claims to have use RB on the Mac, yet does not
possess any knowledge of how things actually work on a Mac. Using a Mac or
5 minutes doesn't qualify you as a Mac user!

0
Kodze
1/3/2006 2:41:44 AM
"John Ponsano" <capnbishop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2006010211145816807-capnbishop@yahoocom...
> Of course no one can deny that this rewrite has created a whole new
> series of bugs.  However RS's new rapid release model should squash a
> lot of these in a small amount of time, so we just need to hang on
> through the hard stuff.  It'll be over in due time.
>
I personally like the new interface.  But the part that gets me is
that it was released as a final version with enough bugs to be
considered a beta.  And now I am being told that I will have to
pay an additional $199.95 for patches that may work.

RB2005 was not usable to me.  Projects kept getting corrupted
when I exited the program.  When I asked for an option to have
source files save as text/xml by default I was scorned and told
it is easy enough to do by hand.  I have 1500+/- source files and
487,000+/- lines of code for my main system.  I will not be
doing such by hand.   For now I will stay with RB5.5 while I
decide if it is worth risking on RB2006 or switching to mono.

-Bob Coleman/PDX OR


0
Bob
1/3/2006 3:04:49 AM
I see RS going farther and farther away from the Macintosh:

1. They dropped the original Macintosh interface at a time when Windows
users have grown to 40-45% of their sales. Look at the promotions they
have been running for Visual Basic users.

RS likes to say how flexible RB is all the time. Well then its about time
they put their money where their mouth is and offer an alternative IDE
interface to emulate the old one as the new one does not in any way. The
new one gets in my way - just look how difficult it to open a window and
its code in two seperate windows so you can look at them at the same time
- in the old IDE this took literally 1 second - two double clicks; not
multiple steps to produce two large windows. Hell the new IDE does not
even remember where my windows were the last time I used RB. I sure the
hell am not going to reposition my windows each time nor spend my time
opening and closing a bunch of worthless window widgets each time I want
to do something.

But I doubt RB can do it because I simply do not think it has the power
they claim. It was a bad mistake to develope RB with RB.

2. They've dropped Classic support for the product, but continue to
support old versions of Windows - this product was originally designed for
Classic only (not Windows or Linux).

3. Classic builds are not working correctly; they dropped a Classic icon
size and icons do not even show up on the builds. If they think I am going
to manually insert the icons they can go to hell (well actually I don't
think they give a crap any more).

4. Look at how the documentation is changing; all the Windows screen shots
and now preferences given to Windows in that is now listed first. Look at
how some code items have been changed for the benefit of Windows users.

5. Look at how RS engineers openly mock Mac users on the boards these days
if they dare to question RS. The biggest asshole here is clearly Aaron
Ballman who goes on and on how important it is to respect the particular
needs of each OS, but then guts the Mac interface from RB, but of course
if you read his posts and blog he is clearly Anti-Macintosh.

I really pissed with RS. During the time Mac users were paying for
improvements and long term bug fixes they were instead developing Windows
and Linux versions and planning to gut the Mac interface from the product.
Just shows you how trustworthy they are.

0
Kodze
1/3/2006 5:43:52 AM
Hi,

I use both Win and Mac and the new interface seems a bit amateurish to me.

Paul

"michelangelo giacomelli" <micheg@operamail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.s2rcxsgc65uolm@p4...
> hi, i have used rb 5 and mac and now use rb2005 on linux (and mac) i don't 
> hunderstand why some people don't like new ide, it is more clear and 
> functional that rb 5.0 (and have a more professional look, rb 2005 look 
> like visual studio and rb 5 look like vb 4)
>
> good 2006
>
> -- 
> Creato con il rivoluzionario client e-mail di Opera: 
> http://www.opera.com/mail/ 


0
paul
1/3/2006 8:22:42 AM
John Ponsano <capnbishop@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I find it interesting how so many of the Mac based RB05 users feel that
> it's too "windows like" when a single window interface has become the
> mac standard (take a look at any iLife software).

For me the question is not whether the GUI is Mac- or Windos- like, it
is a question of usability. I prefer to see different methods side by
side which can�t be done withe the "new and improved" GUI. So I take my
choice and stick with RB 5.5 until either a future version of RB has a
more appropriate GUI or there is another good language that I can switch
to (what would be a shame because basically I like RB).
0
befr
1/3/2006 9:27:06 AM
I'd have to agree with everyone on this, the newer UI is much clumsier
than before. I sorely miss the split pane views of code, and easy
side-by-side editing of a window + code (yes, I know I can do this now,
but it takes many more steps to set up, and the giant window widgets,
etc get in the way - it's not a quick 1-2 action like before,
especially with window positions not being saved very successfully).

I would definitely put my vote in to have an option to have multiple
windows open at once (in the older-style; not the new giant-window
concept, it feels way too clumsy). I've signed on to the feature
requests long ago, so I guess only time will tell if this will ever
materialize. Here's to hoping though :)

0
bullchad
1/3/2006 3:14:08 PM
> Indeed. It was a joke.

Gotcha (heh, it's way funnier now)

> Do they like the iLife (and such) interface?
> Maybe the iLife is becoming a "windows like" interface but Mac users 
> prefer to use it anyway.

Don't they?  I dunno, actually I never question that.  I figure most 
people do.  However iLife is not the only range of software on the Mac 
that is adopting this single window style.  A lot of Mac software is 
copying Apple's style, and I think that more and more the multi 
windowed interface will become a legacy concept of the past.

The important thing to realize is the difference between separating 
documents into different windows, and separating information into 
different windows.

> But I rather think that the single window interface is not made for 
> multi-documents-based applications in MacOS X (like QuickTime, 
> AppleWorks, TextEdit, etc. which keep the multi-window interface).

But this single window interface IS multi-document based.  We can now 
open several RB projects at a time, we couldn't do this with the old 
interface (not practically anyway).  In that way, one might suggest 
that the old interface was NOT multi-document based.  People seem see 
the individual components of their RB project as unique documents, but 
it's really a part of a single RB file.  As such, it seems appropriate 
to me that all associated components should be contained in a single 
window, while each window represents a unique RB document.

I keep seeing people bring up word processors like AppleWorks and 
TextEdit, citing their multi document interface.  But keep in mind that 
each window contains very few types of information.  In fact they 
contain little but the text.  RB, on the other hand, handles many 
different types of data relevant to a single project.  The overall 
design is much more complex in this way, so it's hard to compare 
TextEdit and RB.  Rather consider something like iTunes, which handles 
many different types of data relevant to a single session, and 
appropriately keeps it all in a single window.

Anyway the ultimate point is that two different classes in RB are not 
two different documents, making the idea of them being separated into 
different windows much less practical.

I said this earlier, but it's a good point, so I'm going to say it again:

The important thing to realize is the difference between separating 
documents into different windows, and separating information into 
different windows.

> I can't speak for anyone else, but, for me, the previous interface was 
> more appropriate for a product such as Realbasic.

I found that with the old multi window interface it was too difficult 
to jump between windows and such, and my workspace became cluttered.  A 
tabbed browser like in RB05 allows me to easily see what I'm working 
with and jump between them quickly.  It is in this way that I think the 
new interface is more productive.

> I believe the RB2005 interface was designed so that it mixes a 
> Mac-and-Win32 interface. Problem: it's much Win32 compliant than Mac 
> compliant.

You're probably right about that being a big part of the reason for the 
change, but I really don't think it makes it any less mac like.  
However, there probably is a number of ways that RS could have made 
this new interface in a similar manner but more mac friendly (such as 
using drawer windows).

> What has changed (what is the new rapid release model of RS)? I don't 
> know about that.

RS releases a new version of RB every 90 days.  They call it RB05, not 
RBv6, to emphasize this subscription based concept.  Think of each 
revision as a new edition instead of a new version.  Before updates 
would build until it seemed like a reasonable release; which might seem 
like they could constantly release updates, but what happens is they 
can actually get more spaced out.  Now we have a regularly scheduled 
series of updates.

> (please don't take this message as if I was angry; I have some problems 
> to create my sentences in english).

No worries, your "voice" was very appropriate.

Ultimately I suppose it would be wise of RS to allow the option of 
opening up code into a separate window, and not be limited to the tabs 
alone.

With all the noise everyone seems to be making, I suppose we just might 
be able to expect something to change.
    - John

0
John
1/3/2006 3:19:03 PM
"Kodze" <cuz@holy.com> wrote in message
news:9bfa23ad9884c845678f0176b9838737@localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com...
> I see RS going farther and farther away from the Macintosh:
>
And I am tired of your trolling.

PLONK!


0
me
1/3/2006 5:08:08 PM
I once considered getting a Mac; however, am glad now I decided to stay  
with my PC.
The reason is because Mac users seem to all be in a league of their own...  
more
specific, "The Crybaby League".  I've never seen more whining, jealous,  
bitch-festing
people in my life!  SO WHAT... RB is actually making the product "more  
attractive" to
Windows users!  RealSoftware IS A BUSINESS!  With Windows OS being over  
90% of the
market-share, they'd be CRAZY not to!  Don't like the new RB... then don't  
get it.
It's that SIMPLE!  They won't miss your business, or your bitching about  
it on this
newsgroup either!

-- 
   - Don Crawford
0
Don
1/3/2006 6:25:37 PM
me wrote:
> "Kodze" <cuz@holy.com> wrote in message
> news:9bfa23ad9884c845678f0176b9838737@localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com...
> 
>>I see RS going farther and farther away from the Macintosh:
>>
> 
> And I am tired of your trolling.
> 
> PLONK!

I agree that he uses "rough" sentences, that's the getting-tired part.
Anyway, if no one writes such sentences, how could RS know there are 
complains?
0
Arnaud
1/3/2006 6:59:14 PM
In article <1136301247.925723.294920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 bullchad@gmail.com wrote:

> I'd have to agree with everyone on this, the newer UI is much clumsier
> than before. I sorely miss the split pane views of code, and easy
> side-by-side editing of a window + code (yes, I know I can do this now,
> but it takes many more steps to set up, and the giant window widgets,
> etc get in the way - it's not a quick 1-2 action like before,
> especially with window positions not being saved very successfully).
> 
> I would definitely put my vote in to have an option to have multiple
> windows open at once (in the older-style; not the new giant-window
> concept, it feels way too clumsy). I've signed on to the feature
> requests long ago, so I guess only time will tell if this will ever
> materialize. Here's to hoping though :)

I figure to wait till RS eats enough of their own dog food and see where 
it shakes out.
The 2005 version is like working inside a box sitting on a table instead 
of on the table.
The 2005 version ate the "real estate" of my screen. The case "Apple did 
it" is bullshit. They didn't do it with their development program.
The "window" stuff is end user not development.

-- 
Paul's cat got a furball and kept saying weasel's name.

*Hack* *Hack* *hack*
0
Bill
1/3/2006 7:05:13 PM
In article <11rlbrikoujuk81@corp.supernews.com>,
 "me" <no@spamplease.com> wrote:

> "Kodze" <cuz@holy.com> wrote in message
> news:9bfa23ad9884c845678f0176b9838737@localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com...
> > I see RS going farther and farther away from the Macintosh:
> >
> And I am tired of your trolling.
> 
> PLONK!

There are some legit bitch's about RB and shoving them under the rug 
won't make them go away or improve it any.

You don't have to like it but change is messy. Both ways.
0
Bill
1/3/2006 7:06:11 PM
Kodze wrote:

 > Hell, one of
> their main engineers, Aaron Ballman, is blantantly Anti-Macintosh in posts
> and on his blog.

Guess what: I found an answer from Aaron which speaks about Macintosh.

"Are you positive about that?  Could it be that you're not setting the 
NetworkInterface property and letting the OS pick it for you, and one 
machine is simply picking the wrong one?  I've seen this happen many, 
many times (almost as often as firewall issues) on the Mac because the 
OS tends to prefer the wireless adapter -- and wireless can drop up to 
60% of its packets when it's stressed.

~Aaron".

I'm surprised to discover that Aaron has used at least one Mac, once, in 
his life.
0
Arnaud
1/3/2006 7:08:31 PM
"I once considered getting a Mac; however, am glad now I decided to stay  
with my PC.
The reason is because Mac users seem to all be in a league of their
own...
 
more
specific, "The Crybaby League".  I've never seen more whining, jealous,  
bitch-festing
people in my life!  SO WHAT... RB is actually making the product "more  
attractive" to
Windows users!  RealSoftware IS A BUSINESS!  With Windows OS being over  
90% of the
market-share, they'd be CRAZY not to!  Don't like the new RB... then
don't
 
get it.
It's that SIMPLE!  They won't miss your business, or your bitching about 

it on this
newsgroup either!

-- 
   - Don Crawford"

Well, it certainly nice to know what type of person you are - the same ilk
as the people that run Real Software.

There is something more important than being a souless corporation, its
called having having moral and ethical values. You would fit in nicely
with the people that ran Enron as all they were concerned with was the
personal gain they could make regardless of what became of their customers
or employees. Real Software exists because of us Mac users and RS mangement
disloyal, treasonous, immoral.

"jealous" That has got to be the the funniest thing I've seen from a
Windows user. I am suppose to be jealous of Windows, a OS so lame that
they had to license "drag and drop" technology from Apple (a technolgy
Apple had for years before - of course this guy is such an idiot he
probably doesn't realize how much Apple technology he's actually using;
aside from MS's outright acts of theft). I am glad you are staying with
Windows as I know you will suffer each day using it and never know the
joys of Macintosh. Man that takes the cake, jealous of a Windows users
using an interface and RB IDE I can run circles around.

Sounds like another fake post by one of Real Software board plants.

0
Kodze
1/3/2006 7:31:19 PM
John Ponsano wrote:
>> Indeed. It was a joke.
> 
> Gotcha (heh, it's way funnier now)

That's a good point (although I didn't find the meaning of "Gotcha" in 
my dictionary).

>> But I rather think that the single window interface is not made for 
>> multi-documents-based applications in MacOS X (like QuickTime, 
>> AppleWorks, TextEdit, etc. which keep the multi-window interface).
> 
> But this single window interface IS multi-document based.  We can now 
> open several RB projects at a time, we couldn't do this with the old 
> interface (not practically anyway).  In that way, one might suggest that 
> the old interface was NOT multi-document based.  People seem see the 
> individual components of their RB project as unique documents, but it's 
> really a part of a single RB file.  As such, it seems appropriate to me 
> that all associated components should be contained in a single window, 
> while each window represents a unique RB document.

Yes, you're right. The case of RB is not standard. I can't guess how 
they might allow to open multiple projects with the old interface.
Anyway, I never had problem to open multiple projects in the same time: 
open RB and a copy of RB (the application copied on the disk). This is 
better, in my opinion, than with RB 2005.

> I keep seeing people bring up word processors like AppleWorks and 
> TextEdit, citing their multi document interface.  But keep in mind that 
> each window contains very few types of information.  In fact they 
> contain little but the text.  RB, on the other hand, handles many 
> different types of data relevant to a single project.  The overall 
> design is much more complex in this way, so it's hard to compare 
> TextEdit and RB.  Rather consider something like iTunes, which handles 
> many different types of data relevant to a single session, and 
> appropriately keeps it all in a single window.

iTunes does not use tabpanel either. (well, this is not a "win32 
fashion" neither).

> Anyway the ultimate point is that two different classes in RB are not 
> two different documents, making the idea of them being separated into 
> different windows much less practical.
> 
> I said this earlier, but it's a good point, so I'm going to say it again:
> 
> The important thing to realize is the difference between separating 
> documents into different windows, and separating information into 
> different windows.

Indeed, I still don't completely realize.
But, if "separating informations rather than documents" means 
"increasing the difficulty to edit a code and its window in the same 
time", is it a good point?

>> I can't speak for anyone else, but, for me, the previous interface was 
>> more appropriate for a product such as Realbasic.
> 
> 
> I found that with the old multi window interface it was too difficult to 
> jump between windows and such, and my workspace became cluttered.  A 
> tabbed browser like in RB05 allows me to easily see what I'm working 
> with and jump between them quickly.  It is in this way that I think the 
> new interface is more productive.

It was also doable (and simple) with RB 5.5 (where the title bar shows 
informations about what is being edited). I was able to use the keyboard 
to do anything (I rarely, or never, use the mouse). That seems 
impossible now (I prefer to use the keyboard only as long as I can 
because it's "time consuming" to always jump from the keyboard to the 
mouse; also, the brain has to switch the context).

>> I believe the RB2005 interface was designed so that it mixes a 
>> Mac-and-Win32 interface. Problem: it's much Win32 compliant than Mac 
>> compliant.
> 
> 
> You're probably right about that being a big part of the reason for the 
> change, but I really don't think it makes it any less mac like.  
> However, there probably is a number of ways that RS could have made this 
> new interface in a similar manner but more mac friendly (such as using 
> drawer windows).

Indeed. But keep in mind that they dropped the support of Mac OS classic 
while they keep supporting old Win32 OSes. (I know, this is a 
"classical" (a pun) sentence, but it remains true). There are apparently 
no reason for that (except if we think they are going away of the Mac 
wolrd).

>> What has changed (what is the new rapid release model of RS)? I don't 
>> know about that.
> 
> 
> RS releases a new version of RB every 90 days.  They call it RB05, not 
> RBv6, to emphasize this subscription based concept.  Think of each 
> revision as a new edition instead of a new version.  Before updates 
> would build until it seemed like a reasonable release; which might seem 
> like they could constantly release updates, but what happens is they can 
> actually get more spaced out.  Now we have a regularly scheduled series 
> of updates.

Well, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the informations.

>> (please don't take this message as if I was angry; I have some 
>> problems to create my sentences in english).
> 
> 
> No worries, your "voice" was very appropriate.
> 
> Ultimately I suppose it would be wise of RS to allow the option of 
> opening up code into a separate window, and not be limited to the tabs 
> alone.

I think it would be not so simple to do, though.

> With all the noise everyone seems to be making, I suppose we just might 
> be able to expect something to change.
>    - John

Or they don't listen to this noise (ah, music is so beautifull!). 
Apparently, RS are so enthousiast that they can't think they are making 
some things bad. It started with RB 2005, where Joe's posts always said 
"It's not an issue, we will do better with new versions" and never state 
about complains about some missing features lost in the move from RB 5.5 
to RB2005. Joe (same thing for other RB creators) was not so "optimist" 
before. That's good to be optimist (I know: I'm not;-)), but it might 
reveal that there won't be a change like we expect.
0
Arnaud
1/3/2006 7:35:27 PM
"The case "Apple did it" is bullshit."

Yes, I agree. I can image RS management sitting in their conference room
trying to brain storm some marketing idea to explain the change in the OS
to their Mac users; and the best thing they could come up with was that it
was inspired by Safari's tabbed interface. LOL! As soon as I saw RS's
asshole president Perlman, Mars Saxman, and Aaron Ballman trying to
promote this BS on the the various RB related boards I knew they were not
to be trusted any longer. They have some serious mental problems if they
actually think this themselves as Safari is a consumer level browser, not
a code editor. RB is much more than a browser, a combination of graphics
interface program mixed with a text editor and a presentation program -
with each function, picture, method, etc... being a seperate "document" to
be edited on its own in its own window. Just image trying to use Adobe
illustrator or Photoshop without any window pallets, but instead one large
window -- this is exactly the same type of interface I see in any run of
the mill, often free, consumer application; not what I am paying pro
upgrade fees to RS for.

Just look at how RS treats its customer who dare raise any objections in
public - they harass and ban them from their boards (I've been banned 3
times from RS new board, though I already several more accounts because
they are so stupid). Why, because they don't want any negative publicity
because they want to continue to use Mac users to finance their transition
to a Windows based company (remember Window users are only 45% of their
market right now so they need to keep Mac users for the time being).

Just look at how people that disagree with their company are treated on
the boards - actual RS engineers mocking Mac customers because they don't
like the new interface. Instead RB wants you to bury your concern as a
feature request on a relatively hidden web page so they can do nothing
about it. Aaron said on RS's board that they complete features based on
the number of requests, so do you think they will even give a damn about
what Mac users want as the number of Windows users grows? Heck, they
already got rid of the original Mac interface so how much worse is it
going to get? There really is something wrong with this picture in that RS
wants you to make feature requests for features you've already used for
years in some cases; features which you've already paid.  Honest companies
don't  take away features and then try to lie to you by attempting to cover
up your losses by parading a group of so called new features in front of
you (which usually do not work).

0
Kodze
1/3/2006 8:02:45 PM
> Sounds like another fake post by one of Real
> Software board plants.

Ahh! So your ARE nothing more than a common troll... thank you for
clarifying that for us.

Rick


0
Rick
1/3/2006 8:09:53 PM
"Ahh! So your ARE nothing more than a common troll... thank you for
clarifying that for us.

Rick"

Interesting, anyone that disagrees with Real Software is called a "troll"
by Real software employees and their little group of RB board plants.
Thanks for calrifying what you are Rick, as opposed to an actual paying RB
pro customer wanting some answers to Real Software's unethical behavior.
Man, it must be terrible to be one of Real Software's little sheep!

0
Kodze
1/3/2006 11:29:09 PM
Aaron answers plenty of questions that apply to Mac users BECAUSE thats
what RS pays him to do. You are confusing answering questions about the
Mac, and "occasionally using a Macintosh", with activily promoting its use
(sure don't sound like Aaron has used Macs since the days of casette
recorders and no hard drives).

Look at his blog where he expresses the benefit of the new interface to
Windows users, and RS's board where he openly admitsin in posts he does
not know "X" about the Mac because that is not his expertise. He keeps
saying how important it is to follow OS guidelines to users will not be
upset, yet this only applies to Windows users when it comes to Realbasic,
otherwise he wouldn't removed the Mac interface. In a article he wrote
about how to port Mac apps to Windows, called "Targeting Windows for Your
Realbasic Apps" (on O'reily) he states "Another big difference between
windows and Mac users is that Mac users are far mor elikely to tell you
what they find wrong with your application."; yet this Asshole, Aaron
Ballman, bans people from RS's web site because they are upset because he,
AAron Ballman, and the other RS Assholes, removed the Mac interface from
the product.

My favorite Aaron post on RB's board was the one where he admited he
didn't even know you could dynamically change the backdrop of a canvas. My
made me laugh my ass off - I wonder how much less he knows about the Mac,
but then he doesn't really care; just another RS lieing jerk that can burn
in hell.



0
Kodze
1/3/2006 11:59:49 PM
Don Crawford wrote:
> I once considered getting a Mac; however, am glad now I decided to stay  
> with my PC.
> The reason is because Mac users seem to all be in a league of their 
> own...  more
> specific, "The Crybaby League".  I've never seen more whining, jealous,  
> bitch-festing
> people in my life!

Do you pretend PC users are not in a league of their own, too?
There are the exact same people on both platforms. Apparently, you are 
on of these.

As to be jealous... Why do most of Mac users, that I know, say that Mac 
is better if they are jealous (I didn't say Mac is really better, here)? 
That doesn't make much sense (these Mac users are humble; they don't get 
angry so easily).
0
Arnaud
1/4/2006 2:13:58 AM
On 2006-01-03 10:59:14 -0800, Arnaud Nicolet <arnau@tribu.ch> said:
> 
> I agree that he uses "rough" sentences, that's the getting-tired part.
> Anyway, if no one writes such sentences, how could RS know there are complains?

The complaints are entirely valid and called for, but the spamming and 
use of language is not.

0
John
1/4/2006 5:32:29 PM
On 2006-01-03 10:25:37 -0800, "Don Crawford" <nobody@noplace.com> said:

> I once considered getting a Mac; however, am glad now I decided to stay 
>  with my PC.
> The reason is because Mac users seem to all be in a league of their 
> own...  more
> specific, "The Crybaby League".  I've never seen more whining, jealous, 
>  bitch-festing
> people in my life!  SO WHAT... RB is actually making the product "more  
> attractive" to
> Windows users!  RealSoftware IS A BUSINESS!  With Windows OS being over 
>  90% of the
> market-share, they'd be CRAZY not to!  Don't like the new RB... then 
> don't  get it.
> It's that SIMPLE!  They won't miss your business, or your bitching 
> about  it on this
> newsgroup either!

People like the guy who has been spamming this group are relatively few 
and far between amongst the mac community; they're far more common in 
windows users, honestly.

The typical PC user who voices their opinion is usually a lot like 
yourself: hostile, violent, uninformed.

I don't mean to be a bitch, but I have to say this is easily an obvious 
trend I've noticed.  Feel free to voice your opinion, be it pro or con; 
but you would be wise to fight the stereotype and make more 
constructive posts.
    - John

0
John
1/4/2006 5:38:22 PM
> I didn't find the meaning of "Gotcha" in my dictionary.

I'm assuming that you're not making a joke here.  Gotcha is slang for 
"I understand".

>  I can't guess how they might allow to open multiple projects with the 
> old interface.
> Anyway, I never had problem to open multiple projects in the same time: 
> open RB and a copy of RB (the application copied on the disk). This is 
> better, in my opinion, than with RB 2005.

There isn't a practical way to handle it in the old interface, it would 
be a mess.  I've tried that trick you mentioned before, but it's 
usually frustrating for me and I try to quit one of the copies of RB as 
soon as possible.

> iTunes does not use tabpanel either. (well, this is not a "win32 
> fashion" neither).

I was just using iTunes as an example of single window interfaces.  An 
example of tab panel usage would be any good web browser.  There's 
really a lot of software that uses tab panels in similar manners.

> But, if "separating informations rather than documents" means 
> "increasing the difficulty to edit a code and its window in the same 
> time", is it a good point?

Perhaps, but once again we're running into mere opinion and individual 
preferences.

> It was also doable (and simple) with RB 5.5 (where the title bar shows 
> informations about what is being edited). I was able to use the 
> keyboard to do anything (I rarely, or never, use the mouse). That seems 
> impossible now (I prefer to use the keyboard only as long as I can 
> because it's "time consuming" to always jump from the keyboard to the 
> mouse; also, the brain has to switch the context).

Keyboard shortcuts to jump between tabs is a good idea, actually.  Have 
you considered making a feature request to RS?

> Indeed. But keep in mind that they dropped the support of Mac OS 
> classic while they keep supporting old Win32 OSes. (I know, this is a 
> "classical" (a pun) sentence, but it remains true). There are 
> apparently no reason for that (except if we think they are going away 
> of the Mac wolrd).

RB can still build apps for MacOS Classic, it's just the IDE that 
doesn't (which is odd, but that's another issue).  Anyway I don't 
really see this as dropping support of OS Classic.  However even if 
they did, keep in mind that supporting OS9 and OSX is like supporting 
two very different systems, and is much more difficult to maintain 
reverse compatibility than it would be with older versions of windows.

>> Ultimately I suppose it would be wise of RS to allow the option of 
>> opening up code into a separate window, and not be limited to the tabs 
>> alone.
> 
> I think it would be not so simple to do, though.

I've seen it done.  Really they just need a command to de/reattach a 
tab/window, and a preference option to select the default.  It 
shouldn't be too difficult, and would be in their best interests 
considering everyone's complaints.

> Or they don't listen to this noise (ah, music is so beautifull!). 
> Apparently, RS are so enthousiast that they can't think they are making 
> some things bad.

Could be.  I'll guess we'll see.
    - John

0
John
1/4/2006 5:55:29 PM
> Keyboard shortcuts to jump between tabs is a good idea, actually.  Have
> you considered making a feature request to RS?

Ctrl+Tab (in the Windows environment at least) appears to cycle between all
opened tabs.

Rick


0
Rick
1/4/2006 6:46:05 PM
In article <GpKdnQmyPvtwiiHeRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
 "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" 
 <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:

> > Keyboard shortcuts to jump between tabs is a good idea, actually.  Have
> > you considered making a feature request to RS?
> 
> Ctrl+Tab (in the Windows environment at least) appears to cycle between all
> opened tabs.
> 
> Rick

Same on Mac - I just checked.

Peter
0
Peter
1/4/2006 9:00:20 PM
> > > Keyboard shortcuts to jump between tabs is a good idea, actually.
Have
> > > you considered making a feature request to RS?
> >
> > Ctrl+Tab (in the Windows environment at least) appears to cycle between
all
> > opened tabs.
> >
> > Rick
>
> Same on Mac - I just checked.

And just for completeness sake, Shift+Ctrl+Tab cycles between the opened
tabs in reverse order.

Rick


0
Rick
1/4/2006 10:37:25 PM
"The complaints are entirely valid and called for, but the spamming and 
use of language is not."

Lets see here dictionary.com defines "spam" as:

"Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately
to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail."

That's funny, I not trying to sell anything. I am not indiscriminately
sending it to whatever group pops up on a Google search, but specifically
sending messages to specific topics all related to RealBasic.

On the other hand you have Real Software, who has a definite motivation to
send out spam and complete lies to this board so they can sell more. The
people at Real Software speak like sheep, but are wolves ready to stab you
in the back at any time that suits them. Suprising how many prefer to talk
to wolves than hear the complaints of a wolve's victim.

Why does Real Software try to silence people on their boards who dare
complain against them? Gee, I thought they respected their customer
opinions, but like the features they have removed from RB 2005, they don't
publize this.

0
Kodze
1/4/2006 10:56:46 PM
"And just for completeness sake, Shift+Ctrl+Tab cycles between the opened
tabs in reverse order."

Why tab between project items stacked over the top each other? Who wants
this kind of interface when you can use multiple monitors and look at
multiple items at once across 2 or more monitors. I pay pro license fees
to Real Software to use a pro applciation, not a one window consumer level
application with a tabbed interface or just one window.

Next time you use Windows get down on your knees and thank Apple for the
drag and drop technology that Microsoft licensed from Apple to make
Windows more like Macintosh.

0
Kodze
1/5/2006 2:52:53 AM
> "Ahh! So your ARE nothing more than a common troll... thank you for
> clarifying that for us.
>
> Rick"
>
> Interesting, anyone that disagrees with Real Software is called a "troll"
> by Real software employees and their little group of RB board plants.

No, actually what is interesting is how you can think labeling everyone who
disagrees with you as a "RB board plant" is a logical conclusion to make...
especially when you think it is a mistake to label you as a troll for
posting 29 disparaging (not to mention inflammatory) messages in the last 10
days. Sort of a "pot calling the kettle black" situation I would think.


> Thanks for calrifying what you are Rick, as opposed to an actual paying RB
> pro customer wanting some answers to Real Software's unethical behavior.
> Man, it must be terrible to be one of Real Software's little sheep!

Did you read the tag on my name? I am not a Real Software employee or
plant... I am a Microsoft MVP for Visual Basic

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/

https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvplist.aspx?Product=Visual+Developer+-+Visual+Basic&PageNumber=12

who doesn't want to move up to their .NET world... I am investigating
REALbasic for possible future use and, contrary to you, I like the new
interface. I almost gave up on REALbasic in the beginning because of its
Version 5.5 interface (the first version of it I saw)... windows all over
the place, others hidden... I had no idea where to find what I needed. The
new interface is very intuitive. Bugs? Yes, I see them; but I believe the
best way to deal with those is to report them to Real Software, not rail on
like a raving lunatic in a newsgroup. What I don't get is, if you dislike
Real Software and their newest product so, why don't you just move on to
some other programming language? I'm afraid the only answer I can think of
is the one that started this sub-thread... you are nothing more than a
common troll.

Rick


0
Rick
1/5/2006 3:46:21 AM
> Why tab between project items stacked over the
> top each other?

Because I find that arrange more intuitive than multiple windows strewn all
over the place.

> Who wants this kind of interface

I do.

> .... when you can use multiple monitors and look
> at multiple items at once across 2 or more monitors.

Pretty elitist of you to think that every using REALbasic has a
multiple-monitor system. I'm reasonable sure, assuming you do, that you are
in the minority with such a system. I'm happy for you that you have it; but
don't assume everyone else does too.


> I pay pro license fees to Real Software to use a pro
> applciation, not a one window consumer level
> application with a tabbed interface or just one window.

Blah, blah, blah... I'm pretty sure you have said this some 29 or 30 times
already since you adopted your "kodze" signature.

Broken record = troll


> Next time you use Windows get down on your knees
> and thank Apple for the drag and drop technology that
> Microsoft licensed from Apple to make Windows more
> like Macintosh.

So? Cross-licensing is quite common in the computer world. You are not going
to try and tell me that Apple has not cross-licensed anything it uses in its
operating systems, are you?


Rick


0
Rick
1/5/2006 4:07:38 AM
John Ponsano <capnbishop@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I was just using iTunes as an example of single window interfaces.  An
> example of tab panel usage would be any good web browser.  There's 
> really a lot of software that uses tab panels in similar manners.

Web browsers offer the *option* of new tab or new window.  This is nice
- it allows you to organize your work better.  But, try doing your
browsing in just a single window - as the number of tabs goes up, the
usability drops strikingly.

How does one do a side-by-side compare of an old vs. a new verison in a
tabbed window without split panes?

 -- w
 
0
ward
1/5/2006 11:42:38 AM
"So? Cross-licensing is quite common in the computer world. You are not
going
to try and tell me that Apple has not cross-licensed anything it uses in
its
operating systems, are you?"

But I thought I was supose to be jealous of Windows when in fact over the
past several years Windows has become more and more like Apple. You do
recall Apple and Microsoft's 5 year technology deal whereas Apple received
approximately $1 Billion in exchange for Microsoft receiving key OS
components of Apple, such as drag and drop, to make Windows finally do
what Apple had been doing for years. Yes, I am really jealous of Windows
(I sure wish I could use such broken, virus filled OS).

"Pretty elitist of you to think that every using REALbasic has a
multiple-monitor system. I'm reasonable sure, assuming you do, that you
are
in the minority with such a system. I'm happy for you that you have it;
but
don't assume everyone else does too."

LOL! Elistest. Wrong buddy! Dual monitors are common on Apple computers,
especially for pro software, which RB is suppose to be; and unlike Windows
all you do is plug them in and they work immediately. Your talking as if
dual monitors are a luxury; if you don't need a $500 monitor from
ViewSonic (like mine), or a $1,000 monitor from Apple, then go into Best
Buy and buy one their store brand 20" monitors for  $90 or less (very
cheap alternative to adding/replacing monitors on older Macs).

Oh yes, perhaps I forgot to mention I also use RB on other single monitor
G4s here - and the old interface runs circles around the new one since I
have years of experience using it.

However, dual didn't work well with the previous RB interface and Windows
(a fact backed up by Aaron Ballman's (Satan's) own blog) because of the
defective nature of Windows and RB MDI. Just another reason RS changed the
interface - their new core audience of Windows users. Another reason not to
update if your a Mac customer, and assuming you have any conscience another
reason not to update if you are a Windows users.

LOL! This guy sounds a lot like Blakely Rat!


0
Kodze
1/5/2006 5:21:14 PM
John Ponsano wrote:
> On 2006-01-03 10:59:14 -0800, Arnaud Nicolet <arnau@tribu.ch> said:
> 
>>
>> I agree that he uses "rough" sentences, that's the getting-tired part.
>> Anyway, if no one writes such sentences, how could RS know there are 
>> complains?
> 
> 
> The complaints are entirely valid and called for, but the spamming and 
> use of language is not.

You used a better explanation than me :-)
0
Arnaud
1/5/2006 8:57:31 PM
Kodze wrote:
> "Pretty elitist of you to think that every using REALbasic has a
> multiple-monitor system. I'm reasonable sure, assuming you do, that you
> are
> in the minority with such a system. I'm happy for you that you have it;
> but
> don't assume everyone else does too."
> 
> LOL! Elistest. Wrong buddy! Dual monitors are common on Apple computers,
> especially for pro software, which RB is suppose to be; and unlike Windows
> all you do is plug them in and they work immediately. Your talking as if
> dual monitors are a luxury; if you don't need a $500 monitor from
> ViewSonic (like mine), or a $1,000 monitor from Apple, then go into Best
> Buy and buy one their store brand 20" monitors for  $90 or less (very
> cheap alternative to adding/replacing monitors on older Macs).

I don't have a dual monitor configuration. Indeed, I have multiple 
monitors, but one per Mac (and older computers). Same applies for anyone 
I know (in my region, at least). In my opinion, this is not so common 
than you say.

> Oh yes, perhaps I forgot to mention I also use RB on other single monitor
> G4s here - and the old interface runs circles around the new one since I
> have years of experience using it.

Yes, like any only-Mac user (because RB was only on Mac before). It was 
logical that an application only for Mac existed. Now, the logic is 
getting away...
0
Arnaud
1/5/2006 9:08:13 PM
John Ponsano wrote:
>> I didn't find the meaning of "Gotcha" in my dictionary.
> 
> I'm assuming that you're not making a joke here.  Gotcha is slang for "I 
> understand".

You assumed correctly ;-) Thanks for the info (I believe this is 
american english; I learned british english in school).
Now, when I make a joke, I'll put the smile in the sentence, that'll be 
clearer.

>>  I can't guess how they might allow to open multiple projects with the 
>> old interface.
>> Anyway, I never had problem to open multiple projects in the same 
>> time: open RB and a copy of RB (the application copied on the disk). 
>> This is better, in my opinion, than with RB 2005.
> 
> There isn't a practical way to handle it in the old interface, it would 
> be a mess.  I've tried that trick you mentioned before, but it's usually 
> frustrating for me and I try to quit one of the copies of RB as soon as 
> possible.

The main problem I've seen is with the "REALbasic crashed with unsaved 
changes. Would you like to retrieve the last project?" message (which 
appear when you open the second copy of RB, when you have modified, and 
not yet saved, the copy in the first copy). I agree that seeing double 
number of windows appearing from RB is a little bit confusing, indeed.
In my case, I simply put the second copy invisible (the "Hide this 
application" command) and I can ignore it until I need it again

>> iTunes does not use tabpanel either. (well, this is not a "win32 
>> fashion" neither).
> 
> I was just using iTunes as an example of single window interfaces.

Undoubtely.

> An example of tab panel usage would be any good web browser.  There's 
> really a lot of software that uses tab panels in similar manners.

I only know "Safari" which uses tab panels in such a way. In "Safari", 
where tab panels are optional (but turned on here), it's a great help 
because I can click on a link to be opened in a new tab without 
reloading the current page if I need it again (I've got a RNIS modem). 
The I close the current tab (the link clicked), and I get back to my 
window). Also, I think that the main utility of such a tab panel is to 
contain "pages", not documents.

>> It was also doable (and simple) with RB 5.5 (where the title bar shows 
>> informations about what is being edited). I was able to use the 
>> keyboard to do anything (I rarely, or never, use the mouse). That 
>> seems impossible now (I prefer to use the keyboard only as long as I 
>> can because it's "time consuming" to always jump from the keyboard to 
>> the mouse; also, the brain has to switch the context).
> 
> Keyboard shortcuts to jump between tabs is a good idea, actually.  Have 
> you considered making a feature request to RS?

Like someone mentioned, option-tab does that. The problem is, except the 
fact that I don't know RB2005 very much, that I'm almost sure I won't be 
able to use the keyboard for anything. The interface seems to be not 
conceived for that (consider Command-W (close). Does that apply to a 
panel or to the whole window? I just checked, it apply to the whole 
window. So closing a tab is not directly useable with the keyboard (but 
using ctrl-F2 to go to the menubar and navigating). Indeed, I could make 
a feature request. Simply, there are so many feature requests for things 
that used to work before, that I prefer keeping RB 5.5 (which seems more 
complete)).

>> Indeed. But keep in mind that they dropped the support of Mac OS 
>> classic while they keep supporting old Win32 OSes. (I know, this is a 
>> "classical" (a pun) sentence, but it remains true). There are 
>> apparently no reason for that (except if we think they are going away 
>> of the Mac wolrd).
> 
> RB can still build apps for MacOS Classic, it's just the IDE that 
> doesn't (which is odd, but that's another issue).  Anyway I don't really 
> see this as dropping support of OS Classic.

Yes, I'm not clear with that point. I didn't know that just the IDE was 
no longer made for Classic. For the second part, I seem to recall that 
things were gone (especially Mac OS classic-only parts) that worked 
correctly before. Indeed, I'm not the one that know much about that (I 
didn't use RB2005 long enough), so a post from someone else made me 
thinking that.

 > However even if they did,
> keep in mind that supporting OS9 and OSX is like supporting two very 
> different systems, and is much more difficult to maintain reverse 
> compatibility than it would be with older versions of windows.

Yes, you're completely right

>>> Ultimately I suppose it would be wise of RS to allow the option of 
>>> opening up code into a separate window, and not be limited to the 
>>> tabs alone.
>>
>> I think it would be not so simple to do, though.
> 
> I've seen it done.  Really they just need a command to de/reattach a 
> tab/window, and a preference option to select the default.  It shouldn't 
> be too difficult, and would be in their best interests considering 
> everyone's complaints.

Indeed.

>> Or they don't listen to this noise (ah, music is so beautifull!). 
>> Apparently, RS are so enthousiast that they can't think they are 
>> making some things bad.
> 
> 
> Could be.  I'll guess we'll see.
>    - John

Same here.
0
Arnaud
1/5/2006 9:42:17 PM
Heh, it's awkward (but still worthwhile) to see people reply to 
"kudoze", since I've blocked him for spamming.


> So? Cross-licensing is quite common in the computer world. You are not going
> to try and tell me that Apple has not cross-licensed anything it uses in its
> operating systems, are you?
> 

In fact MANY of the technologies that Apple takes so much credit for 
were licensed or purchased.  For instance, a lot of people think that 
Apple invented handwriting recognition because of the Newton.  However 
Apple actually purchased the rights to this technology from someone 
else.
    - John

0
John
1/6/2006 5:08:19 PM
On 2006-01-05 13:08:13 -0800, Arnaud Nicolet <arnau@tribu.ch> said:

> Kodze wrote:
>> LOL! Elistest. Wrong buddy! Dual monitors are common on Apple computers,
>> especially for pro software, which RB is suppose to be; and unlike Windows
>> all you do is plug them in and they work immediately. Your talking as if
>> dual monitors are a luxury; if you don't need a $500 monitor from
>> ViewSonic (like mine), or a $1,000 monitor from Apple, then go into Best
>> Buy and buy one their store brand 20" monitors for  $90 or less (very
>> cheap alternative to adding/replacing monitors on older Macs).
> 
> I don't have a dual monitor configuration. Indeed, I have multiple 
> monitors, but one per Mac (and older computers). Same applies for 
> anyone I know (in my region, at least). In my opinion, this is not so 
> common than you say.

Indeed, I know many pro users who don't bother to hook up multiple 
monitors.  Multi-monitor users are few and far between.  Anyway it's 
mute point, no interface should be forcibly designed to accommodate 
this minority.

0
John
1/6/2006 5:11:38 PM
> Like someone mentioned, option-tab does that. The problem is, except 
> the fact that I don't know RB2005 very much, that I'm almost sure I 
> won't be able to use the keyboard for anything. The interface seems to 
> be not conceived for that (consider Command-W (close). Does that apply 
> to a panel or to the whole window? I just checked, it apply to the 
> whole window. So closing a tab is not directly useable with the 
> keyboard (but using ctrl-F2 to go to the menubar and navigating). 
> Indeed, I could make a feature request. Simply, there are so many 
> feature requests for things that used to work before, that I prefer 
> keeping RB 5.5 (which seems more complete)).

Closing windows like that is a good idea (since that's how tabbed web 
browsing works, anyway).  Make a feature request anyway, it's a really 
good point.

> Also, I think that the main utility of such a tab panel is to contain 
> "pages", not documents.

Which is part of my point.  Separate documents call for separate 
windows.  Two different classes in RB are NOT two different documents, 
they're two different components OF a document.  The project is the 
document, and thus different projects are opened in different windows.
    - John

0
John
1/6/2006 5:25:49 PM
> Web browsers offer the *option* of new tab or new window.

And I believe that RB should do the same.

>   This is nice
> - it allows you to organize your work better.  But, try doing your
> browsing in just a single window - as the number of tabs goes up, the
> usability drops strikingly.

Do you really believe that it's easier to browse with an excessive 
number of windows than with an excessive number of tabs?  I believe 
strongly in the contrary.  To each their own, I guess.

> How does one do a side-by-side compare of an old vs. a new verison in a
> tabbed window without split panes?

That's a good point, and I agree that split panes to be re-implemented. 
 But I still believe that tabbing components is beneficial to multiple 
windows.
    - John

0
John
1/6/2006 5:31:15 PM
> No, actually what is interesting is how you can think labeling everyone who
> disagrees with you as a "RB board plant" is a logical conclusion to make...
> especially when you think it is a mistake to label you as a troll for
> posting 29 disparaging (not to mention inflammatory) messages in the last 10
> days. Sort of a "pot calling the kettle black" situation I would think.

29 in 10?  I didn't count but I thought it was way more than that 
(seriously).  He's not a troll, he's a freaking spammer.

>> Thanks for calrifying what you are Rick, as opposed to an actual paying RB
>> pro customer wanting some answers to Real Software's unethical behavior.
>> Man, it must be terrible to be one of Real Software's little sheep!

I'm a sucker for irony, and I love it when he revers to unethical 
behavior.  Hehe :D

> I'm afraid the only answer I can think of
> is the one that started this sub-thread... you are nothing more than a
> common troll.

Perhaps, but common trolls live under bridges and lack internet access. ;)
    - John

0
John
1/6/2006 5:35:10 PM
John Ponsano wrote:
>> Like someone mentioned, option-tab does that. The problem is, except 
>> the fact that I don't know RB2005 very much, that I'm almost sure I 
>> won't be able to use the keyboard for anything. The interface seems to 
>> be not conceived for that (consider Command-W (close). Does that apply 
>> to a panel or to the whole window? I just checked, it apply to the 
>> whole window. So closing a tab is not directly useable with the 
>> keyboard (but using ctrl-F2 to go to the menubar and navigating). 
>> Indeed, I could make a feature request. Simply, there are so many 
>> feature requests for things that used to work before, that I prefer 
>> keeping RB 5.5 (which seems more complete)).
> 
> 
> Closing windows like that is a good idea (since that's how tabbed web 
> browsing works, anyway).  Make a feature request anyway, it's a really 
> good point.

Thanks; I created one. I wrote informations to every field (except the 
last which was not at all appropriate), with the hope that I didn't 
wrote too much. Here's the link in the case you want to check (or any case):
http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=khmnmmqz

>> Also, I think that the main utility of such a tab panel is to contain 
>> "pages", not documents.
> 
> 
> Which is part of my point.  Separate documents call for separate 
> windows.  Two different classes in RB are NOT two different documents, 
> they're two different components OF a document.  The project is the 
> document, and thus different projects are opened in different windows.
>    - John

Yes. I'm sorry: I didn't understand the first time (the word "Class" is, 
for me, more a synonym of "instance of object" than "view in Realbasic". 
I learned classes only in RB and I still distinguish between windows and 
classes (therefore, windows is not always a synonym of class (OS link) 
;-).) It's an habit anchored in me.
0
Arnaud
1/6/2006 8:11:07 PM
"Heh, it's awkward (but still worthwhile) to see people reply to 
"kudoze", since I've blocked him for spamming."

Yet this guy still responds also - sort of oxymoron don;t you think.

You forgot to mention Microsoft did not invent DOS, it purchased it, and I
use "purchase" very loosely. You forgot to mention where the Windows
interface came from; you do recall Apple's lawsuit againt Microsoft in
which they prevailed, but were only awarded $1.00 in damages (but then
Microsoft steals a lot of things).

0
Kodze
1/7/2006 4:25:19 AM
In article <op.s2rcxsgc65uolm@p4>, michelangelo giacomelli
<micheg@operamail.com> wrote:

> hi, i have used rb 5 and mac and now use rb2005 on linux (and mac) i don't  
> hunderstand why some people don't like new ide, it is more clear and  
> functional that rb 5.0 (and have a more professional look, rb 2005 look  
> like visual studio and rb 5 look like vb 4)
> 
> good 2006

I've been using RB regularly for many years, since some of the earliest
releases. I do have complaints about them adding features instead of
addressing bugs, but in general have been very pleased. For me
programming interface in C++ with CodeWarrior was much too time
consuming.

Anyway, I have just begun using the new interface. I waited a few
releases until they shook out some of the bugs, and so far I am
delighted with the new interface. After an hour or two of programming
in RB 5.5 I would be totally lost in windows. With the new interface, I
can easily find the code I want to work on. 

Maybe I'll have some complaints after I spend some more time with the
new interface, but so far my impression is very positive.

Cheers

-- 
Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it. - Anonymous
0
Satyr
1/7/2006 4:30:32 AM
"Kodze" <cuz@holy.com> wrote in message
news:164b742f1dc1f8587fffcdc747b3224b@localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com...
> "Heh, it's awkward (but still worthwhile) to see people reply to
> "kudoze", since I've blocked him for spamming."
>
> Yet this guy still responds also - sort of oxymoron don;t you think.
>
> You forgot to mention Microsoft did not invent DOS, it purchased it, and I
> use "purchase" very loosely. You forgot to mention where the Windows
> interface came from; you do recall Apple's lawsuit againt Microsoft in
> which they prevailed, but were only awarded $1.00 in damages (but then
> Microsoft steals a lot of things).
>
You mean the one Apple stole from PARC?


0
Bob
1/7/2006 7:26:14 AM
John Ponsano <capnbishop@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Web browsers offer the *option* of new tab or new window.  This is nice
> > - it allows you to organize your work better.  But, try doing your
> > browsing in just a single window - as the number of tabs goes up, the
> > usability drops strikingly.
> > 
> Do you really believe that it's easier to browse with an excessive 
> number of windows than with an excessive number of tabs?  I believe 
> strongly in the contrary.  To each their own, I guess.

reread my statement. One window with 10-15 tabs or more is a little less
unmanageable than 10-15 windows. I prefer the combination of multiple
windows that  each have an appropriate number of tabs.
 
  -- w
0
ward
1/7/2006 9:59:07 AM
> "Kodze" <cuz@holy.com> wrote in message
>> Yet this guy still responds also - sort of oxymoron don;t you think.

Clearly you don't know what an oxymoron really is.  I'll block but 
respond to you if I damn well please, and pointing that out has done 
nothing to favor your arguments.  Stay on topic.

>> 
>> You forgot to mention Microsoft did not invent DOS, it purchased it, and I
>> use "purchase" very loosely. You forgot to mention where the Windows
>> interface came from; you do recall Apple's lawsuit againt Microsoft in
>> which they prevailed, but were only awarded $1.00 in damages (but then
>> Microsoft steals a lot of things).
>> 

I have forgotten nothing.  There's no denying that M$ is evil.  But 
your line of logic seems to suggest that anyone who creates software 
for windows is then evil too.  Besides, a platform war has nothing to 
do with the interface topic in the first place.  So what if it's more 
windows friendly?  The issue is about FUNCTIONALITY; but you've been 
blinded by this immature vendetta against anything that has any 
relation to windows whatsoever.
    - John

0
John
1/7/2006 3:32:10 PM
Arnaud Nicolet wrote:
> John Ponsano wrote:
> 
>> Closing windows like that is a good idea (since that's how tabbed web 
>> browsing works, anyway).  Make a feature request anyway, it's a really 
>> good point.
> 
> 
> Thanks; I created one. I wrote informations to every field (except the 
> last which was not at all appropriate), with the hope that I didn't 
> wrote too much. Here's the link in the case you want to check (or any 
> case):
> http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=khmnmmqz

The report has been closed (they say the cannot reproduce it). What a 
shame, even my cat had a longer life!
0
Arnaud
1/7/2006 11:53:21 PM
"I have forgotten nothing.  There's no denying that M$ is evil.  But 
your line of logic seems to suggest that anyone who creates software 
for windows is then evil too.  Besides, a platform war has nothing to 
do with the interface topic in the first place.  So what if it's more 
windows friendly?  The issue is about FUNCTIONALITY; but you've been 
blinded by this immature vendetta against anything that has any 
relation to windows whatsoever."

My issue is with Real Software betraying its Apple customers by gutting
the original Apple interface from the product. This shows they have no
loyalty towards the people who built their company. If it wasn't for us
there would be no Real Software. This is entirely immoral.

Platform has to do everything with the new interface. The Mac interface
was removed solely for the purpose of making the product more friendly to
Windows users. If Windows users can't hack the MDI interface in 5.5.5 that
is not my problem, Real Software needs to make a seperate interface for
Windows users and leave the features I have already paid for.

We are simply talking about making software more friendly to Windows or
making Windows software, we are talking about stabbing their Mac users in
the back; taking away the Mac interface and taking away a multitude of
features. Evil! Real software might as well be a division of Microsoft
because their management is acting no different.

I did not support Real Software so I could use a Windows interface on my
Mac. The very fact they dropped the Mac interface at a point when Windows
users are 45% of their market; and their continued support of old Windows
operating systems while dropping Mac Classic (for which RealBasic was
developed) shows be exactly what their future intentions are - use the Mac
users to generate capital in the short term while continually dropping Mac
support. I don't believe anything RS says or does anymore - I am tired of
being lied to.

"You mean the one Apple stole from PARC?"

Yeah right, a crude graphical interface running on a high end work station
has to do a lot with a refined graphical interface running on a "personal"
computer that many small businesses could now buy. Well then, where is
Xerox's lawsuit for patent and copyright infringement? I say Xerox did not
invent a graphical interface; I say it was done much ealier with punch card
machinery within the industrial age, but then thats aside the point.



0
Kodze
1/8/2006 2:38:11 AM
That's bogus, sounds like they just don't want to do it.
    - John

0
John
1/8/2006 10:54:30 AM
John Ponsano wrote:
> That's bogus, sounds like they just don't want to do it.
>    - John
> 
What the evaluation says when closing the report is:

REALbasic 2005 already works the same as Safari (and other similar web 
browsers). If a tab is active, then cmd-w will close the tab, and 
cmd-shift-w will close the entire window (project). If the project tab 
is active, then cmd-w will close that.

If that's not true then I suggest filing a bug report saying simply that 
Cmd+W is not functioning as specified, it is closing the whole window, 
not just one tab.

On my Windows system (sorry Arnaud) Ctrl+W works as described.
0
Steve
1/8/2006 11:22:17 AM
Steve Garman wrote:
> John Ponsano wrote:
> 
>> That's bogus, sounds like they just don't want to do it.
>>    - John
>>
> What the evaluation says when closing the report is:
> 
> REALbasic 2005 already works the same as Safari (and other similar web 
> browsers). If a tab is active, then cmd-w will close the tab, and 
> cmd-shift-w will close the entire window (project). If the project tab 
> is active, then cmd-w will close that.

I discovered that I was using the 2005r2 (Many applications in my dock 
with the same name ("REALbasic") is somehow confusing). I believe it has 
been added in the r4 version (or 3).

> If that's not true then I suggest filing a bug report saying simply that 
> Cmd+W is not functioning as specified, it is closing the whole window, 
> not just one tab.

Well, if it is in version 3 or 4 of RB2005, then I don't (can't) know 
wether it's true or not. John was in the discussion and said like me, so 
I supposed it was not in r4 neither.

> On my Windows system (sorry Arnaud) Ctrl+W works as described.

Undoubtely, same here, in my Mac system. The question was linked to the 
other (either Command (Alt for PC)-option-W (like a web browser) or, as 
you said above, Command/Alt-shift-W (more convenient than the first one, 
for PC users since Alt-option is the same key)). But you said it was 
implemented, so that's ok.
0
Arnaud
1/8/2006 9:45:10 PM
You're right, my bad.
    - John

0
John
1/9/2006 6:22:37 AM
Why would you want to use command keys?

If your user can't use a single button apple mouse to effeciently and
quickly use your application then there is something wrong with your
application. The entire point of a graphical interface is to accomplish
things quickly without input from the keyboard. Every time you have to
defer to the keyboard (multiple task scripts aside) you loose time. A
little time here and a little time there and soon your out thousands of
dollars in man hours and money to pay for those man hours.

This is why the new interface is unuseable, takes way longer to use as now
thigs are hidden behind each other in tabs. God forbid I want to actually
look at multiple items at once.

0
Kodze
1/9/2006 11:13:59 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Is there any problem with customizing a new interface out of other interfaces?
Hi, Let's say I have three interfaces class IWorker { public: virtual ~IWorker() {} virtual void work() = 0; }; class IEnergyConsumer { public: virtual ~IEnergyConsumer() {} virtual void refuel( int energy ) = 0; }; class ICloner { public: virtual ~ICloner() {} virtual ICloner* clone() = 0; }; Would it be problematic or immoral to create a new pure interface out of those, like this? class ICell : public IWorker, public IEnergyConsumer, public ICloner { public: virtual ~ICell() {} }; Or is it just fine to customiz...

Basic V or Basic VI for a new starter?
I am starting to learn programming. My machine is a RISC PC 600 running RISC OS 4.02. It has Basic V as its internal programming language. But browsing this group I find that there is a Basic VI. So I ask :- * Is Basic VI significantly different? * Is Basic VI a significant improvement? * Where can I get Basic VI? * How can install Basic VI? * Would it upset the internal workings of my machine to replace its native Basic V by Basic VI? If so, should I keep the two separate? Michael Bell -- In message <ant2906410b09h$$@michaelbell.demon.co.uk> Michael Bell <michae...

Javascript new-new-new-new-newbee
Hello, The last two days I have done some Javascripting, but without succes. My goal is the following: I have 4 <form>-input fields; 2 <select> and 2 <input type=text>. The <select> fields are 'number (1 until 10)' and a description-list. When the number or description changes, the function calculate must be called. So far, so good. My problem is that I don't know how to handle the vars in Javascript. I read the internet for two days, but I do not know what to do. My problem is that I get an [object] output. So, I think that is an array, but I do not know w...

[Ann]Run BASIC
We at Shoptalk Systems are excited to announce Run BASIC - a completely new kind of BASIC, for creating programs that run in a browser! http://www.runbasic.com No special web programming knowledge is needed to use this free site! If you know a little BASIC that is enough to open up new possibilities for your web browsing experience. If you don't know any BASIC, just visit the site and click the Learn tab for an interactive learning experience. If you are interested in web programming or if you enjoy programming in BASIC, you owe it to yourself to check out Run BASIC! S...

New Vizx3D Free Beta Online- New Interface!!
New Vizx3D Free Beta Online- New Interface!! Happy New Year !!! X3D is here! www.Vizx3D.com ...

interface to interface
Can I write a program to read packet from one interface and output packet to another interface? I wonder if os identify the two IP belong to interface in local machine, transmitting the packet in IP layer,and no packet goes out the interface. Is it possible to happen? In article <7d4caedb.0410181756.627370d@posting.google.com>, te0543@giga.net.tw (Joseph) wrote: > Can I write a program to read packet from one interface and output > packet to another interface? If you can write a program to read from one interface, and you can write a program to write to the other interface, wh...

*new or new?
It is better: AnyClass &reg=*new AnyClass(); reg.Function(); or: AnyClass *reg=new AnyClass(); reg->Function(); Thanks Cristiano "Cristiano" <cristiano.pi@NSquipo.it> wrote... > It is better: > AnyClass &reg=*new AnyClass(); > reg.Function(); > > or: > AnyClass *reg=new AnyClass(); > reg->Function(); For those two fragments the difference is only in the amount of storage the program uses. The latter case _allocates_ some storage for the pointer, and for the former it is unspecified because it is up to the...

Basic BASIC
Now that our series on Basic for Beginners - Basic BASIC by Ray Favre - is at an end, those who have not read the series may wish to purchase the back copies of Qercus that include the six parts of Basic BASIC. The series takes a complete beginner to programming and introduces sufficient to get you started and producing your own programs. Examples are listed within the article or in the Yellow Pages feature in the magazine and these can be typed in by the reader. These listings will also be available on the Qercus website. Purchasers of the series, who don't have access to the internet, ...

[Ann][Seaside]Run BASIC
We are cross-posting in the Smalltalk groups because this new site is implemented using Seaside on VisualWorks and we thought people would be interested in seeing it. We really feel that Seaside and Smalltalk made this project 10 times easier than in any other framework! Eat your heart out RoR. Announcement begins here... We at Shoptalk Systems are excited to announce Run BASIC - a completely new kind of BASIC, for creating programs that run in a browser! http://www.runbasic.com No special web programming knowledge is needed to use this free site! If you know a little BAS...

New to REALBAsic.
Hi, Let me pick your brain you all? How does REALBasci compare to for instance Visual Basic? I've seen some screenshots, and would like to work with it. I'm pretty good at VB so what apart from the cross-platform issue is the main advantage? Bening an expeirenced VB programmer, what is the time span to learn RB? Regards from Holland, Jeroen Jeroen Soree <jeroen@leefbaarbreda.nl> wrote: > Bening an expeirenced VB programmer, what is the time span to learn RB? Very very short. Programming in VB myself, the switch to REALbasic was quite simple. The d...

new or not new
Hi, Suppose we have a class A.Why or when do you use main() { A *ptr = new A; // instead of A ptr; } Johan Johan den Boer wrote: > Hi, > > Suppose we have a class A.Why or when do you use > > main() > { > A *ptr = new A; > > // instead of > > A ptr; > } > > Johan > > Use "A ptr;" whenever possible. Allocating A dynamically (with "new") can be very slow, and usually means you must be careful to free the memory (with "delete") later in the program. The need to allocate an indiv...

New to REALbasic
Hello, I recently purchased REALbasic (5.2.4) and have some "Newbie" type of questions. I am long time (10 years) Borland Delphi developer on Windows platform. I know that I shouldn't but I do compare REALbasic to Delphi. I'll use REALbasic to develop on Macintosh platform (OS X Panther). I did not fully discover REAlbasic yet so please forgive me if my questions could be answered by simply reading the manual :) I am also new to Mac and the OS! Got my FIRST mac 2 months ago and so far I love that dual 2GHz G5 with 23" Cinema Display. Important thing before I ...

New and new and always new mail
Hi, I use Eudora 7.0 (fr) and many POP e-mail accounts. I set up as many personalities as e-mail accounts. For each personalitie including <Dominant> I set all these parameters in Eudora.ini : -+-+-+-+-+-+ LeaveMailOnServer=1 LeaveOnServerDays=22 DeleteMailFromServer=1 ServerDelete=1 MarkAsDeleted=1 -+-+-+-+-+-+ 1/- Eudora ckeck for mail at start up. All new mails are in 'Inbox'. 2/- If : a/- If I check for mail manually : nothing else, but, b/- If I close Eudora and restart it, of course Eudora does a mail check... and I am notified of new mail...

Slashdot Beta Surrenders - The 'New' User Interface is the 'Old' User Interface
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/02/27/1010241 Quoting from the URL above: Today we stand proud, fellow Soylentils. Two stories have been received to explain why: Slashdot.org switches accounts to Classic-like interface Preston writes: It now appears that Slashdot has now completely changed its interface to the new "beta" interface - which looks almost the same as the "old" interface. Users can no longer view the non-beta classic site, which is being reported by users all around the site. ... Rich <rich@example.i...

Web resources about - the new interface - comp.lang.basic.realbasic

Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the ...

Weather Underground gets interface improvements on iOS
The popular online weather service Weather Underground has just updated its official iOS app with a number of interface enhancements.

Disney CEO & Apple board member Bob Iger calls Apple TV best television interface ever
... Executive Bob Iger said in an interview on Monday, praising Apple for creating what he believes is the most intuitive television user interface ...

Playing around with BMW’s 7 Series gesture control user interface
... we showed you Dragon Drive , the voice-activation system that's now included in BMW's 7 Series. That's not the only advanced user interface ...

Firefox 43 adds new block list, updates Android user interface
Mozilla has rolled out Firefox 43 FINAL for Windows, Mac and Linux, with Firefox 43 for Android due to follow imminently. The desktop build ...

Samsung Shows Off New Smart Remote and Interface for Their Smart TVs
... hubs in 2016. On top of extensive smart home control by way of SmartThings , the company’s line of smart TVs will also be getting a user interface ...

IDG Contributor Network: Post-acquisition, LastPass rolls out new version with more user interface bling ...
... exists, revenue streams are sure to eventuate. The new version of LastPass, imaginatively called LastPass 4.0, has an entirely new user interface ...

Android’s design guru says iPhone interface is ‘heavy and burdensome’
The arrival of the original iPhone may have fundamentally changed Google’s plans for its Android smartphone platform, but according to Google’s ...

Sling TV Plans New Interface And Guide That Predicts What Users Want
... Sling CEO Roger Lynch says that the service won’t hike the price this year. He also said that later this quarter it will roll out a new interface, ...

DNews: Brain-Computer Interfaces: Move Stuff with Your Mind
It's slow going, but science continues apace toward a day when brain waves can reliably be used to move physical objects.

Resources last updated: 1/31/2016 12:00:56 AM