<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_06_2038248</id>
	<title>Will Tabbed Windows Be the Next Big Thing?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260092400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>kai\_hiwatari writes <i>"The recently released KDE SC 4.4 Beta 1 has introduced tabbed windows as a new feature. It is now possible to <a href="http://digitizor.com/2009/12/07/is-tabbed-windows-going-to-be-the-next-big-thing/">tab together windows from different applications</a>. This looks like it will be a very good productivity tool. Like the tabbed browsers, this may well end up as a feature in all desktop environments in the years ahead."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>kai \ _hiwatari writes " The recently released KDE SC 4.4 Beta 1 has introduced tabbed windows as a new feature .
It is now possible to tab together windows from different applications .
This looks like it will be a very good productivity tool .
Like the tabbed browsers , this may well end up as a feature in all desktop environments in the years ahead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kai\_hiwatari writes "The recently released KDE SC 4.4 Beta 1 has introduced tabbed windows as a new feature.
It is now possible to tab together windows from different applications.
This looks like it will be a very good productivity tool.
Like the tabbed browsers, this may well end up as a feature in all desktop environments in the years ahead.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346220</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1260096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized. As far as I can tell, you'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs, and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work. I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows, and I hate when they are not fullscreen (or minimized). Yes I know about "Tile Windows Horizontally" but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view. Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.</p></div><p>It sounds like you just want Windows 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , what 's the point of having windows not Maximized .
As far as I can tell , you 'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs , and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work .
I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows , and I hate when they are not fullscreen ( or minimized ) .
Yes I know about " Tile Windows Horizontally " but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view .
Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize does n't even always make a window full screen.It sounds like you just want Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized.
As far as I can tell, you'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs, and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work.
I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows, and I hate when they are not fullscreen (or minimized).
Yes I know about "Tile Windows Horizontally" but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view.
Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.It sounds like you just want Windows 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347080</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1260102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PowerToys for Windows has this option which works mostly quite well, but there are some programs that don't respect it and will raise on focus, which can be a major problem if you are trying to reach a dialog in the middle of the screen and it keeps getting covered when you move the mouse towards it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PowerToys for Windows has this option which works mostly quite well , but there are some programs that do n't respect it and will raise on focus , which can be a major problem if you are trying to reach a dialog in the middle of the screen and it keeps getting covered when you move the mouse towards it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PowerToys for Windows has this option which works mostly quite well, but there are some programs that don't respect it and will raise on focus, which can be a major problem if you are trying to reach a dialog in the middle of the screen and it keeps getting covered when you move the mouse towards it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354750</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use click to focus, because focus-follows-mouse makes me sick. Anyway, at any of both cases,  GNOME comes with "Always on top" option at the window menu (window icon or right button on window title).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use click to focus , because focus-follows-mouse makes me sick .
Anyway , at any of both cases , GNOME comes with " Always on top " option at the window menu ( window icon or right button on window title ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use click to focus, because focus-follows-mouse makes me sick.
Anyway, at any of both cases,  GNOME comes with "Always on top" option at the window menu (window icon or right button on window title).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348708</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, FFS ...</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1260115380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to use multiple desktops for this kind of thing so I'm not sure where the advantage is to have different apps sharing the same title bar and window size/area. But it could be a visual association thing which gives this value. Much like how the Compiz cube desktop was what it took to get the point across to MS Windows users of the concept of multiple desktops.<br><br>If this has a way of saving the multi window title bar configuration then this is a big win IMO. A feature of OS/2's Workplace shell which was amazingly useful was the feature of a folder where you enabled a "workspace" attribute on that folder. When a folder was a "workspace" then if you had 4 files in that folder open and closed the folder, all those files would be closed too and the next time you opened that workspace folder, those files would be opened and their windows located and sized as they were when closed.  Give me something \_that\_ with this tabbed titlebar and it would be a big step forward in my book.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to use multiple desktops for this kind of thing so I 'm not sure where the advantage is to have different apps sharing the same title bar and window size/area .
But it could be a visual association thing which gives this value .
Much like how the Compiz cube desktop was what it took to get the point across to MS Windows users of the concept of multiple desktops.If this has a way of saving the multi window title bar configuration then this is a big win IMO .
A feature of OS/2 's Workplace shell which was amazingly useful was the feature of a folder where you enabled a " workspace " attribute on that folder .
When a folder was a " workspace " then if you had 4 files in that folder open and closed the folder , all those files would be closed too and the next time you opened that workspace folder , those files would be opened and their windows located and sized as they were when closed .
Give me something \ _that \ _ with this tabbed titlebar and it would be a big step forward in my book.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to use multiple desktops for this kind of thing so I'm not sure where the advantage is to have different apps sharing the same title bar and window size/area.
But it could be a visual association thing which gives this value.
Much like how the Compiz cube desktop was what it took to get the point across to MS Windows users of the concept of multiple desktops.If this has a way of saving the multi window title bar configuration then this is a big win IMO.
A feature of OS/2's Workplace shell which was amazingly useful was the feature of a folder where you enabled a "workspace" attribute on that folder.
When a folder was a "workspace" then if you had 4 files in that folder open and closed the folder, all those files would be closed too and the next time you opened that workspace folder, those files would be opened and their windows located and sized as they were when closed.
Give me something \_that\_ with this tabbed titlebar and it would be a big step forward in my book.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352236</id>
	<title>They had this 10 years ago in linux</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1260197940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had this 10 years ago in linux, 7 red hat version, when you could switch desktop environments in a tabbed setting on the bottom of the tray. Seriously nothing new here, and also a bit insulting to Linux users everywhere that already have had these tabbed environments for all this time, what are....,  they chopped liver???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had this 10 years ago in linux , 7 red hat version , when you could switch desktop environments in a tabbed setting on the bottom of the tray .
Seriously nothing new here , and also a bit insulting to Linux users everywhere that already have had these tabbed environments for all this time , what are.... , they chopped liver ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had this 10 years ago in linux, 7 red hat version, when you could switch desktop environments in a tabbed setting on the bottom of the tray.
Seriously nothing new here, and also a bit insulting to Linux users everywhere that already have had these tabbed environments for all this time, what are....,  they chopped liver??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351448</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260192060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode, but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front.</i></p><p>Are you talking raise-on-left-click or raise-on-middle-click?  I can understand the former, but the latter does not happen with some of the other WMs (e.g., on the xfce4 that I use now, and I believe icewm that I've used previously).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode , but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front.Are you talking raise-on-left-click or raise-on-middle-click ?
I can understand the former , but the latter does not happen with some of the other WMs ( e.g. , on the xfce4 that I use now , and I believe icewm that I 've used previously ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode, but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front.Are you talking raise-on-left-click or raise-on-middle-click?
I can understand the former, but the latter does not happen with some of the other WMs (e.g., on the xfce4 that I use now, and I believe icewm that I've used previously).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30356670</id>
	<title>a few related works</title>
	<author>stefski66</author>
	<datestamp>1260218100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The debate 'overlapping vs tiling' is as old as window managers [1]... And novel interaction techniques have been explored in 2001, though we are far from the ideas presented in the second paper [2], check the video <a href="http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280" title="open-video.org" rel="nofollow">http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280</a> [open-video.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>cheers.</p><p>[1] Myers, B. A. 1988. A Taxonomy of Window Manager User Interfaces. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 8, 5 (Sep. 1988), 65-84. DOI= <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/38.7762" title="doi.org" rel="nofollow">http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/38.7762</a> [doi.org]<br>A taxonomy for the user-visible parts of window managers is presented. It is noted that there are actually very few significant differences, and the differences can be classified in a taxonomy with fairly limited branching. This taxonomy should be useful in evaluating various window managers, and it will also serve as a guide for the issues that need to be addressed by designers if future window-manager user interfaces. The advantages and disadvantages of the various options are presented.</p><p>[2] Beaudouin-Lafon, M. 2001. Novel interaction techniques for overlapping windows. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology (Orlando, Florida, November 11 - 14, 2001). UIST '01. ACM, New York, NY, 153-154. DOI= <a href="http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/502348.502371" title="acm.org" rel="nofollow">http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/502348.502371</a> [acm.org]<br>This note presents several techniques to improve window management with overlapping windows: tabbed windows, turning and peeling back windows, and snapping and zipping windows.<br><a href="http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280" title="open-video.org" rel="nofollow">http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280</a> [open-video.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate 'overlapping vs tiling ' is as old as window managers [ 1 ] ... And novel interaction techniques have been explored in 2001 , though we are far from the ideas presented in the second paper [ 2 ] , check the video http : //open-video.org/details.php ? videoid = 8280 [ open-video.org ] ...cheers .
[ 1 ] Myers , B. A. 1988 .
A Taxonomy of Window Manager User Interfaces .
IEEE Comput .
Graph. Appl .
8 , 5 ( Sep. 1988 ) , 65-84 .
DOI = http : //dx.doi.org/10.1109/38.7762 [ doi.org ] A taxonomy for the user-visible parts of window managers is presented .
It is noted that there are actually very few significant differences , and the differences can be classified in a taxonomy with fairly limited branching .
This taxonomy should be useful in evaluating various window managers , and it will also serve as a guide for the issues that need to be addressed by designers if future window-manager user interfaces .
The advantages and disadvantages of the various options are presented .
[ 2 ] Beaudouin-Lafon , M. 2001. Novel interaction techniques for overlapping windows .
In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology ( Orlando , Florida , November 11 - 14 , 2001 ) .
UIST '01 .
ACM , New York , NY , 153-154 .
DOI = http : //doi.acm.org/10.1145/502348.502371 [ acm.org ] This note presents several techniques to improve window management with overlapping windows : tabbed windows , turning and peeling back windows , and snapping and zipping windows.http : //open-video.org/details.php ? videoid = 8280 [ open-video.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate 'overlapping vs tiling' is as old as window managers [1]... And novel interaction techniques have been explored in 2001, though we are far from the ideas presented in the second paper [2], check the video http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280 [open-video.org] ...cheers.
[1] Myers, B. A. 1988.
A Taxonomy of Window Manager User Interfaces.
IEEE Comput.
Graph. Appl.
8, 5 (Sep. 1988), 65-84.
DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/38.7762 [doi.org]A taxonomy for the user-visible parts of window managers is presented.
It is noted that there are actually very few significant differences, and the differences can be classified in a taxonomy with fairly limited branching.
This taxonomy should be useful in evaluating various window managers, and it will also serve as a guide for the issues that need to be addressed by designers if future window-manager user interfaces.
The advantages and disadvantages of the various options are presented.
[2] Beaudouin-Lafon, M. 2001. Novel interaction techniques for overlapping windows.
In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology (Orlando, Florida, November 11 - 14, 2001).
UIST '01.
ACM, New York, NY, 153-154.
DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/502348.502371 [acm.org]This note presents several techniques to improve window management with overlapping windows: tabbed windows, turning and peeling back windows, and snapping and zipping windows.http://open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8280 [open-video.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349436</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1260123060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my experience, drag and drop is badly hit or miss.</p><p>i much prefer key combos for cut/copy and paste...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my experience , drag and drop is badly hit or miss.i much prefer key combos for cut/copy and paste.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my experience, drag and drop is badly hit or miss.i much prefer key combos for cut/copy and paste...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351674</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1260195120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've only been complaining about this since Win95 came out, i'd like to be able to grab the title bar of the app and alongside being able to use the 2d movement of the mouse to move it on the screen use the mouse wheel to adjust the z-index, how hard can it be!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only been complaining about this since Win95 came out , i 'd like to be able to grab the title bar of the app and alongside being able to use the 2d movement of the mouse to move it on the screen use the mouse wheel to adjust the z-index , how hard can it be !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only been complaining about this since Win95 came out, i'd like to be able to grab the title bar of the app and alongside being able to use the 2d movement of the mouse to move it on the screen use the mouse wheel to adjust the z-index, how hard can it be!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Shin-LaC</author>
	<datestamp>1260097500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might as well ask what's the point of having windows. The concept never really caught on in Windows, in spite of its name, but it's very useful to be able to have many things on screen at once, especially when none of them requires a full screen anyway.<br> <br>Take this web page: if you have a large widescreen monitor and you maximize the browser, you get a silly layout, with very long text lines that make reading harder. Many websites work around this problem by using a fixed width layout, but then you just end up with two large empty areas on the sides of the actual webpages; or, worse yet, they may be filled with animated advertisements. A better solution is to make the browser window only as wide as it needs to be, so you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things, such as your email or an IM conversation. If you have a large monitor, you can even open two web pages side by side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might as well ask what 's the point of having windows .
The concept never really caught on in Windows , in spite of its name , but it 's very useful to be able to have many things on screen at once , especially when none of them requires a full screen anyway .
Take this web page : if you have a large widescreen monitor and you maximize the browser , you get a silly layout , with very long text lines that make reading harder .
Many websites work around this problem by using a fixed width layout , but then you just end up with two large empty areas on the sides of the actual webpages ; or , worse yet , they may be filled with animated advertisements .
A better solution is to make the browser window only as wide as it needs to be , so you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things , such as your email or an IM conversation .
If you have a large monitor , you can even open two web pages side by side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might as well ask what's the point of having windows.
The concept never really caught on in Windows, in spite of its name, but it's very useful to be able to have many things on screen at once, especially when none of them requires a full screen anyway.
Take this web page: if you have a large widescreen monitor and you maximize the browser, you get a silly layout, with very long text lines that make reading harder.
Many websites work around this problem by using a fixed width layout, but then you just end up with two large empty areas on the sides of the actual webpages; or, worse yet, they may be filled with animated advertisements.
A better solution is to make the browser window only as wide as it needs to be, so you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things, such as your email or an IM conversation.
If you have a large monitor, you can even open two web pages side by side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346498</id>
	<title>e*p!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>future aT All</htmltext>
<tokenext>future aT All</tokentext>
<sentencetext>future aT All</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346268</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hurrr.</p><p>Wake up, moron. If you only have one application visible, you can only do one thing. If you have a bunch visible, you can use (though not interact) with all of them at the same time. Plus, how small is your screen? I've been using a 24" display for two years now, and the thought of maximising ANYTHING other than video or perhaps a heavy IDE strikes me as sheer insanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hurrr.Wake up , moron .
If you only have one application visible , you can only do one thing .
If you have a bunch visible , you can use ( though not interact ) with all of them at the same time .
Plus , how small is your screen ?
I 've been using a 24 " display for two years now , and the thought of maximising ANYTHING other than video or perhaps a heavy IDE strikes me as sheer insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hurrr.Wake up, moron.
If you only have one application visible, you can only do one thing.
If you have a bunch visible, you can use (though not interact) with all of them at the same time.
Plus, how small is your screen?
I've been using a 24" display for two years now, and the thought of maximising ANYTHING other than video or perhaps a heavy IDE strikes me as sheer insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350970</id>
	<title>bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just give me the ability to drag the buttons in my Windows taskbar around when Firefox decides to pull a disappearing act on me again and I'd be happy.  I like my taskbar buttons in a certain order dang it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give me the ability to drag the buttons in my Windows taskbar around when Firefox decides to pull a disappearing act on me again and I 'd be happy .
I like my taskbar buttons in a certain order dang it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give me the ability to drag the buttons in my Windows taskbar around when Firefox decides to pull a disappearing act on me again and I'd be happy.
I like my taskbar buttons in a certain order dang it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346494</id>
	<title>Dockable windows and toolbars in the WM please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking beyond tabs, I'd like to see 'dockable' windows and toolbars into the domain of the window manager: the application presents separate windows to the window manager, and the window manager makes these features available to all apps: pinning them side-by-side, tabbing them etc.</p><p>This takes away yet more pain from application developers, makes it available for all apps. Importantly it allows more flexibility beyond what the application developer anticipated: when a user has multiple monitors (including different sized ones) or a virtual desktop.</p><p>I've often found I'm restricted by the app when I want to put a toolbar on a separate monitor, or tear off a sub-window onto a separate virtual desktop. If they were truly separate X windows, my window manager could look after this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking beyond tabs , I 'd like to see 'dockable ' windows and toolbars into the domain of the window manager : the application presents separate windows to the window manager , and the window manager makes these features available to all apps : pinning them side-by-side , tabbing them etc.This takes away yet more pain from application developers , makes it available for all apps .
Importantly it allows more flexibility beyond what the application developer anticipated : when a user has multiple monitors ( including different sized ones ) or a virtual desktop.I 've often found I 'm restricted by the app when I want to put a toolbar on a separate monitor , or tear off a sub-window onto a separate virtual desktop .
If they were truly separate X windows , my window manager could look after this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking beyond tabs, I'd like to see 'dockable' windows and toolbars into the domain of the window manager: the application presents separate windows to the window manager, and the window manager makes these features available to all apps: pinning them side-by-side, tabbing them etc.This takes away yet more pain from application developers, makes it available for all apps.
Importantly it allows more flexibility beyond what the application developer anticipated: when a user has multiple monitors (including different sized ones) or a virtual desktop.I've often found I'm restricted by the app when I want to put a toolbar on a separate monitor, or tear off a sub-window onto a separate virtual desktop.
If they were truly separate X windows, my window manager could look after this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346288</id>
	<title>This has been around for much longer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Window managers like fluxbox have been doing this for quite some time [years/ages/aons -ed.] and compiz also offers the option to tab windows together, some people like it but most people don't use it.</p><p>My guess is that unless KDE is doing something drastically different to make people see the need/usefulness of the feature you won't see this taking of much....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Window managers like fluxbox have been doing this for quite some time [ years/ages/aons -ed .
] and compiz also offers the option to tab windows together , some people like it but most people do n't use it.My guess is that unless KDE is doing something drastically different to make people see the need/usefulness of the feature you wo n't see this taking of much... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Window managers like fluxbox have been doing this for quite some time [years/ages/aons -ed.
] and compiz also offers the option to tab windows together, some people like it but most people don't use it.My guess is that unless KDE is doing something drastically different to make people see the need/usefulness of the feature you won't see this taking of much....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347312</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1260104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would mod you up if I had mod points.  The concept is just complicated enough in small design details for Windows to not usually understand.  The old Windows spacial design was absolutely HORRIBLE for Windows Explorer.  Outside of the old Mac OS's I have never seen a good implementation of it in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would mod you up if I had mod points .
The concept is just complicated enough in small design details for Windows to not usually understand .
The old Windows spacial design was absolutely HORRIBLE for Windows Explorer .
Outside of the old Mac OS 's I have never seen a good implementation of it in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would mod you up if I had mod points.
The concept is just complicated enough in small design details for Windows to not usually understand.
The old Windows spacial design was absolutely HORRIBLE for Windows Explorer.
Outside of the old Mac OS's I have never seen a good implementation of it in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346908</id>
	<title>Fluxbox has done this for years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can move arbitrary applications in an out of tabs in other windows, and it's highly configurable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can move arbitrary applications in an out of tabs in other windows , and it 's highly configurable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can move arbitrary applications in an out of tabs in other windows, and it's highly configurable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347088</id>
	<title>The example would be handy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be handy for applications like The GIMP and VirtualBox that don't normally support tabbed views (they should though!).</p><p>So, like the example in TFA you can make VirtualBox work more like VMware (ie. better).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be handy for applications like The GIMP and VirtualBox that do n't normally support tabbed views ( they should though !
) .So , like the example in TFA you can make VirtualBox work more like VMware ( ie .
better ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be handy for applications like The GIMP and VirtualBox that don't normally support tabbed views (they should though!
).So, like the example in TFA you can make VirtualBox work more like VMware (ie.
better).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346670</id>
	<title>Fluxbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fluxbox has this feature... And for about five or six years, or more. You middle-click a window in the title bar and then drag it to another window, and then the title bar will be split among the two joined windows, or if the user wants, it will appear as a space consuming tab over the title bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fluxbox has this feature... And for about five or six years , or more .
You middle-click a window in the title bar and then drag it to another window , and then the title bar will be split among the two joined windows , or if the user wants , it will appear as a space consuming tab over the title bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fluxbox has this feature... And for about five or six years, or more.
You middle-click a window in the title bar and then drag it to another window, and then the title bar will be split among the two joined windows, or if the user wants, it will appear as a space consuming tab over the title bar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348546</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite solution:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260113700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh god. Who of you losers with mod points have a upset now??</p><p>Firefox users? Naah.<br>KDE users? Unlikely.<br>loud retards? *PING*</p><p>Fun fact: Watch me, not caring. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god .
Who of you losers with mod points have a upset now ?
? Firefox users ?
Naah.KDE users ?
Unlikely.loud retards ?
* PING * Fun fact : Watch me , not caring .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god.
Who of you losers with mod points have a upset now?
?Firefox users?
Naah.KDE users?
Unlikely.loud retards?
*PING*Fun fact: Watch me, not caring.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346812</id>
	<title>Haiku OS tabbed windows prototype</title>
	<author>GeLeTo</author>
	<datestamp>1260100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haiku OS has a tabbed windows prototype - see a video here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccniJHjo\_Uw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccniJHjo\_Uw</a> [youtube.com]
You can skip to 3:40 to see it in action</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haiku OS has a tabbed windows prototype - see a video here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ccniJHjo \ _Uw [ youtube.com ] You can skip to 3 : 40 to see it in action</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haiku OS has a tabbed windows prototype - see a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccniJHjo\_Uw [youtube.com]
You can skip to 3:40 to see it in action</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346524</id>
	<title>Boring...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boring.  Useless.  I can do the same thing with the task bar.  If I REALLY need multiple windows open I use my multiple monitors (WAY more useful).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring .
Useless. I can do the same thing with the task bar .
If I REALLY need multiple windows open I use my multiple monitors ( WAY more useful ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boring.
Useless.  I can do the same thing with the task bar.
If I REALLY need multiple windows open I use my multiple monitors (WAY more useful).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346894</id>
	<title>Re:You have no idea how GOOD this is</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1260101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this: "oh i tried this and it suck" or something like that. Well then i bet you haven't tried it enough.</p> </div><p>I've tried it (FFM) for years and still use it and I've formally tested it in usability studies. Focus follows mouse is a useful UI feature, but it does not work with permanently positioned menus, which are an even bigger usability win.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or people think hard to learn = hard to use (never mind that hard to learn most of the time means, i'm very lazy to learn something new, so I'll just say interface i don't know sucks).</p></div><p>Learnability is just one aspect of usability, and you're absolutely right that it is not the only function thereof. Take single button trackpads (not mice, trackpads), for example. They win on learnability of novice users. They fail on learnability for moderate users, who are already used to two buttons, but are unwilling to learn to use a keyboard key for chording. They win for advanced users who are willing to learn chording because they are faster once learned than two button trackpads. Mostly this has been supplanted by multi-touch now, but for the longest time this held true and usability experts all pretty much agreed based on the studies, but normal users did not understand, would not believe, and constantly spread misinformation based upon their own misguided opinions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces, while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces, and don't know better.</p></div><p>I make a point of using multiple interfaces daily and being current on all of them. The same holds true for pretty much everything. Windows users complain about Linux, despite having never used it as their daily OS nor bothered to learn the major interface elements. But Linux users are just as loud bout complaining about OS X, while most clearly have never used it for more than 10 minutes since they don't even know what the user interface elements implemented in it are. I've tried to do comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of major OS's many times, including soliciting opinions from Slashdot users. The results are frustrating, with greater than 90\% of comments being from persons who clearly do not use or understand one of the two OS's they are comparing. This holds true for UI elements as well as most other aspects of OS's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this : " oh i tried this and it suck " or something like that .
Well then i bet you have n't tried it enough .
I 've tried it ( FFM ) for years and still use it and I 've formally tested it in usability studies .
Focus follows mouse is a useful UI feature , but it does not work with permanently positioned menus , which are an even bigger usability win.Or people think hard to learn = hard to use ( never mind that hard to learn most of the time means , i 'm very lazy to learn something new , so I 'll just say interface i do n't know sucks ) .Learnability is just one aspect of usability , and you 're absolutely right that it is not the only function thereof .
Take single button trackpads ( not mice , trackpads ) , for example .
They win on learnability of novice users .
They fail on learnability for moderate users , who are already used to two buttons , but are unwilling to learn to use a keyboard key for chording .
They win for advanced users who are willing to learn chording because they are faster once learned than two button trackpads .
Mostly this has been supplanted by multi-touch now , but for the longest time this held true and usability experts all pretty much agreed based on the studies , but normal users did not understand , would not believe , and constantly spread misinformation based upon their own misguided opinions.My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces , while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces , and do n't know better.I make a point of using multiple interfaces daily and being current on all of them .
The same holds true for pretty much everything .
Windows users complain about Linux , despite having never used it as their daily OS nor bothered to learn the major interface elements .
But Linux users are just as loud bout complaining about OS X , while most clearly have never used it for more than 10 minutes since they do n't even know what the user interface elements implemented in it are .
I 've tried to do comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of major OS 's many times , including soliciting opinions from Slashdot users .
The results are frustrating , with greater than 90 \ % of comments being from persons who clearly do not use or understand one of the two OS 's they are comparing .
This holds true for UI elements as well as most other aspects of OS 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this: "oh i tried this and it suck" or something like that.
Well then i bet you haven't tried it enough.
I've tried it (FFM) for years and still use it and I've formally tested it in usability studies.
Focus follows mouse is a useful UI feature, but it does not work with permanently positioned menus, which are an even bigger usability win.Or people think hard to learn = hard to use (never mind that hard to learn most of the time means, i'm very lazy to learn something new, so I'll just say interface i don't know sucks).Learnability is just one aspect of usability, and you're absolutely right that it is not the only function thereof.
Take single button trackpads (not mice, trackpads), for example.
They win on learnability of novice users.
They fail on learnability for moderate users, who are already used to two buttons, but are unwilling to learn to use a keyboard key for chording.
They win for advanced users who are willing to learn chording because they are faster once learned than two button trackpads.
Mostly this has been supplanted by multi-touch now, but for the longest time this held true and usability experts all pretty much agreed based on the studies, but normal users did not understand, would not believe, and constantly spread misinformation based upon their own misguided opinions.My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces, while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces, and don't know better.I make a point of using multiple interfaces daily and being current on all of them.
The same holds true for pretty much everything.
Windows users complain about Linux, despite having never used it as their daily OS nor bothered to learn the major interface elements.
But Linux users are just as loud bout complaining about OS X, while most clearly have never used it for more than 10 minutes since they don't even know what the user interface elements implemented in it are.
I've tried to do comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of major OS's many times, including soliciting opinions from Slashdot users.
The results are frustrating, with greater than 90\% of comments being from persons who clearly do not use or understand one of the two OS's they are comparing.
This holds true for UI elements as well as most other aspects of OS's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346590</id>
	<title>Can someone make the tabs almost disappear, too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine how much more productive you could be if you were able to make a window much smaller when you don't need to access that application, but still want that application to keep running.</p><p>I'm struggling to name that concept, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how much more productive you could be if you were able to make a window much smaller when you do n't need to access that application , but still want that application to keep running.I 'm struggling to name that concept , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how much more productive you could be if you were able to make a window much smaller when you don't need to access that application, but still want that application to keep running.I'm struggling to name that concept, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346928</id>
	<title>Fantabulistic!</title>
	<author>bryll</author>
	<datestamp>1260101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great new feature - but not precisely new. It's been in WM's like ion3 and fluxbox for years - I used to damn-near rely on applications tabbed together in ion3's non-tiled workspaces for lots of stuff I was doing several years ago when I worked at a Linux-based dev-shop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great new feature - but not precisely new .
It 's been in WM 's like ion3 and fluxbox for years - I used to damn-near rely on applications tabbed together in ion3 's non-tiled workspaces for lots of stuff I was doing several years ago when I worked at a Linux-based dev-shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great new feature - but not precisely new.
It's been in WM's like ion3 and fluxbox for years - I used to damn-near rely on applications tabbed together in ion3's non-tiled workspaces for lots of stuff I was doing several years ago when I worked at a Linux-based dev-shop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346822</id>
	<title>paste and go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when will firefox implement paste and go,,,as it stands i have to paste something i copy and hit enter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when will firefox implement paste and go,,,as it stands i have to paste something i copy and hit enter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when will firefox implement paste and go,,,as it stands i have to paste something i copy and hit enter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349940</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1260128760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>regarding your first paragraph, i wholly agree. I've been playing around with ubuntu netbook remix (unr) which essentially has tabbed windows that are always maximized. copying files using the GUI has been a complete pain in the ass but fortunately you can force non-maximized for this purpose. rebuilding my alsa drivers so that my hp mini would have a functional mic (For skype) requires a lot of copying and pasting between firefox and the terminal, which is easier when both windows aren't maximized.<br>
&nbsp; <br>maximized windows are great for resolutions 1280 and lower, but really most apps don't need to be larger than 8.5" wide (standard letter/a4 size). Maybe a better idea would be to split the display up virtually, create a center display, 8.5-12" wide, with two smaller virtual windows on either side, so you have three sets of tabs.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Either way, running 100\% maximized 100$\% of the time is somewhat inconvenient. There's a lot of work to be done in the netbook gui field, and I doubt a lot of that will be applicable for the more or less standard 22" 1680x1050 displays being deployed these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>regarding your first paragraph , i wholly agree .
I 've been playing around with ubuntu netbook remix ( unr ) which essentially has tabbed windows that are always maximized .
copying files using the GUI has been a complete pain in the ass but fortunately you can force non-maximized for this purpose .
rebuilding my alsa drivers so that my hp mini would have a functional mic ( For skype ) requires a lot of copying and pasting between firefox and the terminal , which is easier when both windows are n't maximized .
  maximized windows are great for resolutions 1280 and lower , but really most apps do n't need to be larger than 8.5 " wide ( standard letter/a4 size ) .
Maybe a better idea would be to split the display up virtually , create a center display , 8.5-12 " wide , with two smaller virtual windows on either side , so you have three sets of tabs .
  Either way , running 100 \ % maximized 100 $ \ % of the time is somewhat inconvenient .
There 's a lot of work to be done in the netbook gui field , and I doubt a lot of that will be applicable for the more or less standard 22 " 1680x1050 displays being deployed these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regarding your first paragraph, i wholly agree.
I've been playing around with ubuntu netbook remix (unr) which essentially has tabbed windows that are always maximized.
copying files using the GUI has been a complete pain in the ass but fortunately you can force non-maximized for this purpose.
rebuilding my alsa drivers so that my hp mini would have a functional mic (For skype) requires a lot of copying and pasting between firefox and the terminal, which is easier when both windows aren't maximized.
  maximized windows are great for resolutions 1280 and lower, but really most apps don't need to be larger than 8.5" wide (standard letter/a4 size).
Maybe a better idea would be to split the display up virtually, create a center display, 8.5-12" wide, with two smaller virtual windows on either side, so you have three sets of tabs.
  Either way, running 100\% maximized 100$\% of the time is somewhat inconvenient.
There's a lot of work to be done in the netbook gui field, and I doubt a lot of that will be applicable for the more or less standard 22" 1680x1050 displays being deployed these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349782</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, FFS ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;It's not the same thing. With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open.</p><p>This is good design for large numbers of open windows. This is not good design for small numbers of open windows.</p><p>I have four windows open right now. 1 Adobe Acrobat, 3 Firefox. Titles showing on all the windows so I know what they are.</p><p>On XP, it's a single click to the bottom of the screen to switch windows.</p><p>With Tabbed Browsing in Firefox - which I refuse to use (thanks, Tabkiller) due to the reasons in this post - I'd have to click twice to switch to the window I want: once on the bottom of the screen to go to Firefox, and then once at the top of the screen to pick my tab. This is stupid and annoying, so I use tabkiller. (Unfortunately, the Firefox guys were so enamored with tabbed browsing that they put in no native ability to disable tabs into the browser, and Tabkiller bugs out occasionally.)</p><p>On Win7, I have to mouse to the bottom of the screen, hover, and then click on the window that I want. I then (if tabs are enabled) have to mouse up to the top of the screen to pick the tab that I want. In other words, this is the slowest method yet of switching Windows.</p><p>So in summary, FUCK YOU WIN7. I wanted common operations to be easier in Windows 7, but it didn't happen. So yeah, I guess I Didn't Make Windows 7(tm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; It 's not the same thing .
With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents , you do n't have one taskbar ; you have as many " taskbars " as you have windows open.This is good design for large numbers of open windows .
This is not good design for small numbers of open windows.I have four windows open right now .
1 Adobe Acrobat , 3 Firefox .
Titles showing on all the windows so I know what they are.On XP , it 's a single click to the bottom of the screen to switch windows.With Tabbed Browsing in Firefox - which I refuse to use ( thanks , Tabkiller ) due to the reasons in this post - I 'd have to click twice to switch to the window I want : once on the bottom of the screen to go to Firefox , and then once at the top of the screen to pick my tab .
This is stupid and annoying , so I use tabkiller .
( Unfortunately , the Firefox guys were so enamored with tabbed browsing that they put in no native ability to disable tabs into the browser , and Tabkiller bugs out occasionally .
) On Win7 , I have to mouse to the bottom of the screen , hover , and then click on the window that I want .
I then ( if tabs are enabled ) have to mouse up to the top of the screen to pick the tab that I want .
In other words , this is the slowest method yet of switching Windows.So in summary , FUCK YOU WIN7 .
I wanted common operations to be easier in Windows 7 , but it did n't happen .
So yeah , I guess I Did n't Make Windows 7 ( tm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;It's not the same thing.
With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open.This is good design for large numbers of open windows.
This is not good design for small numbers of open windows.I have four windows open right now.
1 Adobe Acrobat, 3 Firefox.
Titles showing on all the windows so I know what they are.On XP, it's a single click to the bottom of the screen to switch windows.With Tabbed Browsing in Firefox - which I refuse to use (thanks, Tabkiller) due to the reasons in this post - I'd have to click twice to switch to the window I want: once on the bottom of the screen to go to Firefox, and then once at the top of the screen to pick my tab.
This is stupid and annoying, so I use tabkiller.
(Unfortunately, the Firefox guys were so enamored with tabbed browsing that they put in no native ability to disable tabs into the browser, and Tabkiller bugs out occasionally.
)On Win7, I have to mouse to the bottom of the screen, hover, and then click on the window that I want.
I then (if tabs are enabled) have to mouse up to the top of the screen to pick the tab that I want.
In other words, this is the slowest method yet of switching Windows.So in summary, FUCK YOU WIN7.
I wanted common operations to be easier in Windows 7, but it didn't happen.
So yeah, I guess I Didn't Make Windows 7(tm).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347072</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, FFS ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, it's not the same thing.</p><p>How about "We've already got this, it's called CompizConfig Settings Manager -&gt; Group and Tab Windows" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , it 's not the same thing.How about " We 've already got this , it 's called CompizConfig Settings Manager - &gt; Group and Tab Windows " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, it's not the same thing.How about "We've already got this, it's called CompizConfig Settings Manager -&gt; Group and Tab Windows" ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347446</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260105420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's exactly my understanding of the way this should work, and OS X generally does it quite well IMHO.  It does fail pretty bad in some applications though, notably MS Office apps.  But the GP view is 180 degrees from my ideal user experience; the way Windows handles maximization of windows is one of the bigger reasons I have always preferred MacOS.  I *like* being able to see other windows behind where I am when I'm working in multiple programs (which is almost always).  I can't stand opening up a 2 paragraph document and having it take over the entire screen.  And, frankly, I don't think tabbing the entire user experience will improve this at all.</p><p>Remember, MacOS X did exactly the right thing with tabbed browsing.  It was a concept *explicitly* ruled out in their human interface guidelines, but after they saw what was happening with Mozilla, they made a decision to chuck the HIGs for Safari and create the most lickable tabbed browsing experience they could.  The guidelines adapted without being swept completely in another direction -- tabbed browsing is available when it makes good sense for it to be available, but it doesn't dominate the user experience.  Hopefully OS X will show similar restraint if tabbed windows do in fact "become the next big thing."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly my understanding of the way this should work , and OS X generally does it quite well IMHO .
It does fail pretty bad in some applications though , notably MS Office apps .
But the GP view is 180 degrees from my ideal user experience ; the way Windows handles maximization of windows is one of the bigger reasons I have always preferred MacOS .
I * like * being able to see other windows behind where I am when I 'm working in multiple programs ( which is almost always ) .
I ca n't stand opening up a 2 paragraph document and having it take over the entire screen .
And , frankly , I do n't think tabbing the entire user experience will improve this at all.Remember , MacOS X did exactly the right thing with tabbed browsing .
It was a concept * explicitly * ruled out in their human interface guidelines , but after they saw what was happening with Mozilla , they made a decision to chuck the HIGs for Safari and create the most lickable tabbed browsing experience they could .
The guidelines adapted without being swept completely in another direction -- tabbed browsing is available when it makes good sense for it to be available , but it does n't dominate the user experience .
Hopefully OS X will show similar restraint if tabbed windows do in fact " become the next big thing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly my understanding of the way this should work, and OS X generally does it quite well IMHO.
It does fail pretty bad in some applications though, notably MS Office apps.
But the GP view is 180 degrees from my ideal user experience; the way Windows handles maximization of windows is one of the bigger reasons I have always preferred MacOS.
I *like* being able to see other windows behind where I am when I'm working in multiple programs (which is almost always).
I can't stand opening up a 2 paragraph document and having it take over the entire screen.
And, frankly, I don't think tabbing the entire user experience will improve this at all.Remember, MacOS X did exactly the right thing with tabbed browsing.
It was a concept *explicitly* ruled out in their human interface guidelines, but after they saw what was happening with Mozilla, they made a decision to chuck the HIGs for Safari and create the most lickable tabbed browsing experience they could.
The guidelines adapted without being swept completely in another direction -- tabbed browsing is available when it makes good sense for it to be available, but it doesn't dominate the user experience.
Hopefully OS X will show similar restraint if tabbed windows do in fact "become the next big thing.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353922</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260205560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get a tool that allows you to set the always-on-top property of any window.</p><p>Some of them can set the opacity, too.</p><p>E.g. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=ghost-it&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=g6g-s1g3" title="google.com">Ghost-It</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get a tool that allows you to set the always-on-top property of any window.Some of them can set the opacity , too.E.g .
Ghost-It [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get a tool that allows you to set the always-on-top property of any window.Some of them can set the opacity, too.E.g.
Ghost-It [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348642</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1260114720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not new.  I'm probably not citing the first instance of it, but, I was utilizing this feature fairly regularly in fluxbox 6+ years ago.</p><p>It's nice to have but I seriously doubt it will take off for general users.  Tabbed browsers already confuse the average computer user beyond belief.  I know people who don't even understand that their computer has windows at all.</p><p>I'm glad to see this finally show up in KDE but still... nothing special.  Slow news day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not new .
I 'm probably not citing the first instance of it , but , I was utilizing this feature fairly regularly in fluxbox 6 + years ago.It 's nice to have but I seriously doubt it will take off for general users .
Tabbed browsers already confuse the average computer user beyond belief .
I know people who do n't even understand that their computer has windows at all.I 'm glad to see this finally show up in KDE but still... nothing special .
Slow news day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not new.
I'm probably not citing the first instance of it, but, I was utilizing this feature fairly regularly in fluxbox 6+ years ago.It's nice to have but I seriously doubt it will take off for general users.
Tabbed browsers already confuse the average computer user beyond belief.
I know people who don't even understand that their computer has windows at all.I'm glad to see this finally show up in KDE but still... nothing special.
Slow news day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349206</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1260120420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . and going back to the roots of crappy GUI design, the gnu folks are taking Gimp's interface and dumbing it down by giving it an MDI window - which is taking not just a single step backward, but gigantic leaps backward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
and going back to the roots of crappy GUI design , the gnu folks are taking Gimp 's interface and dumbing it down by giving it an MDI window - which is taking not just a single step backward , but gigantic leaps backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
and going back to the roots of crappy GUI design, the gnu folks are taking Gimp's interface and dumbing it down by giving it an MDI window - which is taking not just a single step backward, but gigantic leaps backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346542</id>
	<title>KDE SC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that a fork of KDE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a fork of KDE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a fork of KDE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346644</id>
	<title>BeOS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BeOS did tabbed windows years ago.</p><p>This is nothing new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BeOS did tabbed windows years ago.This is nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BeOS did tabbed windows years ago.This is nothing new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346404</id>
	<title>Fluxbox Already Has This</title>
	<author>thePsychologist</author>
	<datestamp>1260098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And has had it for years. It's useful for things like grouping together PDF documents, or say, a separate terminal window to Gvim for coding and compiling, or the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And has had it for years .
It 's useful for things like grouping together PDF documents , or say , a separate terminal window to Gvim for coding and compiling , or the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And has had it for years.
It's useful for things like grouping together PDF documents, or say, a separate terminal window to Gvim for coding and compiling, or the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347170</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fully agreed.<br>I always set up my KDE to act in this way (or at least I did on my old 3.5 installs. Haven't delved into 4 deeply enough yet to find that particular feature).</p><p>Slightly off-topic: Another thing that really bugs me is that under Windows, scrolling applies to the window with focus, and, even worse, the widget with focus. So I'll hover over a folder-view at the right, and scroll, and it'll scroll my text box.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;\_;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fully agreed.I always set up my KDE to act in this way ( or at least I did on my old 3.5 installs .
Have n't delved into 4 deeply enough yet to find that particular feature ) .Slightly off-topic : Another thing that really bugs me is that under Windows , scrolling applies to the window with focus , and , even worse , the widget with focus .
So I 'll hover over a folder-view at the right , and scroll , and it 'll scroll my text box .
; \ _ ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fully agreed.I always set up my KDE to act in this way (or at least I did on my old 3.5 installs.
Haven't delved into 4 deeply enough yet to find that particular feature).Slightly off-topic: Another thing that really bugs me is that under Windows, scrolling applies to the window with focus, and, even worse, the widget with focus.
So I'll hover over a folder-view at the right, and scroll, and it'll scroll my text box.
;\_;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347956</id>
	<title>Compiz has this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260108720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that realizes Compiz has had window grouping and tabbing in place (as a plugin) for a long time?  I actually like their method of handling it as well because it gives you live previews of each window instead of 'tabs' that are always visible and cluttering up your UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that realizes Compiz has had window grouping and tabbing in place ( as a plugin ) for a long time ?
I actually like their method of handling it as well because it gives you live previews of each window instead of 'tabs ' that are always visible and cluttering up your UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that realizes Compiz has had window grouping and tabbing in place (as a plugin) for a long time?
I actually like their method of handling it as well because it gives you live previews of each window instead of 'tabs' that are always visible and cluttering up your UI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346428</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the point of windows is that you can show more than one thing on the screen at once.  In the event that this is not immediately necessary, unmaximized windows are just a waste of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the point of windows is that you can show more than one thing on the screen at once .
In the event that this is not immediately necessary , unmaximized windows are just a waste of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the point of windows is that you can show more than one thing on the screen at once.
In the event that this is not immediately necessary, unmaximized windows are just a waste of space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347384</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1260104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even worse: Windows doesn't allow much interaction with Windows that don't currently have the focus. On OS X I often scroll in a windows that doesn't have focus (such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground); Windows assumes that just because I didn't click into the browser window I can't possibly want to scroll it. Well, or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I haven't managed to locate the setting.<br>
<br>
Granted, though, not every OS X app supports scrolling without focus. Then again, Thunderbird is the only one I know that doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse : Windows does n't allow much interaction with Windows that do n't currently have the focus .
On OS X I often scroll in a windows that does n't have focus ( such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground ) ; Windows assumes that just because I did n't click into the browser window I ca n't possibly want to scroll it .
Well , or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I have n't managed to locate the setting .
Granted , though , not every OS X app supports scrolling without focus .
Then again , Thunderbird is the only one I know that does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse: Windows doesn't allow much interaction with Windows that don't currently have the focus.
On OS X I often scroll in a windows that doesn't have focus (such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground); Windows assumes that just because I didn't click into the browser window I can't possibly want to scroll it.
Well, or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I haven't managed to locate the setting.
Granted, though, not every OS X app supports scrolling without focus.
Then again, Thunderbird is the only one I know that doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350362</id>
	<title>TabWorks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was the standard Compaq laptop shell for a time in the early 1990s, until Windows 95 arrived.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was the standard Compaq laptop shell for a time in the early 1990s , until Windows 95 arrived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was the standard Compaq laptop shell for a time in the early 1990s, until Windows 95 arrived.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346876</id>
	<title>Oh well since the famous *KDE* is doing it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So "As goes KDE, goes the industry" is the delusion at work here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So " As goes KDE , goes the industry " is the delusion at work here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So "As goes KDE, goes the industry" is the delusion at work here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348514</id>
	<title>COMPIZ PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260113280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  no one has mentions this yet but compiz does this exact thing.  It's the "Group and Tab Windows" plug-in that is built in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
no one has mentions this yet but compiz does this exact thing .
It 's the " Group and Tab Windows " plug-in that is built in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
no one has mentions this yet but compiz does this exact thing.
It's the "Group and Tab Windows" plug-in that is built in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350880</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>worf\_mo</author>
	<datestamp>1260183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to enable this behaviour in Gnome, launch gconf-editor, navigate to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/apps/metacity/general and disable the setting "raise on click". I also prefer this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to enable this behaviour in Gnome , launch gconf-editor , navigate to /apps/metacity/general and disable the setting " raise on click " .
I also prefer this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to enable this behaviour in Gnome, launch gconf-editor, navigate to /apps/metacity/general and disable the setting "raise on click".
I also prefer this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352072</id>
	<title>New?</title>
	<author>Zaph\_Beeblebrox</author>
	<datestamp>1260197160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My window manager (fluxbox) does this from the beginning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My window manager ( fluxbox ) does this from the beginning .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My window manager (fluxbox) does this from the beginning ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886</id>
	<title>Less Simply put</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1260101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who argued strongly with the Nautilus team for tabs a couple of years ago, I love tabs in applications. gedit, nautilus, firefox, gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once. Tabs within a lot of apps make sense. I find it hard however to find grouping applications together such a useful feature. I like to size my app windows differently, depending on the window layout for instance. The only common use I can really think of is connecting an open file browser window to an app. Past that, laying things out in separate desktops would seem to be a far neater alternative. If I'm really busy, I just double my number of desktops.</p><p>This being KDE however, I can kinda understand where they are coming from. They seem to be pushing more and more to become a viable desktop environment alternative for Microsoft Windows as well as in Linux, so tabbing applications could make a lot more sense for MS Windows users who are only used to one desktop. </p><p>My real concern however is that while KDE has some absolutely fantastic apps, great code and brilliantly logical ideas behind how they design their desktop environment, I've never found it stable enough to install on anyone's pc. It's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who aren't very computer literate. In fact I've seen KDE (both 3 and 4) turn those interested in trying Linux into people who really distrust any Linux desktop. It's a real shame as there is a lot of really great work done in KDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who argued strongly with the Nautilus team for tabs a couple of years ago , I love tabs in applications .
gedit , nautilus , firefox , gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once .
Tabs within a lot of apps make sense .
I find it hard however to find grouping applications together such a useful feature .
I like to size my app windows differently , depending on the window layout for instance .
The only common use I can really think of is connecting an open file browser window to an app .
Past that , laying things out in separate desktops would seem to be a far neater alternative .
If I 'm really busy , I just double my number of desktops.This being KDE however , I can kinda understand where they are coming from .
They seem to be pushing more and more to become a viable desktop environment alternative for Microsoft Windows as well as in Linux , so tabbing applications could make a lot more sense for MS Windows users who are only used to one desktop .
My real concern however is that while KDE has some absolutely fantastic apps , great code and brilliantly logical ideas behind how they design their desktop environment , I 've never found it stable enough to install on anyone 's pc .
It 's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who are n't very computer literate .
In fact I 've seen KDE ( both 3 and 4 ) turn those interested in trying Linux into people who really distrust any Linux desktop .
It 's a real shame as there is a lot of really great work done in KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who argued strongly with the Nautilus team for tabs a couple of years ago, I love tabs in applications.
gedit, nautilus, firefox, gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once.
Tabs within a lot of apps make sense.
I find it hard however to find grouping applications together such a useful feature.
I like to size my app windows differently, depending on the window layout for instance.
The only common use I can really think of is connecting an open file browser window to an app.
Past that, laying things out in separate desktops would seem to be a far neater alternative.
If I'm really busy, I just double my number of desktops.This being KDE however, I can kinda understand where they are coming from.
They seem to be pushing more and more to become a viable desktop environment alternative for Microsoft Windows as well as in Linux, so tabbing applications could make a lot more sense for MS Windows users who are only used to one desktop.
My real concern however is that while KDE has some absolutely fantastic apps, great code and brilliantly logical ideas behind how they design their desktop environment, I've never found it stable enough to install on anyone's pc.
It's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who aren't very computer literate.
In fact I've seen KDE (both 3 and 4) turn those interested in trying Linux into people who really distrust any Linux desktop.
It's a real shame as there is a lot of really great work done in KDE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354094</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1260206220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 handles this pretty well by being able to drag the title bar of a window to the edge of the screen to resize it automatically. Drag it to the left, and the browser will fill the left side of the screen.</p><p>And I didn't RTFA, but 'tabbed windows' sounds like 'workspaces' or 'alt-tab'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 handles this pretty well by being able to drag the title bar of a window to the edge of the screen to resize it automatically .
Drag it to the left , and the browser will fill the left side of the screen.And I did n't RTFA , but 'tabbed windows ' sounds like 'workspaces ' or 'alt-tab' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 handles this pretty well by being able to drag the title bar of a window to the edge of the screen to resize it automatically.
Drag it to the left, and the browser will fill the left side of the screen.And I didn't RTFA, but 'tabbed windows' sounds like 'workspaces' or 'alt-tab'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352958</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new feature but new in a big DE, I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it may not be exactly the same thing, doesn't this feature already exists in OSX and a whole lot of *ix systems as virtual desktops?</p><p>I'm most familar with the OSX version, but if you combine Spaces (Apple's virtual desktop implementation) where you can put specific document windows and Expose which lets you easily switch between them it pretty much does just that.</p><p>True, the alt-tab does not work well since it shows all apps active and not just the ones in that specific space, but that is why you use expose to show only the windows in that 'space'.</p><p>The benefit is that you can arrange a space to see multiple documents at once.</p><p>At least that is how I use it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may not be exactly the same thing , does n't this feature already exists in OSX and a whole lot of * ix systems as virtual desktops ? I 'm most familar with the OSX version , but if you combine Spaces ( Apple 's virtual desktop implementation ) where you can put specific document windows and Expose which lets you easily switch between them it pretty much does just that.True , the alt-tab does not work well since it shows all apps active and not just the ones in that specific space , but that is why you use expose to show only the windows in that 'space'.The benefit is that you can arrange a space to see multiple documents at once.At least that is how I use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may not be exactly the same thing, doesn't this feature already exists in OSX and a whole lot of *ix systems as virtual desktops?I'm most familar with the OSX version, but if you combine Spaces (Apple's virtual desktop implementation) where you can put specific document windows and Expose which lets you easily switch between them it pretty much does just that.True, the alt-tab does not work well since it shows all apps active and not just the ones in that specific space, but that is why you use expose to show only the windows in that 'space'.The benefit is that you can arrange a space to see multiple documents at once.At least that is how I use it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346332</id>
	<title>There are lots of tabbed WMs out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using the <a href="http://www.modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/" title="cs.tut.fi">Ion window manager</a> [cs.tut.fi] for years.  The principle behind it is keyboard-controlled tabbed and tiled windows.  There's an entire <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling\_window\_manager" title="wikipedia.org">wiki list</a> [wikipedia.org] of similar tiling window managers, which are all also tabbed window managers.  Ion will also let you create non-tilled windows that are still tabbed, so exactly what KDE is now doing.</p><p>WMs that can do this have been around forever, but it's nice that they're finally going more "mainstream".  I'm still never going to use KDE or Gnome (way to heavyweight), but it's nice that they might be a more reasonable option in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the Ion window manager [ cs.tut.fi ] for years .
The principle behind it is keyboard-controlled tabbed and tiled windows .
There 's an entire wiki list [ wikipedia.org ] of similar tiling window managers , which are all also tabbed window managers .
Ion will also let you create non-tilled windows that are still tabbed , so exactly what KDE is now doing.WMs that can do this have been around forever , but it 's nice that they 're finally going more " mainstream " .
I 'm still never going to use KDE or Gnome ( way to heavyweight ) , but it 's nice that they might be a more reasonable option in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the Ion window manager [cs.tut.fi] for years.
The principle behind it is keyboard-controlled tabbed and tiled windows.
There's an entire wiki list [wikipedia.org] of similar tiling window managers, which are all also tabbed window managers.
Ion will also let you create non-tilled windows that are still tabbed, so exactly what KDE is now doing.WMs that can do this have been around forever, but it's nice that they're finally going more "mainstream".
I'm still never going to use KDE or Gnome (way to heavyweight), but it's nice that they might be a more reasonable option in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346794</id>
	<title>Ummm, soda</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1260100680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand they're bringing back Tab, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand they 're bringing back Tab , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand they're bringing back Tab, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348308</id>
	<title>Re:Tab bars versus taskbars? WTF?</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1260111480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from the headline I don't think anyone is saying that this will be the next best thing.<br> <br>

Tab bars improve my productivity. When I browse tab bars are extremely handy for opening lots of links at the same time, and letting them load in the background while I continue to focus on the thing I was doing. I can also utilise tabs and windows together to group my browsing by what I'm browsing for. Allowing me to subdivide by the task I'm doing which is really useful, IMO.<br> <br>

Multiple work spaces also improve my productivity. I can shift windows out of my current workspace that aren't related to the task at hand.  I can group windows into different work spaces based on the task I have them open for and so on.<br> <br>

Tabbed windows is the same concept. It will make it possible to break the task I'm currently doing down in new ways. You don't have to use it but I'm always thankful when developers provide me with new ways to further organise my workflow in ways that make sense to me. I.e. For what purpose do I have this open? When will I need to use this window again?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.etc. Rather than having them jammed into the task bar, which (IMO at-least) you rightfully complain about.<br> <br>

As for the snide comment at the end of your post, if you have a revolutionary new way of handling windows (Which is better than grouping than providing new more powerful ways of grouping by task), then please share it with us! If you don't then maybe it would be better to not criticise the work of others for not being revolutionary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the headline I do n't think anyone is saying that this will be the next best thing .
Tab bars improve my productivity .
When I browse tab bars are extremely handy for opening lots of links at the same time , and letting them load in the background while I continue to focus on the thing I was doing .
I can also utilise tabs and windows together to group my browsing by what I 'm browsing for .
Allowing me to subdivide by the task I 'm doing which is really useful , IMO .
Multiple work spaces also improve my productivity .
I can shift windows out of my current workspace that are n't related to the task at hand .
I can group windows into different work spaces based on the task I have them open for and so on .
Tabbed windows is the same concept .
It will make it possible to break the task I 'm currently doing down in new ways .
You do n't have to use it but I 'm always thankful when developers provide me with new ways to further organise my workflow in ways that make sense to me .
I.e. For what purpose do I have this open ?
When will I need to use this window again ?
.etc. Rather than having them jammed into the task bar , which ( IMO at-least ) you rightfully complain about .
As for the snide comment at the end of your post , if you have a revolutionary new way of handling windows ( Which is better than grouping than providing new more powerful ways of grouping by task ) , then please share it with us !
If you do n't then maybe it would be better to not criticise the work of others for not being revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the headline I don't think anyone is saying that this will be the next best thing.
Tab bars improve my productivity.
When I browse tab bars are extremely handy for opening lots of links at the same time, and letting them load in the background while I continue to focus on the thing I was doing.
I can also utilise tabs and windows together to group my browsing by what I'm browsing for.
Allowing me to subdivide by the task I'm doing which is really useful, IMO.
Multiple work spaces also improve my productivity.
I can shift windows out of my current workspace that aren't related to the task at hand.
I can group windows into different work spaces based on the task I have them open for and so on.
Tabbed windows is the same concept.
It will make it possible to break the task I'm currently doing down in new ways.
You don't have to use it but I'm always thankful when developers provide me with new ways to further organise my workflow in ways that make sense to me.
I.e. For what purpose do I have this open?
When will I need to use this window again?
.etc. Rather than having them jammed into the task bar, which (IMO at-least) you rightfully complain about.
As for the snide comment at the end of your post, if you have a revolutionary new way of handling windows (Which is better than grouping than providing new more powerful ways of grouping by task), then please share it with us!
If you don't then maybe it would be better to not criticise the work of others for not being revolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351550</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Lord Pillage</author>
	<datestamp>1260193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was playing around with my compiz settings the other days and I notice that something I changed manage to enable this effect. The focused window was not brought to the front unless you clicked on the title bar. I think after a restart it was gone though, which is a shame because I was thinking the exact same thing as you. Either way, if it can happen through some glitch / weird setting combination, it shouldn't be that hard to actually implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was playing around with my compiz settings the other days and I notice that something I changed manage to enable this effect .
The focused window was not brought to the front unless you clicked on the title bar .
I think after a restart it was gone though , which is a shame because I was thinking the exact same thing as you .
Either way , if it can happen through some glitch / weird setting combination , it should n't be that hard to actually implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was playing around with my compiz settings the other days and I notice that something I changed manage to enable this effect.
The focused window was not brought to the front unless you clicked on the title bar.
I think after a restart it was gone though, which is a shame because I was thinking the exact same thing as you.
Either way, if it can happen through some glitch / weird setting combination, it shouldn't be that hard to actually implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346748</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>MathiasRav</author>
	<datestamp>1260100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck, but in 'traditional' setups, you use the lower right corner (which is a big target) to adjust the size and the title bar (which is a big target) to adjust the position. Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot' for adjustment.</p></div><p>In my experience, corners and title bars are still generally small enough that hunting and pecking is required - I can never casually slide my cursor to the target and immediately begin resizing/moving - that only happens with alt+left mouse button (drag) or alt+middle mouse button (resize).</p><p>It's a shame Windows doesn't have this kind of functionality built-in. I don't know about Mac, but since my switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu, alt+clicking to move/resize, along with workspaces and Compiz' Grid plugin to move and resize windows to fit an imagined grid, has been the main efficiency booster for me.</p><p>I'm not saying every ordinary user should have this kind of configuring work forced on them, it's just a really good reason for *me* to make the switch.</p><p>(And of course, a proper command line and an OS with an extensive "built-in" software catalog (Debian's/Ubuntu's apt repositories) that's free and that doesn't suck have also been compelling reasons.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck , but in 'traditional ' setups , you use the lower right corner ( which is a big target ) to adjust the size and the title bar ( which is a big target ) to adjust the position .
Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot ' for adjustment.In my experience , corners and title bars are still generally small enough that hunting and pecking is required - I can never casually slide my cursor to the target and immediately begin resizing/moving - that only happens with alt + left mouse button ( drag ) or alt + middle mouse button ( resize ) .It 's a shame Windows does n't have this kind of functionality built-in .
I do n't know about Mac , but since my switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu , alt + clicking to move/resize , along with workspaces and Compiz ' Grid plugin to move and resize windows to fit an imagined grid , has been the main efficiency booster for me.I 'm not saying every ordinary user should have this kind of configuring work forced on them , it 's just a really good reason for * me * to make the switch .
( And of course , a proper command line and an OS with an extensive " built-in " software catalog ( Debian 's/Ubuntu 's apt repositories ) that 's free and that does n't suck have also been compelling reasons .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck, but in 'traditional' setups, you use the lower right corner (which is a big target) to adjust the size and the title bar (which is a big target) to adjust the position.
Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot' for adjustment.In my experience, corners and title bars are still generally small enough that hunting and pecking is required - I can never casually slide my cursor to the target and immediately begin resizing/moving - that only happens with alt+left mouse button (drag) or alt+middle mouse button (resize).It's a shame Windows doesn't have this kind of functionality built-in.
I don't know about Mac, but since my switch from Windows XP to Ubuntu, alt+clicking to move/resize, along with workspaces and Compiz' Grid plugin to move and resize windows to fit an imagined grid, has been the main efficiency booster for me.I'm not saying every ordinary user should have this kind of configuring work forced on them, it's just a really good reason for *me* to make the switch.
(And of course, a proper command line and an OS with an extensive "built-in" software catalog (Debian's/Ubuntu's apt repositories) that's free and that doesn't suck have also been compelling reasons.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348902</id>
	<title>The tabbed interface, 0.3.56</title>
	<author>hedge49</author>
	<datestamp>1260117240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all beginning to sound like Lotus Notes.  Boy, was that a fun environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all beginning to sound like Lotus Notes .
Boy , was that a fun environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all beginning to sound like Lotus Notes.
Boy, was that a fun environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068</id>
	<title>Simply put</title>
	<author>nitio</author>
	<datestamp>1260096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Zhiroc</author>
	<datestamp>1260100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something I've always liked about the "old" X windows model that I dislike about Windows (and I think Mac as well), is the assumption that the application with the focus should be the one that is in front of all others. There are a lot of times when I'd like to type into one app, say a text editor, while viewing something else, like a browser loaded with a documentation page, where I want to see the whole browser while I type, even if that means just seeing a few lines of what I'm typing.
<br> <br>
I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode, but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front. If anyone knows how to disable that, I'd appreciate it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something I 've always liked about the " old " X windows model that I dislike about Windows ( and I think Mac as well ) , is the assumption that the application with the focus should be the one that is in front of all others .
There are a lot of times when I 'd like to type into one app , say a text editor , while viewing something else , like a browser loaded with a documentation page , where I want to see the whole browser while I type , even if that means just seeing a few lines of what I 'm typing .
I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode , but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front .
If anyone knows how to disable that , I 'd appreciate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something I've always liked about the "old" X windows model that I dislike about Windows (and I think Mac as well), is the assumption that the application with the focus should be the one that is in front of all others.
There are a lot of times when I'd like to type into one app, say a text editor, while viewing something else, like a browser loaded with a documentation page, where I want to see the whole browser while I type, even if that means just seeing a few lines of what I'm typing.
I know that GNOME allows a focus-follows-mouse mode, but it is partly incomplete as clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front.
If anyone knows how to disable that, I'd appreciate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30356234</id>
	<title>tabs do not eliminate the problem!</title>
	<author>costinel</author>
	<datestamp>1260215880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might be too late for the comments party, but imho tabs are not increasing productivity.

tabs appeared because there was not enough room on the taskbar. YES. not because we NEEDED tabs. not for productivity. but for more porn alt-tab windows.

for this I have eliminated the cause, and not applied symptomatic solutions: i have moved the taskbar from horizontal lower to vertical right. voila! a lot more space, plus I get full title, plus there is enough space left on the screen even with the wider vertical taskbar. plus, I am right-handed. close/minimize/maximize buttons are on right. my mouse will travel a lot less when the taskbar is vertical right. no need for supplemental tabs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be too late for the comments party , but imho tabs are not increasing productivity .
tabs appeared because there was not enough room on the taskbar .
YES. not because we NEEDED tabs .
not for productivity .
but for more porn alt-tab windows .
for this I have eliminated the cause , and not applied symptomatic solutions : i have moved the taskbar from horizontal lower to vertical right .
voila ! a lot more space , plus I get full title , plus there is enough space left on the screen even with the wider vertical taskbar .
plus , I am right-handed .
close/minimize/maximize buttons are on right .
my mouse will travel a lot less when the taskbar is vertical right .
no need for supplemental tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be too late for the comments party, but imho tabs are not increasing productivity.
tabs appeared because there was not enough room on the taskbar.
YES. not because we NEEDED tabs.
not for productivity.
but for more porn alt-tab windows.
for this I have eliminated the cause, and not applied symptomatic solutions: i have moved the taskbar from horizontal lower to vertical right.
voila! a lot more space, plus I get full title, plus there is enough space left on the screen even with the wider vertical taskbar.
plus, I am right-handed.
close/minimize/maximize buttons are on right.
my mouse will travel a lot less when the taskbar is vertical right.
no need for supplemental tabs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346466</id>
	<title>No, they won't.</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1260098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next big thing will be when they will finally make computers work more for people than the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next big thing will be when they will finally make computers work more for people than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next big thing will be when they will finally make computers work more for people than the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347740</id>
	<title>Taking a step backwards?</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1260107400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the point of having a windowed user interface that you can multiple windows concurrently open \_next\_ to each other? If you tab them contextually you then limit interaction to a single window. So, next big thing? How about, the old thing we all know?</p><p>It's an interesting idea to group applications by task into what would essentially become an IDE. That model only works if you can save and restore the context in some efficient manner that you can tear-down and rebuild on the fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the point of having a windowed user interface that you can multiple windows concurrently open \ _next \ _ to each other ?
If you tab them contextually you then limit interaction to a single window .
So , next big thing ?
How about , the old thing we all know ? It 's an interesting idea to group applications by task into what would essentially become an IDE .
That model only works if you can save and restore the context in some efficient manner that you can tear-down and rebuild on the fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the point of having a windowed user interface that you can multiple windows concurrently open \_next\_ to each other?
If you tab them contextually you then limit interaction to a single window.
So, next big thing?
How about, the old thing we all know?It's an interesting idea to group applications by task into what would essentially become an IDE.
That model only works if you can save and restore the context in some efficient manner that you can tear-down and rebuild on the fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348016</id>
	<title>Tabs are cool, but we need tab management</title>
	<author>grouchomarxist</author>
	<datestamp>1260109260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like using tabs, but I noticed that once I started using them you can lose track of where something is. There needs to be tab management, probably integrated with window management, to make getting to the tab you're looking for easier. I'd like a combination of expose-type window management plus text search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like using tabs , but I noticed that once I started using them you can lose track of where something is .
There needs to be tab management , probably integrated with window management , to make getting to the tab you 're looking for easier .
I 'd like a combination of expose-type window management plus text search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like using tabs, but I noticed that once I started using them you can lose track of where something is.
There needs to be tab management, probably integrated with window management, to make getting to the tab you're looking for easier.
I'd like a combination of expose-type window management plus text search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the old (3.x) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows.  Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window, so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs.  Then toolbar and menu bloat came along so if your window wasn't maximized you couldn't see half the commands.  So now I think it's probably more habit than anything else.</p><p>Also I disagree with you.  I find Slashdot and most other pages (as well as any app with lots of text like a word processor or IDE) much easier to read in a full window.  More text on screen means it's easier to visually scan back to something if needed.  Plus the problem with sizing your web browser is every page is designed for a different size.  Even if a page is well-designed and doesn't assume a fixed width, there is still a certain width that each page needs to be to be reasonably readable, and that varies.  Constantly resizing and repositioning a window is infuriating.  True when it's maximized there is wasted space but at least the page will be readable.</p><p>Besides, damnit, I paid for dual wide-screen monitors and I'm not afraid to use them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the old ( 3.x ) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows .
Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window , so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs .
Then toolbar and menu bloat came along so if your window was n't maximized you could n't see half the commands .
So now I think it 's probably more habit than anything else.Also I disagree with you .
I find Slashdot and most other pages ( as well as any app with lots of text like a word processor or IDE ) much easier to read in a full window .
More text on screen means it 's easier to visually scan back to something if needed .
Plus the problem with sizing your web browser is every page is designed for a different size .
Even if a page is well-designed and does n't assume a fixed width , there is still a certain width that each page needs to be to be reasonably readable , and that varies .
Constantly resizing and repositioning a window is infuriating .
True when it 's maximized there is wasted space but at least the page will be readable.Besides , damnit , I paid for dual wide-screen monitors and I 'm not afraid to use them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the old (3.x) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows.
Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window, so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs.
Then toolbar and menu bloat came along so if your window wasn't maximized you couldn't see half the commands.
So now I think it's probably more habit than anything else.Also I disagree with you.
I find Slashdot and most other pages (as well as any app with lots of text like a word processor or IDE) much easier to read in a full window.
More text on screen means it's easier to visually scan back to something if needed.
Plus the problem with sizing your web browser is every page is designed for a different size.
Even if a page is well-designed and doesn't assume a fixed width, there is still a certain width that each page needs to be to be reasonably readable, and that varies.
Constantly resizing and repositioning a window is infuriating.
True when it's maximized there is wasted space but at least the page will be readable.Besides, damnit, I paid for dual wide-screen monitors and I'm not afraid to use them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346236</id>
	<title>Re:Simply put</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On one hand, I agree: The average desktop user doesn't want to spend there time organising how they are going to achieve the task at hand. They just want to get on with it. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, users such as many of those in the open source desktop world are likely to spend a little more time thinking about how they can improve their productivity through streamlining their interactions with the desktop manager and will at least give it a go. <br>
<br>
Personally I think it will be an effective way to context switch ones interface between tasks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , I agree : The average desktop user does n't want to spend there time organising how they are going to achieve the task at hand .
They just want to get on with it .
On the other hand , users such as many of those in the open source desktop world are likely to spend a little more time thinking about how they can improve their productivity through streamlining their interactions with the desktop manager and will at least give it a go .
Personally I think it will be an effective way to context switch ones interface between tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, I agree: The average desktop user doesn't want to spend there time organising how they are going to achieve the task at hand.
They just want to get on with it.
On the other hand, users such as many of those in the open source desktop world are likely to spend a little more time thinking about how they can improve their productivity through streamlining their interactions with the desktop manager and will at least give it a go.
Personally I think it will be an effective way to context switch ones interface between tasks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346992</id>
	<title>Microsoft better get started on the patent quickly</title>
	<author>originalhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Sounds like a great new UI feature from KDE.  Microsoft better get working on their patent application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a great new UI feature from KDE .
Microsoft better get working on their patent application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a great new UI feature from KDE.
Microsoft better get working on their patent application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358726</id>
	<title>Re:Tab bars versus taskbars? WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260185820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference because modern displays are big and allow comfortably using multiple windows side by side. Tabbed windows are a good way to divide the screen in a comfortable way and have all -- or most windows -- fit in a certain screen layout. And it allows to rearrange the screenlayout easily without reapplying the same changes to whole bunch of windows.<br>In a way, tabbed windows are for those not manly enough to use a tiling wm like ion3/ratpoison/xmonad (which, I guess, make using gimp a real torture).<br>I think: Tabbing Windows + http://live.gnome.org/DevilsPie = ultimate awesomeness<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bit thats just me, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference because modern displays are big and allow comfortably using multiple windows side by side .
Tabbed windows are a good way to divide the screen in a comfortable way and have all -- or most windows -- fit in a certain screen layout .
And it allows to rearrange the screenlayout easily without reapplying the same changes to whole bunch of windows.In a way , tabbed windows are for those not manly enough to use a tiling wm like ion3/ratpoison/xmonad ( which , I guess , make using gimp a real torture ) .I think : Tabbing Windows + http : //live.gnome.org/DevilsPie = ultimate awesomeness ... bit thats just me , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference because modern displays are big and allow comfortably using multiple windows side by side.
Tabbed windows are a good way to divide the screen in a comfortable way and have all -- or most windows -- fit in a certain screen layout.
And it allows to rearrange the screenlayout easily without reapplying the same changes to whole bunch of windows.In a way, tabbed windows are for those not manly enough to use a tiling wm like ion3/ratpoison/xmonad (which, I guess, make using gimp a real torture).I think: Tabbing Windows + http://live.gnome.org/DevilsPie = ultimate awesomeness ... bit thats just me, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346222</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you are too fucking stupid to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time shouldn't mean everyone else has to endure computers designed for the dumbest of the dumb.</p><p>So I guess maximized only, no alternative mode, with be coming soon to a future GNOME desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you are too fucking stupid to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time should n't mean everyone else has to endure computers designed for the dumbest of the dumb.So I guess maximized only , no alternative mode , with be coming soon to a future GNOME desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you are too fucking stupid to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time shouldn't mean everyone else has to endure computers designed for the dumbest of the dumb.So I guess maximized only, no alternative mode, with be coming soon to a future GNOME desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350514</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1260179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess using KDE would be too easy?</p><p>Open "Window Behavior" and disable "Click raises active window".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess using KDE would be too easy ? Open " Window Behavior " and disable " Click raises active window " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess using KDE would be too easy?Open "Window Behavior" and disable "Click raises active window".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346372</id>
	<title>Blurring the lines</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1260097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome OS proposes that the apps are in the web, and put each page in a tab (or a separate window). This KDE proposal goes the other way around. All are native apps, and you can put them in a browser-like windows, tabs included. Microsoft should had done that first, as their business is more focused in apps than in web (even worse, they dont have native virtual desktops as alternate app organization/grouping as KDE), and blurring that line putting their apps on a new, web-like environment looks like an approach they should have used a while ago.<br><br>Something nice that have Konsole (that could be seen as a tabbed apps interface at least, even if they are console based apps) is to show in which have been some activity while arent the front tab, maybe they are adding this feature too (if have a meaning for non-console apps, of course).<br><br>Wonder if will be able to manipulate those tabs as in Chrome/Mozilla, dragging a tab to the desktop to create a new separate window with it, or dragging a window to another to put it as a new tab there. And if that will have some conflict with those browser apps that already do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS proposes that the apps are in the web , and put each page in a tab ( or a separate window ) .
This KDE proposal goes the other way around .
All are native apps , and you can put them in a browser-like windows , tabs included .
Microsoft should had done that first , as their business is more focused in apps than in web ( even worse , they dont have native virtual desktops as alternate app organization/grouping as KDE ) , and blurring that line putting their apps on a new , web-like environment looks like an approach they should have used a while ago.Something nice that have Konsole ( that could be seen as a tabbed apps interface at least , even if they are console based apps ) is to show in which have been some activity while arent the front tab , maybe they are adding this feature too ( if have a meaning for non-console apps , of course ) .Wonder if will be able to manipulate those tabs as in Chrome/Mozilla , dragging a tab to the desktop to create a new separate window with it , or dragging a window to another to put it as a new tab there .
And if that will have some conflict with those browser apps that already do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS proposes that the apps are in the web, and put each page in a tab (or a separate window).
This KDE proposal goes the other way around.
All are native apps, and you can put them in a browser-like windows, tabs included.
Microsoft should had done that first, as their business is more focused in apps than in web (even worse, they dont have native virtual desktops as alternate app organization/grouping as KDE), and blurring that line putting their apps on a new, web-like environment looks like an approach they should have used a while ago.Something nice that have Konsole (that could be seen as a tabbed apps interface at least, even if they are console based apps) is to show in which have been some activity while arent the front tab, maybe they are adding this feature too (if have a meaning for non-console apps, of course).Wonder if will be able to manipulate those tabs as in Chrome/Mozilla, dragging a tab to the desktop to create a new separate window with it, or dragging a window to another to put it as a new tab there.
And if that will have some conflict with those browser apps that already do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30386714</id>
	<title>Re:tiling window managers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Bluetile (http://projects.haskell.org/bluetile/). It's really nice for newbies, especially to learn the core concept of tiling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Bluetile ( http : //projects.haskell.org/bluetile/ ) .
It 's really nice for newbies , especially to learn the core concept of tiling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Bluetile (http://projects.haskell.org/bluetile/).
It's really nice for newbies, especially to learn the core concept of tiling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350816</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1260182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content. For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace. Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window. Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in.</p></div><p>Erm... Exactly what size is the window contents? To me that's a completely circular argument: The content of a window is the stuff in the window. Therefore the size of the content is the size of the window.</p><p>How "big", exactly, is a PDF? How "big" is a Web page? How "big" is a text document? Computer displays can scale anything to any size and I would say only those authouring/checking a pixel-based format would be better off with a 1:1 mapping between image colour rectangles and screen colour rectangles. Every other format is either vector/procedurally generated (fonts, icons, etc.) and thus should be drawn to suit your window, rather than your window being resized to whatever arbitrary scale the software decided to render at.</p><p>As a simple example I use Ctrl +/Ctrl - in my browser (Firefox) and IDE (Geany) all of the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content .
For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace .
Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window .
Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in.Erm... Exactly what size is the window contents ?
To me that 's a completely circular argument : The content of a window is the stuff in the window .
Therefore the size of the content is the size of the window.How " big " , exactly , is a PDF ?
How " big " is a Web page ?
How " big " is a text document ?
Computer displays can scale anything to any size and I would say only those authouring/checking a pixel-based format would be better off with a 1 : 1 mapping between image colour rectangles and screen colour rectangles .
Every other format is either vector/procedurally generated ( fonts , icons , etc .
) and thus should be drawn to suit your window , rather than your window being resized to whatever arbitrary scale the software decided to render at.As a simple example I use Ctrl + /Ctrl - in my browser ( Firefox ) and IDE ( Geany ) all of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content.
For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace.
Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window.
Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in.Erm... Exactly what size is the window contents?
To me that's a completely circular argument: The content of a window is the stuff in the window.
Therefore the size of the content is the size of the window.How "big", exactly, is a PDF?
How "big" is a Web page?
How "big" is a text document?
Computer displays can scale anything to any size and I would say only those authouring/checking a pixel-based format would be better off with a 1:1 mapping between image colour rectangles and screen colour rectangles.
Every other format is either vector/procedurally generated (fonts, icons, etc.
) and thus should be drawn to suit your window, rather than your window being resized to whatever arbitrary scale the software decided to render at.As a simple example I use Ctrl +/Ctrl - in my browser (Firefox) and IDE (Geany) all of the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354130</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1260206460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like is if some windows would start to scale the data. For some windows it just doesn't make sense to scroll the window at all.<br>It would probably be difficult to do and not be confusing but I know that there are times when I would find it very useful.<br>BTW I really hate most fixed width sites. It just makes me crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like is if some windows would start to scale the data .
For some windows it just does n't make sense to scroll the window at all.It would probably be difficult to do and not be confusing but I know that there are times when I would find it very useful.BTW I really hate most fixed width sites .
It just makes me crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like is if some windows would start to scale the data.
For some windows it just doesn't make sense to scroll the window at all.It would probably be difficult to do and not be confusing but I know that there are times when I would find it very useful.BTW I really hate most fixed width sites.
It just makes me crazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348188</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1260110520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally use an extension to put the tabs at the side of the browser instead of up top. Makes much better use of widescreen monitor space, gives you more vertical reading room and uses that otherwise useless space for something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally use an extension to put the tabs at the side of the browser instead of up top .
Makes much better use of widescreen monitor space , gives you more vertical reading room and uses that otherwise useless space for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally use an extension to put the tabs at the side of the browser instead of up top.
Makes much better use of widescreen monitor space, gives you more vertical reading room and uses that otherwise useless space for something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346496</id>
	<title>Windows 1.0</title>
	<author>Kayamon</author>
	<datestamp>1260098580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this basically Windows 1.0? All applications tiled onto fullscreen?</p><p>What goes around comes around...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this basically Windows 1.0 ?
All applications tiled onto fullscreen ? What goes around comes around.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this basically Windows 1.0?
All applications tiled onto fullscreen?What goes around comes around...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347284</id>
	<title>Arrrgh</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1260104220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your UI sounds like something I would run away from screaming.</p><p>But maybe you could get it to work. Who knows?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The panel in OS X is pretty simple and customizable. I like that better, but am stuck with the taskbar and silly grouping and hiding everywhere. All "panel" or "virtual desktop" projects on Windows are just horrible hacks. Most defaults in XP works though, but not as simple and powerful as it could have been. Why do we need desktop icons, start menu, "quick launch", task bar and "notification" icons? If you look at exploder in Vista, the redundancy seems only to be exploding, and not diminishing. Searching is a joke and hopeless unless you're know how to start indexing arcane file extensions again and turn off animated characters, and control panel is just a maze of options everywhere.</p><p>The designers in Microsoft should copy much more of Apples designs - blindly rather than trying to think too much by themselves. They just have no clue what makes good design - or they're forced by a clueless management to "make things simple" (but getting the opposite effect by cluttering everywhere). Vista is a big pain to navigate through.. Soo much redundancy.. aah. Glad I upgraded back to XP at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>And don't get me started of "hiding" menu items in MS Office and the Start Menu. Could you confuse your users more?? Most people don't even know you can turn such fucked up "features" up even! ("Fuck" in this context is entirely justifiable..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your UI sounds like something I would run away from screaming.But maybe you could get it to work .
Who knows ?
: - ) The panel in OS X is pretty simple and customizable .
I like that better , but am stuck with the taskbar and silly grouping and hiding everywhere .
All " panel " or " virtual desktop " projects on Windows are just horrible hacks .
Most defaults in XP works though , but not as simple and powerful as it could have been .
Why do we need desktop icons , start menu , " quick launch " , task bar and " notification " icons ?
If you look at exploder in Vista , the redundancy seems only to be exploding , and not diminishing .
Searching is a joke and hopeless unless you 're know how to start indexing arcane file extensions again and turn off animated characters , and control panel is just a maze of options everywhere.The designers in Microsoft should copy much more of Apples designs - blindly rather than trying to think too much by themselves .
They just have no clue what makes good design - or they 're forced by a clueless management to " make things simple " ( but getting the opposite effect by cluttering everywhere ) .
Vista is a big pain to navigate through.. Soo much redundancy.. aah. Glad I upgraded back to XP at least ; - ) And do n't get me started of " hiding " menu items in MS Office and the Start Menu .
Could you confuse your users more ? ?
Most people do n't even know you can turn such fucked up " features " up even !
( " Fuck " in this context is entirely justifiable.. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your UI sounds like something I would run away from screaming.But maybe you could get it to work.
Who knows?
:-)The panel in OS X is pretty simple and customizable.
I like that better, but am stuck with the taskbar and silly grouping and hiding everywhere.
All "panel" or "virtual desktop" projects on Windows are just horrible hacks.
Most defaults in XP works though, but not as simple and powerful as it could have been.
Why do we need desktop icons, start menu, "quick launch", task bar and "notification" icons?
If you look at exploder in Vista, the redundancy seems only to be exploding, and not diminishing.
Searching is a joke and hopeless unless you're know how to start indexing arcane file extensions again and turn off animated characters, and control panel is just a maze of options everywhere.The designers in Microsoft should copy much more of Apples designs - blindly rather than trying to think too much by themselves.
They just have no clue what makes good design - or they're forced by a clueless management to "make things simple" (but getting the opposite effect by cluttering everywhere).
Vista is a big pain to navigate through.. Soo much redundancy.. aah. Glad I upgraded back to XP at least ;-)And don't get me started of "hiding" menu items in MS Office and the Start Menu.
Could you confuse your users more??
Most people don't even know you can turn such fucked up "features" up even!
("Fuck" in this context is entirely justifiable.. ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346716</id>
	<title>Re:Simply put</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1260100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if it consumes only a small amount of hard disk space and a small amount of memory, multiply that by a 100 or so and you realize that installing every feature simply because you can is not a good idea. And you say it must be "stable", but you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of code that has never had a bugfix. More code is more opportunity for system stability bugs and security bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it consumes only a small amount of hard disk space and a small amount of memory , multiply that by a 100 or so and you realize that installing every feature simply because you can is not a good idea .
And you say it must be " stable " , but you 'd be hard pressed to find a piece of code that has never had a bugfix .
More code is more opportunity for system stability bugs and security bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it consumes only a small amount of hard disk space and a small amount of memory, multiply that by a 100 or so and you realize that installing every feature simply because you can is not a good idea.
And you say it must be "stable", but you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of code that has never had a bugfix.
More code is more opportunity for system stability bugs and security bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353238</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1260202560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things, such as your email or an IM conversation.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But you can't actually read two different web pages, answer an email and conduct an IM conversation simultaneously.  You can flick between them at whatever speed you like, but you're only doing one thing at a time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things , such as your email or an IM conversation .
But you ca n't actually read two different web pages , answer an email and conduct an IM conversation simultaneously .
You can flick between them at whatever speed you like , but you 're only doing one thing at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can use the leftover space to keep an eye on other things, such as your email or an IM conversation.
But you can't actually read two different web pages, answer an email and conduct an IM conversation simultaneously.
You can flick between them at whatever speed you like, but you're only doing one thing at a time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30355418</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>hurikhan77</author>
	<datestamp>1260211860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, having focus and "window in front" not being the same is very useful (but usually totally confusing to Windoze users sometimes using my desktop *hehe*).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , having focus and " window in front " not being the same is very useful ( but usually totally confusing to Windoze users sometimes using my desktop * hehe * ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, having focus and "window in front" not being the same is very useful (but usually totally confusing to Windoze users sometimes using my desktop *hehe*).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346438</id>
	<title>How about making it stable?</title>
	<author>SlightOverdose</author>
	<datestamp>1260098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far I've tried several releases of KDE4 and every one of them has been buggy as hell. Constant crashes, graphics glitches, and general random unpolished fuckups.</p><p>How about locking down functionality for a few months and focusing on stability? It's gotten so bad I've switched over to Gnome after many, MANY years of being an adamant KDE supporter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far I 've tried several releases of KDE4 and every one of them has been buggy as hell .
Constant crashes , graphics glitches , and general random unpolished fuckups.How about locking down functionality for a few months and focusing on stability ?
It 's gotten so bad I 've switched over to Gnome after many , MANY years of being an adamant KDE supporter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far I've tried several releases of KDE4 and every one of them has been buggy as hell.
Constant crashes, graphics glitches, and general random unpolished fuckups.How about locking down functionality for a few months and focusing on stability?
It's gotten so bad I've switched over to Gnome after many, MANY years of being an adamant KDE supporter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354002</id>
	<title>Uh...taskbar?</title>
	<author>jduhls</author>
	<datestamp>1260205860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I dragged my Windows taskbar to the top of my desktop and, viola: tabs for my applications.  Then, using <a href="http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">VirtuaWin</a> [sourceforge.net], I have multiple application "windows".  Go figure. This is sooo 2001.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I dragged my Windows taskbar to the top of my desktop and , viola : tabs for my applications .
Then , using VirtuaWin [ sourceforge.net ] , I have multiple application " windows " .
Go figure .
This is sooo 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I dragged my Windows taskbar to the top of my desktop and, viola: tabs for my applications.
Then, using VirtuaWin [sourceforge.net], I have multiple application "windows".
Go figure.
This is sooo 2001.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized. As far as I can tell, you'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs, and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work. I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows, and I hate when they are not fullscreen (or minimized). Yes I know about "Tile Windows Horizontally" but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view. Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , what 's the point of having windows not Maximized .
As far as I can tell , you 'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs , and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work .
I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows , and I hate when they are not fullscreen ( or minimized ) .
Yes I know about " Tile Windows Horizontally " but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view .
Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize does n't even always make a window full screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized.
As far as I can tell, you'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs, and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work.
I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows, and I hate when they are not fullscreen (or minimized).
Yes I know about "Tile Windows Horizontally" but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view.
Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350934</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, FFS ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260184260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open."</p><p>So it's a minor change to the multiple virtual desktops idea? Just replace "windows" with "virtual desktops" in the quote above.</p><p>Ubuntu/Gnome has this as a default. Windows XP has some small tool from MS that enables virtual desktops, etc. You just click a button on the taskbar et voila, you are in another desktop-taskbar-application-grouping-thingamajig-environment.</p><p>Sounds like another "Uuhh random-buzzword sound so hip and cool and trendy, let's call it random-buzzword!" idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents , you do n't have one taskbar ; you have as many " taskbars " as you have windows open .
" So it 's a minor change to the multiple virtual desktops idea ?
Just replace " windows " with " virtual desktops " in the quote above.Ubuntu/Gnome has this as a default .
Windows XP has some small tool from MS that enables virtual desktops , etc .
You just click a button on the taskbar et voila , you are in another desktop-taskbar-application-grouping-thingamajig-environment.Sounds like another " Uuhh random-buzzword sound so hip and cool and trendy , let 's call it random-buzzword !
" idea ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open.
"So it's a minor change to the multiple virtual desktops idea?
Just replace "windows" with "virtual desktops" in the quote above.Ubuntu/Gnome has this as a default.
Windows XP has some small tool from MS that enables virtual desktops, etc.
You just click a button on the taskbar et voila, you are in another desktop-taskbar-application-grouping-thingamajig-environment.Sounds like another "Uuhh random-buzzword sound so hip and cool and trendy, let's call it random-buzzword!
" idea ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350396</id>
	<title>Don't we already have that?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1260178080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Tabbing", correct me if I'm wrong, is where you have the name of various different pages or programmes lined up next to each other, where clicking them brings that page/programme to the front.</p><p>On an application level, isn't that just the taskbar? Surely "tabbed browsing" and such is just bringing the main taskbar concept to an individual programme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tabbing " , correct me if I 'm wrong , is where you have the name of various different pages or programmes lined up next to each other , where clicking them brings that page/programme to the front.On an application level , is n't that just the taskbar ?
Surely " tabbed browsing " and such is just bringing the main taskbar concept to an individual programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tabbing", correct me if I'm wrong, is where you have the name of various different pages or programmes lined up next to each other, where clicking them brings that page/programme to the front.On an application level, isn't that just the taskbar?
Surely "tabbed browsing" and such is just bringing the main taskbar concept to an individual programme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346988</id>
	<title>Turn your widescreen monitor to portrait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turn your widescreen monitor to portrait.<br>Or better yet, if you have 2 monitors.  1 portrait (web, text editing) and 1 landscape (spreadsheets, movies, video games).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turn your widescreen monitor to portrait.Or better yet , if you have 2 monitors .
1 portrait ( web , text editing ) and 1 landscape ( spreadsheets , movies , video games ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turn your widescreen monitor to portrait.Or better yet, if you have 2 monitors.
1 portrait (web, text editing) and 1 landscape (spreadsheets, movies, video games).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349548</id>
	<title>How recursive will this get?</title>
	<author>Imazalil</author>
	<datestamp>1260124080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I will have my OS tabs between IE and Firefox (or whatever) then tabs inside each application? Will MS Office just be a black hole then? top-level OS tabs to get to Excel, tabs inside excel for different files, the ribbon thing (pretty much tabs) for functionality, and then tabs to switch between worksheets? I'm sure all these tabs will have popup thumbnail previews as well, and half the population will die of epileptic seizures just moving their mouse from one corner of screen to the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I will have my OS tabs between IE and Firefox ( or whatever ) then tabs inside each application ?
Will MS Office just be a black hole then ?
top-level OS tabs to get to Excel , tabs inside excel for different files , the ribbon thing ( pretty much tabs ) for functionality , and then tabs to switch between worksheets ?
I 'm sure all these tabs will have popup thumbnail previews as well , and half the population will die of epileptic seizures just moving their mouse from one corner of screen to the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I will have my OS tabs between IE and Firefox (or whatever) then tabs inside each application?
Will MS Office just be a black hole then?
top-level OS tabs to get to Excel, tabs inside excel for different files, the ribbon thing (pretty much tabs) for functionality, and then tabs to switch between worksheets?
I'm sure all these tabs will have popup thumbnail previews as well, and half the population will die of epileptic seizures just moving their mouse from one corner of screen to the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353742</id>
	<title>Re:There are lots of tabbed WMs out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever people say things like "X is too resource heavy" I wonder WTF they are using the rest of their cpu cycles or memory for.  I mean, RAM is incredibly cheap, I wonder how much time they are wasting with their "better, lighter" WM...  I just bought 4GB of RAM and don't worry about it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever people say things like " X is too resource heavy " I wonder WTF they are using the rest of their cpu cycles or memory for .
I mean , RAM is incredibly cheap , I wonder how much time they are wasting with their " better , lighter " WM... I just bought 4GB of RAM and do n't worry about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever people say things like "X is too resource heavy" I wonder WTF they are using the rest of their cpu cycles or memory for.
I mean, RAM is incredibly cheap, I wonder how much time they are wasting with their "better, lighter" WM...  I just bought 4GB of RAM and don't worry about it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350668</id>
	<title>Use compiz</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front. If anyone knows how to disable that, I'd appreciate it.</p></div><p>Don't use metacity.</p><p>In Compiz, ccsm, General Settings, Focus &amp; Raise Behaviour, disable "Click to Focus" and "Raise on Click".</p><p>(If you don't have the mouse buttons to dedicate one just to raising windows, binding Alt-mouse1 to both raise and move works fairly well.  All I'd wish for is that the move functionality waited for me to drag the window a few, say 5, pixels before wobbling my windows;  openbox does this the right way.)</p><p>Or use openbox, <tt>vim ~/.config/openbox/rc.xml</tt>, read the comments, change "yes" to "no" (or vice versa) at the right places.  It integrates with gnome just as well as metacity and gives you the flexibility and "crackrock features" (in the words of Metacity designer Havoc Pennington) you want.</p><p>I'm all for the crack rock, btw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front .
If anyone knows how to disable that , I 'd appreciate it.Do n't use metacity.In Compiz , ccsm , General Settings , Focus &amp; Raise Behaviour , disable " Click to Focus " and " Raise on Click " .
( If you do n't have the mouse buttons to dedicate one just to raising windows , binding Alt-mouse1 to both raise and move works fairly well .
All I 'd wish for is that the move functionality waited for me to drag the window a few , say 5 , pixels before wobbling my windows ; openbox does this the right way .
) Or use openbox , vim ~ /.config/openbox/rc.xml , read the comments , change " yes " to " no " ( or vice versa ) at the right places .
It integrates with gnome just as well as metacity and gives you the flexibility and " crackrock features " ( in the words of Metacity designer Havoc Pennington ) you want.I 'm all for the crack rock , btw : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>clicking in the window with the focus brings that window to the front.
If anyone knows how to disable that, I'd appreciate it.Don't use metacity.In Compiz, ccsm, General Settings, Focus &amp; Raise Behaviour, disable "Click to Focus" and "Raise on Click".
(If you don't have the mouse buttons to dedicate one just to raising windows, binding Alt-mouse1 to both raise and move works fairly well.
All I'd wish for is that the move functionality waited for me to drag the window a few, say 5, pixels before wobbling my windows;  openbox does this the right way.
)Or use openbox, vim ~/.config/openbox/rc.xml, read the comments, change "yes" to "no" (or vice versa) at the right places.
It integrates with gnome just as well as metacity and gives you the flexibility and "crackrock features" (in the words of Metacity designer Havoc Pennington) you want.I'm all for the crack rock, btw :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347616</id>
	<title>Re:Less Simply put</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1260106560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never found it stable enough to install on anyone's pc. It's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who aren't very computer literate.</p></div><p>What exactly do you mean here by not stable? KDE 4.3 is stable as could be on my system. KDE 3.5 was too, although the earlier KDE 4 releases obviously had there problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never found it stable enough to install on anyone 's pc .
It 's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who are n't very computer literate.What exactly do you mean here by not stable ?
KDE 4.3 is stable as could be on my system .
KDE 3.5 was too , although the earlier KDE 4 releases obviously had there problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never found it stable enough to install on anyone's pc.
It's just too easy to stuff up the taskbar etc and too busy/confusing for people who aren't very computer literate.What exactly do you mean here by not stable?
KDE 4.3 is stable as could be on my system.
KDE 3.5 was too, although the earlier KDE 4 releases obviously had there problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347458</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1260105480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the original Mac WIMP implementation</p></div><p>a.k.a. the "WIMPlementation"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the original Mac WIMP implementationa.k.a .
the " WIMPlementation "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the original Mac WIMP implementationa.k.a.
the "WIMPlementation"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351268</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new feature but new in a big DE, I think</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just going to post how to turn on group and tab windows on Ubuntu Karmic, but I just turned it on and it doesn't work. I've used it before... I wonder if Ubuntu or Compiz fucked this up, they both have long histories of breaking good things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just going to post how to turn on group and tab windows on Ubuntu Karmic , but I just turned it on and it does n't work .
I 've used it before... I wonder if Ubuntu or Compiz fucked this up , they both have long histories of breaking good things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just going to post how to turn on group and tab windows on Ubuntu Karmic, but I just turned it on and it doesn't work.
I've used it before... I wonder if Ubuntu or Compiz fucked this up, they both have long histories of breaking good things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348754</id>
	<title>been using fluxbox for 5 years now</title>
	<author>t35t0r</author>
	<datestamp>1260115680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and the only reason why I don't use KDE3 (4.0 sucked when I tried it) is because it really didn't have tabbed windows (the BII window theme doesn't really count). When fully tabbed windows come back to KDE I'll try it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the only reason why I do n't use KDE3 ( 4.0 sucked when I tried it ) is because it really did n't have tabbed windows ( the BII window theme does n't really count ) .
When fully tabbed windows come back to KDE I 'll try it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the only reason why I don't use KDE3 (4.0 sucked when I tried it) is because it really didn't have tabbed windows (the BII window theme doesn't really count).
When fully tabbed windows come back to KDE I'll try it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350340</id>
	<title>isn't it the same as virtual desktop?</title>
	<author>mcn</author>
	<datestamp>1260177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like virtual desktops in the form of tabs. Instead of putting a bunch of windows in deskop1 and another bunch in desktop2, now I put a bunch of windows in windows-tab1 and another bunch in windows-tab2. What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like virtual desktops in the form of tabs .
Instead of putting a bunch of windows in deskop1 and another bunch in desktop2 , now I put a bunch of windows in windows-tab1 and another bunch in windows-tab2 .
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like virtual desktops in the form of tabs.
Instead of putting a bunch of windows in deskop1 and another bunch in desktop2, now I put a bunch of windows in windows-tab1 and another bunch in windows-tab2.
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232</id>
	<title>Re:Simply put</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an option. You can choose not to use it. It could be handy in some situations or appeal to particular users in which case you can use it. As long as it's stable and doesn't consume resources unduly, why wouldn't you want the option?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an option .
You can choose not to use it .
It could be handy in some situations or appeal to particular users in which case you can use it .
As long as it 's stable and does n't consume resources unduly , why would n't you want the option ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an option.
You can choose not to use it.
It could be handy in some situations or appeal to particular users in which case you can use it.
As long as it's stable and doesn't consume resources unduly, why wouldn't you want the option?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382</id>
	<title>Tab bars versus taskbars?  WTF?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1260097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rather disappointing that even now there are still people who think that "bars" crammed full of "tabs" with truncated text are somehow a game-changing paradigm shift compared to "bars" crammed full of "buttons" with truncated text.</p><p>More of the same, please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather disappointing that even now there are still people who think that " bars " crammed full of " tabs " with truncated text are somehow a game-changing paradigm shift compared to " bars " crammed full of " buttons " with truncated text.More of the same , please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather disappointing that even now there are still people who think that "bars" crammed full of "tabs" with truncated text are somehow a game-changing paradigm shift compared to "bars" crammed full of "buttons" with truncated text.More of the same, please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152</id>
	<title>Not sure</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1260096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content. For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace. Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window. Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content .
For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace .
Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window .
Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that in OS X maximize sized the window to the content.
For instance if the thing is small it will not expand the window and fill it up with whitespace.
Seems a bit smarter to me than having an overly large window.
Of course if the content spans past the dimensions of the monitor then it will go full screen to try and fit as much possible in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352234</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260197940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Metacity: Left click on title bar, "Always on Top" checkbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Metacity : Left click on title bar , " Always on Top " checkbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Metacity: Left click on title bar, "Always on Top" checkbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347714</id>
	<title>YouTube have it</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1260107220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a nice walk through of some of the KDE 4.4 additions in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEuapaLJF8g" title="youtube.com">this YouTube clip</a> [youtube.com].   The <b>Window Grouping</b> preview starts at 4:28 into the show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a nice walk through of some of the KDE 4.4 additions in this YouTube clip [ youtube.com ] .
The Window Grouping preview starts at 4 : 28 into the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a nice walk through of some of the KDE 4.4 additions in this YouTube clip [youtube.com].
The Window Grouping preview starts at 4:28 into the show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30374702</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new feature but new in a big DE, I think</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1260301620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well it's all nice but I don't like clicking every time I want to chenge application. Better have them in separate windows.<br>So it would be rather better to have tabbed desktops, or just plain simple desktops. Oh we already have that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>What I really like is focus follows mouse without automatic window raising. That's my most effective working setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well it 's all nice but I do n't like clicking every time I want to chenge application .
Better have them in separate windows.So it would be rather better to have tabbed desktops , or just plain simple desktops .
Oh we already have that : - ) What I really like is focus follows mouse without automatic window raising .
That 's my most effective working setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well it's all nice but I don't like clicking every time I want to chenge application.
Better have them in separate windows.So it would be rather better to have tabbed desktops, or just plain simple desktops.
Oh we already have that :-)What I really like is focus follows mouse without automatic window raising.
That's my most effective working setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360952</id>
	<title>IceWM can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With IceWM you can use the RaiseOnClickClient and RaiseOnClickTitleBar properties to fine tune this behaviour to your liking.</p><p>HTH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With IceWM you can use the RaiseOnClickClient and RaiseOnClickTitleBar properties to fine tune this behaviour to your liking.HTH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With IceWM you can use the RaiseOnClickClient and RaiseOnClickTitleBar properties to fine tune this behaviour to your liking.HTH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276</id>
	<title>Oh, FFS ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I clicked on this story, I knew there would countless comments saying, "We've already got this, it's called the taskbar" or words to that effect.</p><p><b>It's not the same thing.</b>  With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open.  This isn't necessarily something you'd want to do all the time, but I can certainly see how it would be useful in some situations.  If I'm working on multiple code files, and for each of those files I have two or three browser windows open containing references for the specific file (a common enough occurrence in my field, which is bioinformatics; it's considered good form to put references to the appropriate journal articles in the code comments) then it would be very nice to be able to group the code and the browser windows in this way -- i.e., instead of a few code tabs in one window and a bunch of reference tabs in another window, for each chunk of code there would be associated references.  If I could save those multi-tabbed windows and open them back up the same way the next time I got back to work on the project, so much the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I clicked on this story , I knew there would countless comments saying , " We 've already got this , it 's called the taskbar " or words to that effect.It 's not the same thing .
With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents , you do n't have one taskbar ; you have as many " taskbars " as you have windows open .
This is n't necessarily something you 'd want to do all the time , but I can certainly see how it would be useful in some situations .
If I 'm working on multiple code files , and for each of those files I have two or three browser windows open containing references for the specific file ( a common enough occurrence in my field , which is bioinformatics ; it 's considered good form to put references to the appropriate journal articles in the code comments ) then it would be very nice to be able to group the code and the browser windows in this way -- i.e. , instead of a few code tabs in one window and a bunch of reference tabs in another window , for each chunk of code there would be associated references .
If I could save those multi-tabbed windows and open them back up the same way the next time I got back to work on the project , so much the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I clicked on this story, I knew there would countless comments saying, "We've already got this, it's called the taskbar" or words to that effect.It's not the same thing.
With windows containing tabs for multiple applications and/or documents, you don't have one taskbar; you have as many "taskbars" as you have windows open.
This isn't necessarily something you'd want to do all the time, but I can certainly see how it would be useful in some situations.
If I'm working on multiple code files, and for each of those files I have two or three browser windows open containing references for the specific file (a common enough occurrence in my field, which is bioinformatics; it's considered good form to put references to the appropriate journal articles in the code comments) then it would be very nice to be able to group the code and the browser windows in this way -- i.e., instead of a few code tabs in one window and a bunch of reference tabs in another window, for each chunk of code there would be associated references.
If I could save those multi-tabbed windows and open them back up the same way the next time I got back to work on the project, so much the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347668</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>mR.bRiGhTsId3</author>
	<datestamp>1260106980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mac gets this right too. I particularly how when I drag something onto an app on the Dock, I get an expos&#233; view with all of the documents for that application. I used to think the drag/drop was unwieldy when I primarily used Windows and Linux. Then when I switched to Mac, I've come to realize that metaphor isn't flawed, only the implementation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac gets this right too .
I particularly how when I drag something onto an app on the Dock , I get an expos   view with all of the documents for that application .
I used to think the drag/drop was unwieldy when I primarily used Windows and Linux .
Then when I switched to Mac , I 've come to realize that metaphor is n't flawed , only the implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac gets this right too.
I particularly how when I drag something onto an app on the Dock, I get an exposé view with all of the documents for that application.
I used to think the drag/drop was unwieldy when I primarily used Windows and Linux.
Then when I switched to Mac, I've come to realize that metaphor isn't flawed, only the implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351704</id>
	<title>Re:No, they won't.</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1260195360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hold you tongue! We'll all be out of a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold you tongue !
We 'll all be out of a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold you tongue!
We'll all be out of a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351226</id>
	<title>Window tabs for Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260189060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WindowsTabs - http://www.windowtabs.com</p><p>Grouping developer tools together or Outlook email messages can be very useful and tidy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WindowsTabs - http : //www.windowtabs.comGrouping developer tools together or Outlook email messages can be very useful and tidy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WindowsTabs - http://www.windowtabs.comGrouping developer tools together or Outlook email messages can be very useful and tidy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348352</id>
	<title>Re: MDI</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1260111900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in the old (3.x) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows. Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window, so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs. "</p><p>Is THAT where that started? I supposed the OS had to "own" dependencies somehow, but I'm 1 comp generation too late to know how the whole mess started. I think I've been seeing web apps able to pop windows out lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in the old ( 3.x ) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows .
Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window , so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs .
" Is THAT where that started ?
I supposed the OS had to " own " dependencies somehow , but I 'm 1 comp generation too late to know how the whole mess started .
I think I 've been seeing web apps able to pop windows out lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in the old (3.x) days of Windows it was much more common to have actual windows.
Then MDI came along and limited you to moving docs within the space of the parent window, so the only thing was to maximize the Window if you wanted to compare docs.
"Is THAT where that started?
I supposed the OS had to "own" dependencies somehow, but I'm 1 comp generation too late to know how the whole mess started.
I think I've been seeing web apps able to pop windows out lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353124</id>
	<title>Re:Tab bars versus taskbars? WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should try compiz window grouping, pretty much just like the tab things but you get a small rendered windows of the various windows that are tabbed together and they only appear when you mouse over the top bar of the window group</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try compiz window grouping , pretty much just like the tab things but you get a small rendered windows of the various windows that are tabbed together and they only appear when you mouse over the top bar of the window group</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try compiz window grouping, pretty much just like the tab things but you get a small rendered windows of the various windows that are tabbed together and they only appear when you mouse over the top bar of the window group</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346712</id>
	<title>Much better than grouping on the task bar</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Windows implementation of grouping windows on the task bar was rather annoying. I would much rather see tabs within the applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows implementation of grouping windows on the task bar was rather annoying .
I would much rather see tabs within the applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows implementation of grouping windows on the task bar was rather annoying.
I would much rather see tabs within the applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347482</id>
	<title>Virtual Desktops</title>
	<author>ProzacPatient</author>
	<datestamp>1260105660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of desktop environments support multiple desktops and someway to switch between them (The Compiz Cube is probably the most famous), so I really don't see the point in tabbing applications.<br>
I use virtual desktops to divide up what I'm doing at the time (e.g. desktop #1 contains browser and chat applications, desktop #2 contains graphics applications, etc..) and I really wish Windows supported this natively for when I'm not working with Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of desktop environments support multiple desktops and someway to switch between them ( The Compiz Cube is probably the most famous ) , so I really do n't see the point in tabbing applications .
I use virtual desktops to divide up what I 'm doing at the time ( e.g .
desktop # 1 contains browser and chat applications , desktop # 2 contains graphics applications , etc.. ) and I really wish Windows supported this natively for when I 'm not working with Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of desktop environments support multiple desktops and someway to switch between them (The Compiz Cube is probably the most famous), so I really don't see the point in tabbing applications.
I use virtual desktops to divide up what I'm doing at the time (e.g.
desktop #1 contains browser and chat applications, desktop #2 contains graphics applications, etc..) and I really wish Windows supported this natively for when I'm not working with Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353506</id>
	<title>Re:Less Simply put</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260203700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>gedit, nautilus, firefox, gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once. Tabs within a lot of apps make sense.</p></div><p>Tabs *can* be useful, but they can also prevent you from seeing two things at once.</p><p>For instance, it&rsquo;s a pain to get two spreadsheets opened in Excel side-by-side. It&rsquo;s much nicer, when you want to view two spreadsheets side-by-side, to just have two separate Excel windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>gedit , nautilus , firefox , gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once .
Tabs within a lot of apps make sense.Tabs * can * be useful , but they can also prevent you from seeing two things at once.For instance , it    s a pain to get two spreadsheets opened in Excel side-by-side .
It    s much nicer , when you want to view two spreadsheets side-by-side , to just have two separate Excel windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gedit, nautilus, firefox, gnome-terminal etc all have tab capabilities and I find all of them quite useful for having several things running IN THE SAME APPLICATION at once.
Tabs within a lot of apps make sense.Tabs *can* be useful, but they can also prevent you from seeing two things at once.For instance, it’s a pain to get two spreadsheets opened in Excel side-by-side.
It’s much nicer, when you want to view two spreadsheets side-by-side, to just have two separate Excel windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346420</id>
	<title>Screenshots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=\%22kde\%204.4\%22\%20\%22tabbed\%20windows\%22" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Just use Google.</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Just use Google .
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Just use Google.
[google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30357760</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>MrNiceguy\_KS</author>
	<datestamp>1260180300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even worse: Windows doesn't allow much interaction with Windows that don't currently have the focus. On OS X I often scroll in a windows that doesn't have focus (such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground); Windows assumes that just because I didn't click into the browser window I can't possibly want to scroll it. Well, or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I haven't managed to locate the setting.</p></div><p>As far as I've found, scrolling without focus can't be done out-of-the-box with Windows.  However, the Scrollpoint drivers that come installed with nearly every laptop, and come bundled with a lot of mice will allow this.</p><p>In addition to scrolling where you're pointing, I love how Linux, (or at least, Ubuntu Gnome, as I haven't worked with much else,)  will let you move any window, even if it's not the active window.  I hate trying to move a dialog box so I can look at my document, only to get dinged at because there's a sub-dialog box open.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse : Windows does n't allow much interaction with Windows that do n't currently have the focus .
On OS X I often scroll in a windows that does n't have focus ( such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground ) ; Windows assumes that just because I did n't click into the browser window I ca n't possibly want to scroll it .
Well , or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I have n't managed to locate the setting.As far as I 've found , scrolling without focus ca n't be done out-of-the-box with Windows .
However , the Scrollpoint drivers that come installed with nearly every laptop , and come bundled with a lot of mice will allow this.In addition to scrolling where you 're pointing , I love how Linux , ( or at least , Ubuntu Gnome , as I have n't worked with much else , ) will let you move any window , even if it 's not the active window .
I hate trying to move a dialog box so I can look at my document , only to get dinged at because there 's a sub-dialog box open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse: Windows doesn't allow much interaction with Windows that don't currently have the focus.
On OS X I often scroll in a windows that doesn't have focus (such as scrolling a manual page in my browser while XCode is in the foreground); Windows assumes that just because I didn't click into the browser window I can't possibly want to scroll it.
Well, or you have to enable scrolling without focus and I haven't managed to locate the setting.As far as I've found, scrolling without focus can't be done out-of-the-box with Windows.
However, the Scrollpoint drivers that come installed with nearly every laptop, and come bundled with a lot of mice will allow this.In addition to scrolling where you're pointing, I love how Linux, (or at least, Ubuntu Gnome, as I haven't worked with much else,)  will let you move any window, even if it's not the active window.
I hate trying to move a dialog box so I can look at my document, only to get dinged at because there's a sub-dialog box open.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346536</id>
	<title>Positively Entirely Absolutely Not</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1260098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think about it, the greatness of tabs as they are now is to avoid clutter in your taskbar by bundling multiple iterations of the same program into one window. I could see tabbing expanding into other programs, perhaps, but the taskbar as it is now serves, essentially, as tabbing of different programs already. Tabbed windows would only be a novelty, or serve a niche market, such as people who use many, many programs at once, or people on netbooks who use a moderate number of programs at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , the greatness of tabs as they are now is to avoid clutter in your taskbar by bundling multiple iterations of the same program into one window .
I could see tabbing expanding into other programs , perhaps , but the taskbar as it is now serves , essentially , as tabbing of different programs already .
Tabbed windows would only be a novelty , or serve a niche market , such as people who use many , many programs at once , or people on netbooks who use a moderate number of programs at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, the greatness of tabs as they are now is to avoid clutter in your taskbar by bundling multiple iterations of the same program into one window.
I could see tabbing expanding into other programs, perhaps, but the taskbar as it is now serves, essentially, as tabbing of different programs already.
Tabbed windows would only be a novelty, or serve a niche market, such as people who use many, many programs at once, or people on netbooks who use a moderate number of programs at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346354</id>
	<title>mod uP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">worlD will have distributions</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>worlD will have distributions [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>worlD will have distributions [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360596</id>
	<title>Re:tiling window managers</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1260198060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I think this would actually help a lot of beginners, since overlapping windows still confuse many users."</p><p>Not just beginners. I'm one of the people who generally maximises windows - not just because I don't have a huge Cinerama screen (though I don't), but because overlapping windows are just nasty and inefficient to work with, from an interaction perspective. You swing the mouse and click; you don't know whether your click is going to switch to the window you hoped to hit, or whether you were a few pixels off and you might accidentally raise an overlapping window, and now you can't see all of the window you wanted. You can't always 'unraise' a window as easily as raising it - you may have to hunt around for the task bar or dock to find the window you were originally looking for.</p><p>Plus, once your target window is raised and selected, now you have to deal with optimising the precise position and size of it. The size might be incorrect, meaning you can't see all of the panes (which is likely on Windows if it's just been launched with application defaults, which might be under-sized for the way you want to view it); the size might be correct but the position incorrect (which is likely on Mac with a big but not huge screen if you've slid it off the side of the desktop to get it temporarily out of the way while you work on something else). So there's more hunting, first for the top of the window so you can drag it to the right place, then to the tiny grab target on the bottom-right so you can resize it. You have to hold the mouse button pressed while you do all this, putting strain on your wrist while you make complex circular motions, which is not pleasant to do if you don't have to.</p><p>And, if you don't get the window lined up precisely to the pixel-perfect edge of the screen or the edge of adjoining windows, Fitt's Law kicks in with a vengeance. If windows are maximised, they're effectively infinite in size - hit the edge of the screen and you're still inside them. If they're one pixel away, suddenly they're not. Hit the edge of the screen or the window and foom, you're now talking not to the window but to the desktop, and that's almost always not what you want.</p><p>All of this complex paper-shuffling - simulating a messy desk - goes away if your window manager has some kind of maximising/tiling function. If windows have a small range of acceptable positions and sizes, you just don't have to worry about fiddling with them.They're just there doing what you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think this would actually help a lot of beginners , since overlapping windows still confuse many users .
" Not just beginners .
I 'm one of the people who generally maximises windows - not just because I do n't have a huge Cinerama screen ( though I do n't ) , but because overlapping windows are just nasty and inefficient to work with , from an interaction perspective .
You swing the mouse and click ; you do n't know whether your click is going to switch to the window you hoped to hit , or whether you were a few pixels off and you might accidentally raise an overlapping window , and now you ca n't see all of the window you wanted .
You ca n't always 'unraise ' a window as easily as raising it - you may have to hunt around for the task bar or dock to find the window you were originally looking for.Plus , once your target window is raised and selected , now you have to deal with optimising the precise position and size of it .
The size might be incorrect , meaning you ca n't see all of the panes ( which is likely on Windows if it 's just been launched with application defaults , which might be under-sized for the way you want to view it ) ; the size might be correct but the position incorrect ( which is likely on Mac with a big but not huge screen if you 've slid it off the side of the desktop to get it temporarily out of the way while you work on something else ) .
So there 's more hunting , first for the top of the window so you can drag it to the right place , then to the tiny grab target on the bottom-right so you can resize it .
You have to hold the mouse button pressed while you do all this , putting strain on your wrist while you make complex circular motions , which is not pleasant to do if you do n't have to.And , if you do n't get the window lined up precisely to the pixel-perfect edge of the screen or the edge of adjoining windows , Fitt 's Law kicks in with a vengeance .
If windows are maximised , they 're effectively infinite in size - hit the edge of the screen and you 're still inside them .
If they 're one pixel away , suddenly they 're not .
Hit the edge of the screen or the window and foom , you 're now talking not to the window but to the desktop , and that 's almost always not what you want.All of this complex paper-shuffling - simulating a messy desk - goes away if your window manager has some kind of maximising/tiling function .
If windows have a small range of acceptable positions and sizes , you just do n't have to worry about fiddling with them.They 're just there doing what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think this would actually help a lot of beginners, since overlapping windows still confuse many users.
"Not just beginners.
I'm one of the people who generally maximises windows - not just because I don't have a huge Cinerama screen (though I don't), but because overlapping windows are just nasty and inefficient to work with, from an interaction perspective.
You swing the mouse and click; you don't know whether your click is going to switch to the window you hoped to hit, or whether you were a few pixels off and you might accidentally raise an overlapping window, and now you can't see all of the window you wanted.
You can't always 'unraise' a window as easily as raising it - you may have to hunt around for the task bar or dock to find the window you were originally looking for.Plus, once your target window is raised and selected, now you have to deal with optimising the precise position and size of it.
The size might be incorrect, meaning you can't see all of the panes (which is likely on Windows if it's just been launched with application defaults, which might be under-sized for the way you want to view it); the size might be correct but the position incorrect (which is likely on Mac with a big but not huge screen if you've slid it off the side of the desktop to get it temporarily out of the way while you work on something else).
So there's more hunting, first for the top of the window so you can drag it to the right place, then to the tiny grab target on the bottom-right so you can resize it.
You have to hold the mouse button pressed while you do all this, putting strain on your wrist while you make complex circular motions, which is not pleasant to do if you don't have to.And, if you don't get the window lined up precisely to the pixel-perfect edge of the screen or the edge of adjoining windows, Fitt's Law kicks in with a vengeance.
If windows are maximised, they're effectively infinite in size - hit the edge of the screen and you're still inside them.
If they're one pixel away, suddenly they're not.
Hit the edge of the screen or the window and foom, you're now talking not to the window but to the desktop, and that's almost always not what you want.All of this complex paper-shuffling - simulating a messy desk - goes away if your window manager has some kind of maximising/tiling function.
If windows have a small range of acceptable positions and sizes, you just don't have to worry about fiddling with them.They're just there doing what you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346834</id>
	<title>Wonderful</title>
	<author>abulafia</author>
	<datestamp>1260101040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I can stick my <a href="http://shareme.com/screenshot/toad-for-sql-server.html" title="shareme.com">tabbed</a> [shareme.com] <a href="http://www.gauntface.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Screenshot-Java-Where-To-Do-res-drawable-SingleButton.xml-Eclipse-Platform--1024x576.png" title="gauntface.co.uk">windows</a> [gauntface.co.uk] in a tabbed window? Great! But it would be better if, instead of multiple desktops, I could have a tabbed desktop, because tabs rock! And then VNC should support tabs for the different machines I use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can stick my tabbed [ shareme.com ] windows [ gauntface.co.uk ] in a tabbed window ?
Great ! But it would be better if , instead of multiple desktops , I could have a tabbed desktop , because tabs rock !
And then VNC should support tabs for the different machines I use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can stick my tabbed [shareme.com] windows [gauntface.co.uk] in a tabbed window?
Great! But it would be better if, instead of multiple desktops, I could have a tabbed desktop, because tabs rock!
And then VNC should support tabs for the different machines I use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353142</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1260202200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why Microsoft added the Gadget Bar. To fill up space that could not be taken up sufficiently by the application. It's a great way to make those annoyingly wide monitors feel more like your good ol' friendly standard monitor!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why Microsoft added the Gadget Bar .
To fill up space that could not be taken up sufficiently by the application .
It 's a great way to make those annoyingly wide monitors feel more like your good ol ' friendly standard monitor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why Microsoft added the Gadget Bar.
To fill up space that could not be taken up sufficiently by the application.
It's a great way to make those annoyingly wide monitors feel more like your good ol' friendly standard monitor!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348564</id>
	<title>Learn from Xerox</title>
	<author>grilled-cheese</author>
	<datestamp>1260113880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of a tab based OS has been done before with Windows 3.1 &amp; 95 when Xerox introduced their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TabWorks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">TabWorks</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://www.smartcomputing.com/images/smartcomputing/fullsize/393n1209.jpg" title="smartcomputing.com" rel="nofollow">GUI</a> [smartcomputing.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of a tab based OS has been done before with Windows 3.1 &amp; 95 when Xerox introduced their TabWorks [ wikipedia.org ] GUI [ smartcomputing.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of a tab based OS has been done before with Windows 3.1 &amp; 95 when Xerox introduced their TabWorks [wikipedia.org] GUI [smartcomputing.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346374</id>
	<title>Re:Simply put</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1260097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can have it all! Today! <a href="http://www.wintabber.com/" title="wintabber.com">http://www.wintabber.com/</a> [wintabber.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have it all !
Today ! http : //www.wintabber.com/ [ wintabber.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have it all!
Today! http://www.wintabber.com/ [wintabber.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346306</id>
	<title>Tabs are an abomination!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, I despise tabs. I like plain regular windows. I turn off tabs in IE, firefox, and every other application I can.</p><p>Why? I like to alt-tab between all of my windows. It's a fast &amp; easy way to cycle between different programs. With tabs I first have to switch to the application, then switch to the right tab with different keyboard shortcuts (and some applications don't have keyboard shortcuts to switch between tabs).</p><p>Death to tabs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I despise tabs .
I like plain regular windows .
I turn off tabs in IE , firefox , and every other application I can.Why ?
I like to alt-tab between all of my windows .
It 's a fast &amp; easy way to cycle between different programs .
With tabs I first have to switch to the application , then switch to the right tab with different keyboard shortcuts ( and some applications do n't have keyboard shortcuts to switch between tabs ) .Death to tabs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I despise tabs.
I like plain regular windows.
I turn off tabs in IE, firefox, and every other application I can.Why?
I like to alt-tab between all of my windows.
It's a fast &amp; easy way to cycle between different programs.
With tabs I first have to switch to the application, then switch to the right tab with different keyboard shortcuts (and some applications don't have keyboard shortcuts to switch between tabs).Death to tabs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347430</id>
	<title>WindowTabs does this on Windows</title>
	<author>Sosigenes</author>
	<datestamp>1260105300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A utility I found a while ago which I absolutely live by these days is WindowTabs, which gives the ability to use tabs in Windows - grouping things however you want, autogrouping by application and other fairly useful features.</p><p>It's found at <a href="http://www.windowtabs.com/" title="windowtabs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.windowtabs.com/</a> [windowtabs.com]</p><p>It's great when dealing with lots of putty windows, Outlook messages, switching between browser windows, vim windows and so forth.</p><p>Just thought I'd post this for anyone else looking for something like this, because I never realised something like this existed, so hopefully it'll help someone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A utility I found a while ago which I absolutely live by these days is WindowTabs , which gives the ability to use tabs in Windows - grouping things however you want , autogrouping by application and other fairly useful features.It 's found at http : //www.windowtabs.com/ [ windowtabs.com ] It 's great when dealing with lots of putty windows , Outlook messages , switching between browser windows , vim windows and so forth.Just thought I 'd post this for anyone else looking for something like this , because I never realised something like this existed , so hopefully it 'll help someone : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A utility I found a while ago which I absolutely live by these days is WindowTabs, which gives the ability to use tabs in Windows - grouping things however you want, autogrouping by application and other fairly useful features.It's found at http://www.windowtabs.com/ [windowtabs.com]It's great when dealing with lots of putty windows, Outlook messages, switching between browser windows, vim windows and so forth.Just thought I'd post this for anyone else looking for something like this, because I never realised something like this existed, so hopefully it'll help someone :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352464</id>
	<title>Because tabs are evil!</title>
	<author>Livius</author>
	<datestamp>1260198840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, not evil, I can see the appeal.  But not every software developer really gets the idea of 'option'.  Personally I despise tabs and it astonishes me how difficult it can be to turn them off or how often it's not even possible.  (I'm looking at you, Firefox!)  A nice idea, maybe, but I don't get the missionary zeal with which tabbed windows are being forced on people who are happy with sticking to what they've been using for 25 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , not evil , I can see the appeal .
But not every software developer really gets the idea of 'option' .
Personally I despise tabs and it astonishes me how difficult it can be to turn them off or how often it 's not even possible .
( I 'm looking at you , Firefox !
) A nice idea , maybe , but I do n't get the missionary zeal with which tabbed windows are being forced on people who are happy with sticking to what they 've been using for 25 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, not evil, I can see the appeal.
But not every software developer really gets the idea of 'option'.
Personally I despise tabs and it astonishes me how difficult it can be to turn them off or how often it's not even possible.
(I'm looking at you, Firefox!
)  A nice idea, maybe, but I don't get the missionary zeal with which tabbed windows are being forced on people who are happy with sticking to what they've been using for 25 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348574</id>
	<title>Interesting idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260114000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have it where you can also launch a whole group of programs at once that will come up in their own window with it's own taskbar type thing.

Lauch you IDE, refrence web pages, explorer window with project files, and anything else you might want to launch or maybe your web browser and IM client.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have it where you can also launch a whole group of programs at once that will come up in their own window with it 's own taskbar type thing .
Lauch you IDE , refrence web pages , explorer window with project files , and anything else you might want to launch or maybe your web browser and IM client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have it where you can also launch a whole group of programs at once that will come up in their own window with it's own taskbar type thing.
Lauch you IDE, refrence web pages, explorer window with project files, and anything else you might want to launch or maybe your web browser and IM client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740</id>
	<title>My favorite solution:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of tabbing windows, have a screen for each window! ^^</p><p>Only if the screen becomes too big to be practical (more than your field of view or more than 360 degrees in both directions), go into the third dimension by stacking things.</p><p>Then go one step further:</p><p>Group your windows into a tree hierarchy. Or even better: A proper full graph. Depending on the thing<strong>s</strong> they belong to.</p><p>Now if you could just stop having the difference between opened and closed applications, we would already have that. Just make the task bar and the directory structure of your documents folder the same thing, and act as if everything were open all the time.<br>Then for consistency, remove the in-application tabbing (like in Firefox), an that would just be redundant.</p><p>I wonder why the KDE people did not come up with this before, with all their semantic desktop ideas?<br>Too much <a href="http://notalwaysright.com/when-open-source-meets-closed-minds/3305?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+NotAlwaysRight+(Not+Always+Right)" title="notalwaysright.com">fear of the loud retards at the lower (and closer to Windows) end of the bell curve</a> [notalwaysright.com] of their target group? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of tabbing windows , have a screen for each window !
^ ^ Only if the screen becomes too big to be practical ( more than your field of view or more than 360 degrees in both directions ) , go into the third dimension by stacking things.Then go one step further : Group your windows into a tree hierarchy .
Or even better : A proper full graph .
Depending on the things they belong to.Now if you could just stop having the difference between opened and closed applications , we would already have that .
Just make the task bar and the directory structure of your documents folder the same thing , and act as if everything were open all the time.Then for consistency , remove the in-application tabbing ( like in Firefox ) , an that would just be redundant.I wonder why the KDE people did not come up with this before , with all their semantic desktop ideas ? Too much fear of the loud retards at the lower ( and closer to Windows ) end of the bell curve [ notalwaysright.com ] of their target group ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of tabbing windows, have a screen for each window!
^^Only if the screen becomes too big to be practical (more than your field of view or more than 360 degrees in both directions), go into the third dimension by stacking things.Then go one step further:Group your windows into a tree hierarchy.
Or even better: A proper full graph.
Depending on the things they belong to.Now if you could just stop having the difference between opened and closed applications, we would already have that.
Just make the task bar and the directory structure of your documents folder the same thing, and act as if everything were open all the time.Then for consistency, remove the in-application tabbing (like in Firefox), an that would just be redundant.I wonder why the KDE people did not come up with this before, with all their semantic desktop ideas?Too much fear of the loud retards at the lower (and closer to Windows) end of the bell curve [notalwaysright.com] of their target group?
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350604</id>
	<title>Bah, Tabs.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1260180480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already have tabbed windows - see the one at the bottom (or top if you use the default ubuntu stuff) of your screen with a bunch of tabs for already-running programs. Huh, imagine that, it's already been done, since Windows 95. Granted, it's a small window with limited functionality - but it's a window nonetheless.</p><p>Tab - n: A projection, flap, or short strip attached to an object to facilitate opening, handling, or identification.</p><p>I swear, people just don't pay attention to English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already have tabbed windows - see the one at the bottom ( or top if you use the default ubuntu stuff ) of your screen with a bunch of tabs for already-running programs .
Huh , imagine that , it 's already been done , since Windows 95 .
Granted , it 's a small window with limited functionality - but it 's a window nonetheless.Tab - n : A projection , flap , or short strip attached to an object to facilitate opening , handling , or identification.I swear , people just do n't pay attention to English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already have tabbed windows - see the one at the bottom (or top if you use the default ubuntu stuff) of your screen with a bunch of tabs for already-running programs.
Huh, imagine that, it's already been done, since Windows 95.
Granted, it's a small window with limited functionality - but it's a window nonetheless.Tab - n: A projection, flap, or short strip attached to an object to facilitate opening, handling, or identification.I swear, people just don't pay attention to English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348946</id>
	<title>Re:Simply put</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260117900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's turned off I would hope it has no memory footprint. What percentage of a TB drive will it consume? Stability is relative but it's probably more stable than wobbly-windows.</p><p>Your concerns are legitimate for a six year old laptop but most users are running Windows Vista/7 capable behemoths and would like to see some flexibility. There are many choices of desktop that do try to trim out anything that is not absolutely necessary but KDE isn't one of them. Nor should it be.</p><p>(I mean seriously, wobbly-windows and the desktop cube ship with a default KDE install and you're concerned about the possible performance impact of tabbed window managing?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's turned off I would hope it has no memory footprint .
What percentage of a TB drive will it consume ?
Stability is relative but it 's probably more stable than wobbly-windows.Your concerns are legitimate for a six year old laptop but most users are running Windows Vista/7 capable behemoths and would like to see some flexibility .
There are many choices of desktop that do try to trim out anything that is not absolutely necessary but KDE is n't one of them .
Nor should it be .
( I mean seriously , wobbly-windows and the desktop cube ship with a default KDE install and you 're concerned about the possible performance impact of tabbed window managing ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's turned off I would hope it has no memory footprint.
What percentage of a TB drive will it consume?
Stability is relative but it's probably more stable than wobbly-windows.Your concerns are legitimate for a six year old laptop but most users are running Windows Vista/7 capable behemoths and would like to see some flexibility.
There are many choices of desktop that do try to trim out anything that is not absolutely necessary but KDE isn't one of them.
Nor should it be.
(I mean seriously, wobbly-windows and the desktop cube ship with a default KDE install and you're concerned about the possible performance impact of tabbed window managing?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348764</id>
	<title>At last!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260115800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly don't mean to think I hold any form of absolute truth here, but I know a bunch of devs and other daily linux users at work that run ion2/3. I tried it myself and never went back. So when I read that someone that develops KDE or Gnome will *finally* add that feature, I want to kiss the floor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly do n't mean to think I hold any form of absolute truth here , but I know a bunch of devs and other daily linux users at work that run ion2/3 .
I tried it myself and never went back .
So when I read that someone that develops KDE or Gnome will * finally * add that feature , I want to kiss the floor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly don't mean to think I hold any form of absolute truth here, but I know a bunch of devs and other daily linux users at work that run ion2/3.
I tried it myself and never went back.
So when I read that someone that develops KDE or Gnome will *finally* add that feature, I want to kiss the floor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358048</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new feature but new in a big DE, I think</title>
	<author>rovolo</author>
	<datestamp>1260182160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think your examples are quite accurate. For emacs + console + PDF you want to see all of them at the same time, rather than hidden behind tabs. I think a more apt metaphor would be frames where the sides of applications stick together: that would be much more handy. Groups of app already have tabs&mdash;they're called workspaces.</p><p>Tabs work well in browsers because you don't need interoperability between webpages that often. Somebody will find a use for attaching apps together, but that feature isn't the revolutionary bit; tabs for every application for free is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think your examples are quite accurate .
For emacs + console + PDF you want to see all of them at the same time , rather than hidden behind tabs .
I think a more apt metaphor would be frames where the sides of applications stick together : that would be much more handy .
Groups of app already have tabs    they 're called workspaces.Tabs work well in browsers because you do n't need interoperability between webpages that often .
Somebody will find a use for attaching apps together , but that feature is n't the revolutionary bit ; tabs for every application for free is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think your examples are quite accurate.
For emacs + console + PDF you want to see all of them at the same time, rather than hidden behind tabs.
I think a more apt metaphor would be frames where the sides of applications stick together: that would be much more handy.
Groups of app already have tabs—they're called workspaces.Tabs work well in browsers because you don't need interoperability between webpages that often.
Somebody will find a use for attaching apps together, but that feature isn't the revolutionary bit; tabs for every application for free is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349570</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1260124200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You forget you also lose space because you can't overlap windows.  You can't win, mwah ah ha.  In my opinion, a setup where the window doesn't move forward automatically when clicked and has sloppy focus is the best.  The flexibility is phenomenal.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget you also lose space because you ca n't overlap windows .
You ca n't win , mwah ah ha .
In my opinion , a setup where the window does n't move forward automatically when clicked and has sloppy focus is the best .
The flexibility is phenomenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget you also lose space because you can't overlap windows.
You can't win, mwah ah ha.
In my opinion, a setup where the window doesn't move forward automatically when clicked and has sloppy focus is the best.
The flexibility is phenomenal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347488</id>
	<title>BeOS had it first</title>
	<author>technix4beos</author>
	<datestamp>1260105780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how UI elements keep moving in the direction BeOS was in so long ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how UI elements keep moving in the direction BeOS was in so long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how UI elements keep moving in the direction BeOS was in so long ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349996</id>
	<title>Are you all on 13" screens ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is wrong with you guys ?<br>Tabs is for non-related contents on small screens. Like opening 10 search results in tabs, and looking at them one at a time. One will load in the background when I say open next in new tab. I use them for background loading contents.</p><p>One tab with a HTML page, and one with the source code, and one with the CSS makes no meaning. You can see only one at a time. The next step up from tabs is a 17" or bigger screen and multiple Windows.</p><p>In coding, thy are often also used to keep related files together. I still can't really see the advantage of forcing youself to not having 2 visible documents at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is wrong with you guys ? Tabs is for non-related contents on small screens .
Like opening 10 search results in tabs , and looking at them one at a time .
One will load in the background when I say open next in new tab .
I use them for background loading contents.One tab with a HTML page , and one with the source code , and one with the CSS makes no meaning .
You can see only one at a time .
The next step up from tabs is a 17 " or bigger screen and multiple Windows.In coding , thy are often also used to keep related files together .
I still ca n't really see the advantage of forcing youself to not having 2 visible documents at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is wrong with you guys ?Tabs is for non-related contents on small screens.
Like opening 10 search results in tabs, and looking at them one at a time.
One will load in the background when I say open next in new tab.
I use them for background loading contents.One tab with a HTML page, and one with the source code, and one with the CSS makes no meaning.
You can see only one at a time.
The next step up from tabs is a 17" or bigger screen and multiple Windows.In coding, thy are often also used to keep related files together.
I still can't really see the advantage of forcing youself to not having 2 visible documents at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346588</id>
	<title>Re:Tab bars versus taskbars? WTF?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally like the idea of having tabbed windows, however in support of your argument it's worth noting that KDE 4 already supports arbitrary drag-n-drop grouping of apps into named taskbar buttons: <a href="http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3864" title="kdedevelopers.org">http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3864</a> [kdedevelopers.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally like the idea of having tabbed windows , however in support of your argument it 's worth noting that KDE 4 already supports arbitrary drag-n-drop grouping of apps into named taskbar buttons : http : //www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3864 [ kdedevelopers.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally like the idea of having tabbed windows, however in support of your argument it's worth noting that KDE 4 already supports arbitrary drag-n-drop grouping of apps into named taskbar buttons: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3864 [kdedevelopers.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350374</id>
	<title>Re:YouTube have it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What were they thinking putting the switching at the top like that with hard to see divisions (it should have system menu icons for each app in that space)?</p><p>I'd rather use multiple desktops, except maybe extend that concept to allow floating sub-desktops within a desktop. Then use the desktop's "tray" equivalent to switch between apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What were they thinking putting the switching at the top like that with hard to see divisions ( it should have system menu icons for each app in that space ) ? I 'd rather use multiple desktops , except maybe extend that concept to allow floating sub-desktops within a desktop .
Then use the desktop 's " tray " equivalent to switch between apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What were they thinking putting the switching at the top like that with hard to see divisions (it should have system menu icons for each app in that space)?I'd rather use multiple desktops, except maybe extend that concept to allow floating sub-desktops within a desktop.
Then use the desktop's "tray" equivalent to switch between apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347540</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1260106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yo dawg I heard you wanted to disable GNOME...</p><p>But seriously now, there might be a 'Clicking on a window always raises it' paired with 'Switching focus raises window' but I make sure to UNcheck the first one. If e16 and e17 have that (and e16 used to come with GNOME) then GNOME probably has that somewhere. Then its just a matter of combining those focus options to suit the way you work. Gosh I really hope they've retained that, what if that was the last straw that caused Linus to switch to KDE...j/k</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo dawg I heard you wanted to disable GNOME...But seriously now , there might be a 'Clicking on a window always raises it ' paired with 'Switching focus raises window ' but I make sure to UNcheck the first one .
If e16 and e17 have that ( and e16 used to come with GNOME ) then GNOME probably has that somewhere .
Then its just a matter of combining those focus options to suit the way you work .
Gosh I really hope they 've retained that , what if that was the last straw that caused Linus to switch to KDE...j/k</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo dawg I heard you wanted to disable GNOME...But seriously now, there might be a 'Clicking on a window always raises it' paired with 'Switching focus raises window' but I make sure to UNcheck the first one.
If e16 and e17 have that (and e16 used to come with GNOME) then GNOME probably has that somewhere.
Then its just a matter of combining those focus options to suit the way you work.
Gosh I really hope they've retained that, what if that was the last straw that caused Linus to switch to KDE...j/k</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570</id>
	<title>Not a new feature but new in a big DE, I think</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't think GNOME has done this, don't know about XFCE.  Compiz can do it, plus at least some basic tiling I think.  And obviously not on Win or Mac.  So KDE it the most "mainstream" desktop to have tabbed windows so far.  But it's far from a new invention.  There has also been talk of tiling support for KWin, the KDE window manager, which would make it even more useful.  Various window managers using tabbing / tiling exist, such as ion, dwm, wmii, Xmonad, etc.  They're nice but I missed the integration of having a full DE (though you can get it if you try).  Partiwm is a project to create a more DE-friendly tabbing window manager but AFAICS it's gone a bit off track since its creator invented xpra and concentrated on that instead...</p><p>Friends of mine have observed that tabbing in the WM makes a lot of sense.  Tab together a load of single browser instances and you have a multi-process web browser.  OK, so it's not quite Chrome in security features but it's a heck of a lot simpler.  Tab a load of terminals together and get a slick multi-terminal app.  Tab OpenOffice together with your web browser whilst you're writing a report and researching stuff online.  Tab together emacs + console running LaTeX + PDF viewer and get an integrated development environment for scientific papers.  Nice.</p><p>I'm exaggerating the simplicity slightly but the point is that things are far more flexible if commonly-needed features (how many apps use tabs these days) are provided by the platform where possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think GNOME has done this , do n't know about XFCE .
Compiz can do it , plus at least some basic tiling I think .
And obviously not on Win or Mac .
So KDE it the most " mainstream " desktop to have tabbed windows so far .
But it 's far from a new invention .
There has also been talk of tiling support for KWin , the KDE window manager , which would make it even more useful .
Various window managers using tabbing / tiling exist , such as ion , dwm , wmii , Xmonad , etc .
They 're nice but I missed the integration of having a full DE ( though you can get it if you try ) .
Partiwm is a project to create a more DE-friendly tabbing window manager but AFAICS it 's gone a bit off track since its creator invented xpra and concentrated on that instead...Friends of mine have observed that tabbing in the WM makes a lot of sense .
Tab together a load of single browser instances and you have a multi-process web browser .
OK , so it 's not quite Chrome in security features but it 's a heck of a lot simpler .
Tab a load of terminals together and get a slick multi-terminal app .
Tab OpenOffice together with your web browser whilst you 're writing a report and researching stuff online .
Tab together emacs + console running LaTeX + PDF viewer and get an integrated development environment for scientific papers .
Nice.I 'm exaggerating the simplicity slightly but the point is that things are far more flexible if commonly-needed features ( how many apps use tabs these days ) are provided by the platform where possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think GNOME has done this, don't know about XFCE.
Compiz can do it, plus at least some basic tiling I think.
And obviously not on Win or Mac.
So KDE it the most "mainstream" desktop to have tabbed windows so far.
But it's far from a new invention.
There has also been talk of tiling support for KWin, the KDE window manager, which would make it even more useful.
Various window managers using tabbing / tiling exist, such as ion, dwm, wmii, Xmonad, etc.
They're nice but I missed the integration of having a full DE (though you can get it if you try).
Partiwm is a project to create a more DE-friendly tabbing window manager but AFAICS it's gone a bit off track since its creator invented xpra and concentrated on that instead...Friends of mine have observed that tabbing in the WM makes a lot of sense.
Tab together a load of single browser instances and you have a multi-process web browser.
OK, so it's not quite Chrome in security features but it's a heck of a lot simpler.
Tab a load of terminals together and get a slick multi-terminal app.
Tab OpenOffice together with your web browser whilst you're writing a report and researching stuff online.
Tab together emacs + console running LaTeX + PDF viewer and get an integrated development environment for scientific papers.
Nice.I'm exaggerating the simplicity slightly but the point is that things are far more flexible if commonly-needed features (how many apps use tabs these days) are provided by the platform where possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346964</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use maximus, every and all windows are always maximized. Never had a problem with drag-dropping stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use maximus , every and all windows are always maximized .
Never had a problem with drag-dropping stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use maximus, every and all windows are always maximized.
Never had a problem with drag-dropping stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347052</id>
	<title>Virtual desktops anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm having a hard time imagining how this is useful where virtual desktops aren't. Not that it's a bad idea mind, just sorta redundant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a hard time imagining how this is useful where virtual desktops are n't .
Not that it 's a bad idea mind , just sorta redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a hard time imagining how this is useful where virtual desktops aren't.
Not that it's a bad idea mind, just sorta redundant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350554</id>
	<title>in the eye of the beholder</title>
	<author>SuperDre</author>
	<datestamp>1260179820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry to say this, but 'good productivity tool'? is all in the eye of the beholder.. personally I don't think tabbed browsing is anything better as seperate windows. And having different windows tabbed together don't seem like a handy tool to me.. but as I said it's all in the eye of the beholder, wahat works for you certainly doesn't mean it works for someone else..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry to say this , but 'good productivity tool ' ?
is all in the eye of the beholder.. personally I do n't think tabbed browsing is anything better as seperate windows .
And having different windows tabbed together do n't seem like a handy tool to me.. but as I said it 's all in the eye of the beholder , wahat works for you certainly does n't mean it works for someone else. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry to say this, but 'good productivity tool'?
is all in the eye of the beholder.. personally I don't think tabbed browsing is anything better as seperate windows.
And having different windows tabbed together don't seem like a handy tool to me.. but as I said it's all in the eye of the beholder, wahat works for you certainly doesn't mean it works for someone else..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353148</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In KDE, you can do that with a specific window like:<br>
&nbsp; Window Menu -&gt; Advanced -&gt; Keep Above Others<br>or<br>ALT+F3, v, a</p><p>You still have to fuss with focus a little, but it is nice for popping up 1 app above all others ( e.g. knotes )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In KDE , you can do that with a specific window like :   Window Menu - &gt; Advanced - &gt; Keep Above OthersorALT + F3 , v , aYou still have to fuss with focus a little , but it is nice for popping up 1 app above all others ( e.g .
knotes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In KDE, you can do that with a specific window like:
  Window Menu -&gt; Advanced -&gt; Keep Above OthersorALT+F3, v, aYou still have to fuss with focus a little, but it is nice for popping up 1 app above all others ( e.g.
knotes )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347426</id>
	<title>The next big thing</title>
	<author>zarathruster</author>
	<datestamp>1260105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Hey Beavis, I think I know what the next big thing is. It's in my pants."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey Beavis , I think I know what the next big thing is .
It 's in my pants .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hey Beavis, I think I know what the next big thing is.
It's in my pants.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346296</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1260097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's safe to assume you are not a power user. Afew terminal sessions, a ticketing system, some chat windows, some proprietary device software, misc documentation, a browser (with dozens of tabs)... It's nice to tab together windows into groups that compliment other groups so you have open the windows you need for a single task (say two terminal sessions, a dacs, and maybe a text area for your mop...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's safe to assume you are not a power user .
Afew terminal sessions , a ticketing system , some chat windows , some proprietary device software , misc documentation , a browser ( with dozens of tabs ) ... It 's nice to tab together windows into groups that compliment other groups so you have open the windows you need for a single task ( say two terminal sessions , a dacs , and maybe a text area for your mop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's safe to assume you are not a power user.
Afew terminal sessions, a ticketing system, some chat windows, some proprietary device software, misc documentation, a browser (with dozens of tabs)... It's nice to tab together windows into groups that compliment other groups so you have open the windows you need for a single task (say two terminal sessions, a dacs, and maybe a text area for your mop...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347890</id>
	<title>Virtual Desktops aren't at odds with tabbed apps.</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1260108240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"However, one big obstacle in front of the widespread aceptance of tabbed windows is virtual desktops.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So, if tabbed windows is to be accepted widely, it has to exit side by side with virtual desktop."</p></div></blockquote><p>The two aren't at odds at all.  On Virtual Desktop One maybe I am documenting an application I am writing, and I want to add drawings, use the web to look up information that will go in the document, and modify my Project Plan to update the subtask entry as I cover each topic.  On Virtual Desktop 2, maybe  I want develop the software, and lets say it is an app  for a LAMP stack.  I have an IDE, another instance of a web browser to look up API info and test my code, etc, and a terminal to edit OS config files as I find out from something I found on the net that certain settings are better in httpd.conf and restart Apache. Maybe my application isn't working for some reason I haven't been able to figure out and I'm starting to get really stressed out, so on desktop 3, I want to "watch some porn"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OK, maybe that's TMI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" However , one big obstacle in front of the widespread aceptance of tabbed windows is virtual desktops .
... So , if tabbed windows is to be accepted widely , it has to exit side by side with virtual desktop .
" The two are n't at odds at all .
On Virtual Desktop One maybe I am documenting an application I am writing , and I want to add drawings , use the web to look up information that will go in the document , and modify my Project Plan to update the subtask entry as I cover each topic .
On Virtual Desktop 2 , maybe I want develop the software , and lets say it is an app for a LAMP stack .
I have an IDE , another instance of a web browser to look up API info and test my code , etc , and a terminal to edit OS config files as I find out from something I found on the net that certain settings are better in httpd.conf and restart Apache .
Maybe my application is n't working for some reason I have n't been able to figure out and I 'm starting to get really stressed out , so on desktop 3 , I want to " watch some porn " ... OK , maybe that 's TMI : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"However, one big obstacle in front of the widespread aceptance of tabbed windows is virtual desktops.
... So, if tabbed windows is to be accepted widely, it has to exit side by side with virtual desktop.
"The two aren't at odds at all.
On Virtual Desktop One maybe I am documenting an application I am writing, and I want to add drawings, use the web to look up information that will go in the document, and modify my Project Plan to update the subtask entry as I cover each topic.
On Virtual Desktop 2, maybe  I want develop the software, and lets say it is an app  for a LAMP stack.
I have an IDE, another instance of a web browser to look up API info and test my code, etc, and a terminal to edit OS config files as I find out from something I found on the net that certain settings are better in httpd.conf and restart Apache.
Maybe my application isn't working for some reason I haven't been able to figure out and I'm starting to get really stressed out, so on desktop 3, I want to "watch some porn" ... OK, maybe that's TMI :-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350322</id>
	<title>Re:tiling window managers</title>
	<author>lbbros</author>
	<datestamp>1260177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a branch of KWin dedicated to adding tiling support. It couldn't be merged as there wasn't enough time to properly test and integrate it, but chances are very likely that it'll appear with KDE SC 4.5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a branch of KWin dedicated to adding tiling support .
It could n't be merged as there was n't enough time to properly test and integrate it , but chances are very likely that it 'll appear with KDE SC 4.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a branch of KWin dedicated to adding tiling support.
It couldn't be merged as there wasn't enough time to properly test and integrate it, but chances are very likely that it'll appear with KDE SC 4.5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347936</id>
	<title>How is this different from workspaces?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260108600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different than Workspaces? I just have a workspace for each task, and only show that workspace's windows in the window list</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than Workspaces ?
I just have a workspace for each task , and only show that workspace 's windows in the window list</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than Workspaces?
I just have a workspace for each task, and only show that workspace's windows in the window list</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280</id>
	<title>You have no idea how GOOD this is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok let me say this, i have been using fluxbox for a long time, and it has this feature, some time ago i switched to kde for more "modern" feel, but i have always missed window tabbing.<br>People that say it shit, let me tell you this you have no clue how great this is.</p><p>Let me say this, there are people that are all gimp , blender UI sucks (hold on i know this seems out of the blue), and mac this mac that, or best *Windows* users who have not seen *Window* manager.<br>And all these people have no idea how life changing such thing as tabbed windows can be, and also focus follows mouse.</p><p>Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this: "oh i tried this and it suck" or something like that. Well then i bet you haven't tried it enough. Cause if you get used to focus follows mouse, click to focus becomes super retarded. And id Say even more with window tabbing. Of course you should have multiple desktops to fully utilize this feature. And there is a lot of people who don even understand how good that is.</p><p>My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces, while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces, and don't know better.<br>Or people think hard to learn = hard to use (never mind that hard to learn most of the time means, i'm very lazy to learn something new, so I'll just say interface i don't know sucks).</p><p>I know the part about you haven't tried enough seems harsh or something like that, but its just that i know how easily/quickly people give up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok let me say this , i have been using fluxbox for a long time , and it has this feature , some time ago i switched to kde for more " modern " feel , but i have always missed window tabbing.People that say it shit , let me tell you this you have no clue how great this is.Let me say this , there are people that are all gimp , blender UI sucks ( hold on i know this seems out of the blue ) , and mac this mac that , or best * Windows * users who have not seen * Window * manager.And all these people have no idea how life changing such thing as tabbed windows can be , and also focus follows mouse.Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this : " oh i tried this and it suck " or something like that .
Well then i bet you have n't tried it enough .
Cause if you get used to focus follows mouse , click to focus becomes super retarded .
And id Say even more with window tabbing .
Of course you should have multiple desktops to fully utilize this feature .
And there is a lot of people who don even understand how good that is.My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces , while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces , and do n't know better.Or people think hard to learn = hard to use ( never mind that hard to learn most of the time means , i 'm very lazy to learn something new , so I 'll just say interface i do n't know sucks ) .I know the part about you have n't tried enough seems harsh or something like that , but its just that i know how easily/quickly people give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok let me say this, i have been using fluxbox for a long time, and it has this feature, some time ago i switched to kde for more "modern" feel, but i have always missed window tabbing.People that say it shit, let me tell you this you have no clue how great this is.Let me say this, there are people that are all gimp , blender UI sucks (hold on i know this seems out of the blue), and mac this mac that, or best *Windows* users who have not seen *Window* manager.And all these people have no idea how life changing such thing as tabbed windows can be, and also focus follows mouse.Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this: "oh i tried this and it suck" or something like that.
Well then i bet you haven't tried it enough.
Cause if you get used to focus follows mouse, click to focus becomes super retarded.
And id Say even more with window tabbing.
Of course you should have multiple desktops to fully utilize this feature.
And there is a lot of people who don even understand how good that is.My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces, while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces, and don't know better.Or people think hard to learn = hard to use (never mind that hard to learn most of the time means, i'm very lazy to learn something new, so I'll just say interface i don't know sucks).I know the part about you haven't tried enough seems harsh or something like that, but its just that i know how easily/quickly people give up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472</id>
	<title>tiling window managers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260112920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long ago, tiling window managers were more popular than they are today.  They allow you to split the screen into a bunch of non-overlapping regions and then place windows within each region, usually using some sort of tab or menu selection mechanism.</p><p>You can still get these today in the form of Ion and RatPoison and similar window managers.  Unfortunately, window managers like Ion have a horrendously bad user interface, using myriads of keyboard commands and providing little in the way of visual guidance.</p><p>It would be really nice if some of the major desktop environments actually provided a user-friendly tiling window manager.  This would mean using standard "split window" components for splitting the screen, and indicating available windows within each tile using tabs.  Tabs could be dragged and dropped between tiles.</p><p>I think this would actually help a lot of beginners, since overlapping windows still confuse many users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long ago , tiling window managers were more popular than they are today .
They allow you to split the screen into a bunch of non-overlapping regions and then place windows within each region , usually using some sort of tab or menu selection mechanism.You can still get these today in the form of Ion and RatPoison and similar window managers .
Unfortunately , window managers like Ion have a horrendously bad user interface , using myriads of keyboard commands and providing little in the way of visual guidance.It would be really nice if some of the major desktop environments actually provided a user-friendly tiling window manager .
This would mean using standard " split window " components for splitting the screen , and indicating available windows within each tile using tabs .
Tabs could be dragged and dropped between tiles.I think this would actually help a lot of beginners , since overlapping windows still confuse many users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long ago, tiling window managers were more popular than they are today.
They allow you to split the screen into a bunch of non-overlapping regions and then place windows within each region, usually using some sort of tab or menu selection mechanism.You can still get these today in the form of Ion and RatPoison and similar window managers.
Unfortunately, window managers like Ion have a horrendously bad user interface, using myriads of keyboard commands and providing little in the way of visual guidance.It would be really nice if some of the major desktop environments actually provided a user-friendly tiling window manager.
This would mean using standard "split window" components for splitting the screen, and indicating available windows within each tile using tabs.
Tabs could be dragged and dropped between tiles.I think this would actually help a lot of beginners, since overlapping windows still confuse many users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346478</id>
	<title>Tabbed interface in Windows 3.11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first computer was a Compaq Presario with a Pentium 75 processor and a 650 Megabyte hard drive. It came with Windows 3.1x (not sure the exact version) but it came out the same year Windows 95 was released because I only used that operating system for a short amount of time. <br> <br>

What I remember distinctly is that Compaq included this program which had a tabbed interface for organizing your applications which when I upgraded the Windows 95 the "Start Menu" felt like a downgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first computer was a Compaq Presario with a Pentium 75 processor and a 650 Megabyte hard drive .
It came with Windows 3.1x ( not sure the exact version ) but it came out the same year Windows 95 was released because I only used that operating system for a short amount of time .
What I remember distinctly is that Compaq included this program which had a tabbed interface for organizing your applications which when I upgraded the Windows 95 the " Start Menu " felt like a downgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first computer was a Compaq Presario with a Pentium 75 processor and a 650 Megabyte hard drive.
It came with Windows 3.1x (not sure the exact version) but it came out the same year Windows 95 was released because I only used that operating system for a short amount of time.
What I remember distinctly is that Compaq included this program which had a tabbed interface for organizing your applications which when I upgraded the Windows 95 the "Start Menu" felt like a downgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346556</id>
	<title>Re:You have no idea how GOOD this is</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1260098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa. You need to cut back on the caffeine, buddy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa .
You need to cut back on the caffeine , buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa.
You need to cut back on the caffeine, buddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of the windows is that you can drag stuff between them, you can't do this efficiently if they are maximised. And view two or more thing at once together.  Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck, but in 'traditional' setups, you use the lower right corner (which is a big target) to adjust the size and the title bar (which is a big target) to adjust the position.  Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot' for adjustment.<p>Taking it a step further, (or back depending on POV) the original Mac WIMP implementation has a metphor of 'the desktop' and each window represents a \_document\_ or a physical \_thing\_.  Desks are generally large enough to handle more than one bit of paper for example, and usually once document doesn't take up the whole desk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of the windows is that you can drag stuff between them , you ca n't do this efficiently if they are maximised .
And view two or more thing at once together .
Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck , but in 'traditional ' setups , you use the lower right corner ( which is a big target ) to adjust the size and the title bar ( which is a big target ) to adjust the position .
Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot ' for adjustment.Taking it a step further , ( or back depending on POV ) the original Mac WIMP implementation has a metphor of 'the desktop ' and each window represents a \ _document \ _ or a physical \ _thing \ _ .
Desks are generally large enough to handle more than one bit of paper for example , and usually once document does n't take up the whole desk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of the windows is that you can drag stuff between them, you can't do this efficiently if they are maximised.
And view two or more thing at once together.
Manually dragging the edges of windows can suck, but in 'traditional' setups, you use the lower right corner (which is a big target) to adjust the size and the title bar (which is a big target) to adjust the position.
Most Linux WMs also have ALT shortcut which makes large percentages of the windows 'hot' for adjustment.Taking it a step further, (or back depending on POV) the original Mac WIMP implementation has a metphor of 'the desktop' and each window represents a \_document\_ or a physical \_thing\_.
Desks are generally large enough to handle more than one bit of paper for example, and usually once document doesn't take up the whole desk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30386714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30357760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30374702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30355418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2038248_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30386714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30358048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30374702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347384
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30357760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30355418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30360952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352234
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30349206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30354130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30350816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30348946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30352464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30353506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30347616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30351704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2038248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2038248.30346812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
