OT: Mark made my day!

[Eric Dunbar]

> Not arguing either ;)... Just pointing out the reasons (which, BTW,
> are backed by extensive research into the merits of menu-in-window vs.
> menu-at-top (m.a.t. wins hands down)) why menu-at-top is the better
> paradigm, even if that's not "the way it's always been [in the Windows
> world]".
> 
> There's one situation I can see *some* utility for menu-in-window and
> that's in a mega-, multi-screen situation... but, even there it seems
> like Mac users aren't poorly served by menu-at-top (you've still got a
> fixed target that never moves).
> 
> Although, even then I'm not sure since I NEVER, and I mean NEVER see
> Windows users use non-minimised windows at work -- it's simply too
> complex a task to try to click-on and navigate menus in a random
> location on the screen.

It's very funny (to me)... when I see Windows users (and, I presume
the same applies to Linux GNOME/KDE users) working with non-maximised
windows, they use them as they would Mac OS windows -- to switch
between windows, and, then they re-maximise the windows. I virtually
never see a windows user using their windows as a Mac user might;
side-by-side between DIFFERENT apps. In Windows I'll see people using
Excel-beside-Excel but when they need to switch between Excel and Word
(for e.g.) they'll unmaximise, switch, maximise, do something,
unmaximise, switch, maximise (or, they'll switch between apps by
clicking on the taskbar). Either way, an inefficient (certainly less
efficient than menu-at-top) way of working (and, these aren't exactly
computer illiterates).

Anyway, that's it on this topic (that I feel compelled to comment on
every now and then ;-).

Eric.