On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Phil Driscoll wrote: snip . . .
Thanks to all those who recommended the blackbox window manager. If anyone is interested, I have done a few tweaks to the source to remove or hide a couple of features I thought might be confusing, and I'd be happy to pass them on. Firstly I thought that the toolbar was really just a waste of screen real-estate since it doesn't serve as an application launcher, so I changed the code so it is always invisible. The other thing I didn't like was the way it handles 'iconise' - by hiding the window and making an entry on the 'icons' sub menu. It struck me that this was not very intuitive behaviour - especially for Windows and Risc OS users who expect an iconised window to be visible in some form on screen. Particularly in the context of our small machines, I thought that this behaviour would be likely to cause users to rerun the software - which would have us running out of RAM in no time. So, I have removed the iconise button from the window title bars and also completely got rid of the right button menu from the window title bar.
snip . . . Just as you are getting sorted I thought I would throw in a few ideas to confuse the issue. According to a review in Linux Format magazine blackbox uses 2100k whereas icewm uses only 1000k! If correct that could save you a bit. Ice does have the other advantage for windows users that it looks almost the same as win95, including start button menu accessible by ctrl-esc and taskbar which applications minimize to. The taskbar will even run in autohide mode like win95 for those of us who don't like a cluttered screen. It uses simple textfiles to configure the menu structure etc , and even has a gui tool (icepref) for setting up preferences. just a thought . . . ____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________