I'm searching which where now?



  • So I thought I'd do a quick search for a list of HTTP error codes because I didn't remember all the funny little irregular ones. So let me go type "http error codes" in the multipurpose address bar:

    (Dramatization.)

    So far so good.

    That's interesting.

    and the next thing you know, I had accidentally searched Amazon for 'error codes'. Doh.

    ...



  • I'm assuming you hit tab.

    TRWTF is that you're incognito. Afraid your wife will find out you've been researching HTTP?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm assuming you hit tab.

    TRWTF is that you're incognito. Afraid your wife will find out you've been researching HTTP?

    I'm only assuming that he doesn't want to put his wife to sleep with all of the hardcore HTTP action.


    And yeah, the tab thing is kinda dumb. Until you need it. Although I find using duckduckgo's bang syntax is way easier.



  • So the hint says "hit tab to search Amazon", you hit Tab, then you typed in a search term, and the browser (which looks Chrome-ish, but not?) searched Amazon for the term "error".

    Wow. What a WTF.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    and the browser (which looks Chrome-ish, but not?)

    It's Chrome (or maybe Chromium) on OSX.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is that only Chrome insists on using its own title bar.
    FTFY.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    TRWTF is that only Chrome insists on using its own title bar.
    FTFY.

    Huh? I HATE when applications insist on ignoring the system UI and re-implementing their own title bars, controls, widgets, etc.. Why do that? I have my UI set up the way it is for a particular reason.

    It's got to be especially annoying if you are an OSX user. I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty". And then some jackass (like Adobe with their Flash UI bullshit) comes along and decides to throw up some ugly, mis-matched title bar. Hey, fuck you, too.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.



  • @gu3st said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.

    The iMac I use at work for iPad development seems to crash all the time, compared to my Windows 7 workstation anyway.



  • If you're in incognito mode, why is it making suggestions? I don't use Chrome myself but I thought the whole point of a "private" mode was that it totally separates what you're doing from the rest of the session.



  • @nexekho said:

    If you're in incognito mode, why is it making suggestions? I don't use Chrome myself but I thought the whole point of a "private" mode was that it totally separates what you're doing from the rest of the session.
     

     

    The point of a private mode is that it doesn't write anything back to the rest of the session.  Reading from the rest of the session is odd, but not obviously broken.

     



  • OK.  So I launch Chrome, and I type  <font face="courier new,courier">http error codes</font>  into the address bar, pressing the space bar between each word and then hit the enter key.  Takes me to Google with the appropriate search results displayed.

    TRWTF is not knowing how to use a browser.



  • @gu3st said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.

     

     

    That's so 90ies. The record for my Win7 machine is running for 4 months straight without a crash or reboot. And that reboot was due to a significant system update.



  • @emurphy said:

    @nexekho said:

    If you're in incognito mode, why is it making suggestions? I don't use Chrome myself but I thought the whole point of a "private" mode was that it totally separates what you're doing from the rest of the session.
     

    The point of a private mode is that it doesn't write anything back to the rest of the session.  Reading from the rest of the session is odd, but not obviously broken.

    If they're in the favorites, it's not a WTF at all.



  • @gu3st said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.

    Bullshit. Windows has always had better stability than Mac OS. Win98 was a crashy piece of shit, but OS 8 was worse. As for today, I've used OS X as my primary OS, it crashed at least a couple of times a month. Vista and Win7 are definitely more stable.



  • @fennec said:

    and the next thing you know, I had accidentally searched Amazon for 'error codes'. Doh.

    Right-click the location bar, select "edit search engines" and dissociate http from Amazon search. It might be a bug that created the association, but I am not sure I'd call it a WTF. And the search engines system seems to be working fine.

    Hm, perhaps a WTF is that it says "press TAB to search on something", but pressing SPACE has the same effect and is what you normally do to use it.



  • @gu3st said:

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.
     

    TROLLA! COMO ESTAS, TONTO?



  • @Bulb said:

    perhaps a WTF is that it says "press TAB to search on something", but pressing SPACE has the same effect
     

    Unable to reproduce.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @gu3st said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.

    Bullshit. Windows has always had better stability than Mac OS. Win98 was a crashy piece of shit, but OS 8 was worse. As for today, I've used OS X as my primary OS, it crashed at least a couple of times a month. Vista and Win7 are definitely more stable.

     

    Win98 was crud, but Win98SE was rock solid IMO. Happily used it for many years. The same could be said for Windows 95 by the way, it didn't become anything good until OS release 2 and up. Lets pretend Windows ME doesn't exist, like Microsoft does.

    When dealing with a 'good' iteration of Windows, it has always and will always depend on what hardware you stick in your PC, not so much the OS itself. Any blue screen you ever see is caused by a driver doing something so insanely terrible that the OS simply locks down to prevent damage. You can make fun of the OS all you want, but it did a good thing. What is sad or was sad is the state of driver development. Of course the OS design used to be to blame a little there because drivers had to operate too close to the kernel; in recent iterations (Vista, W7) that has been remedied at least partly, also opening up the possibility for drivers to reinitialize themselves without needing an OS reboot. Video driver updates have never been so smooth.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    TRWTF is that only Chrome insists on using its own title bar.
    FTFY.

    Huh? I HATE when applications insist on ignoring the system UI and re-implementing their own title bars, controls, widgets, etc.. Why do that? I have my UI set up the way it is for a particular reason.

    It's got to be especially annoying if you are an OSX user. I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty". And then some jackass (like Adobe with their Flash UI bullshit) comes along and decides to throw up some ugly, mis-matched title bar. Hey, fuck you, too.

    Ah, I find the title bar pretty useless. If I wanted to make my screen smaller for no benefit, I could just stick a strip of tape across the top. It seems very odd to me that so few programs make use of that space, when it's obvious how useful it can be. Go look at ribbon versions of Office, for example, and tell me why they couldn't put the tabs along the top like Chrome does.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    It seems very odd to me that so few programs make use of that space

    Because there is no good way to use that space. If you ask me the way chrome does it (putting tabs in the title) is batshit insane. Feels to me that somebody at google thought "hey you know what would be fun? ignoring the System Window decorator, and making our own shitty version!"

    The Ribbon is different. it was solving a problem that existed- Office 2003's commandbars and menus were, without a doubt, a screen-real estate hog. Aside from 10 year old installations of XP still using IE6, most browsers don't have a fuckton of toolbars, certainly not enough to make it necessary to venture into the unorthodox and difficult world of fucking around in the non-client area. The argument that Chrome (and FF, and IE9, (I think)) is doing it to "it save space" thing breaks down rather quickly because, for one thing, what is it saving space [i]for[/i]? So you can see 12 extra pixels of the page? If you want 12 extra pixels, you could always get a higher-resolution screen. Hell you'd probably get a couple dozen. Second, most browsers have a "full-screen" mode that eliminates all the window chrome elements anyway, and third, the window decorator and Non-client area of the window should be (in general) a "no fly" zone. The OS should decide what goes there- not your application. Arguably, one could say "unless you know what you are doing" but very rarely is it done properly. I think my biggest problem with chrome is that it doesn't respect any of my Operating Systems. On Windows 7 the caption buttons are misaligned and hanging off the side by a few pixels, on Linux it looks nothing like any of my other windows and doesn't respect any theme settings, and when I changed the setting to the non-default "use default system theme" setting, which should have been the fucking default, it just made the non-client portion of the window invisible. I'm not sure whether to blame Linux or Chrome for that though. I was basically restricted to two choices-"you can have a green chrome title bar or a blue one". apparently "use GTK theme" is shorthand for "make shit green motherfucker".

     

     






  •  Are we really doing this?  We're really having the Mac vs. Windows pissing contest?

     Jesus Christ, you guys.



  • @holli said:

    @gu3st said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty".

    Yeah, compared to the value added feature of "frequent crashes" that windows has.

     

     

    That's so 90ies. The record for my Win7 machine is running for 4 months straight without a crash or reboot. And that reboot was due to a significant system update.


    I can beat that. I have an older laptop running Win 7 hooked up out of sight, out of mind as a secondary machine that I typically use for web browsing and instant messaging, and to display some neat widgets showing information about my network and some family photos. After using it, and using it, and using regularly every day, I happened to drop an "uptime" widget onto the desktop, only to find it had been running continuously for a year and 3 months.

    Stable OS is stable.



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    If you ask me the way chrome does it (putting tabs in the title) is batshit insane.
     

    Making tabs effectively infinitely large when maximised is batshit insane?

    Oh my.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    The argument that Chrome (and FF, and IE9, (I think)) is doing it to "it save space" thing breaks down rather quickly because, for one thing, what is it saving space for?

    On your ridiculous widescreen monitors, every vertical pixel is a blessing.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    If you want 12 extra pixels, you could always get a higher-resolution screen.

    No you can't.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    Second, most browsers have a "full-screen" mode that eliminates all the window chrome elements anyway

    That hides the tab bar which is bad for because now I can't see where I click. I have to point at it and un-hide it first. That's not comfortable, doubly so when it's not necessary.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    the window decorator and Non-client area of the window should be (in general) a "no fly" zone.

    ORDNUNG MUSS SEIN. I don't agree with the absoluteness of that statement. General-purpose computing means you have to grant and take some liberties.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    I think my biggest problem with chrome is that it doesn't respect any of my Operating Systems.

    I agree, though, that chrome is straying too far from the standard theme. At least FFX makes an effort. IE and Opera and  Safari are also very guilty of this. :</p>

     

     

     

     



  • But what benefit does the title bar give in the first place? It's just completely wasted space.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    But what benefit does the title bar give in the first place? It's just completely wasted space.

    Uh, it's a place for a title? In particular, often things like the current document may be displayed there. It's also handy for moving the window around. Making it smaller makes that task more difficult.

    You may not care about these things (and your post implies that you don't), but just because you don't get the benefit doesn't mean that others don't.



  • @boomzilla said:

    It's also handy for moving the window around. Making it smaller makes that task more difficult.

    Obligatory Compiz smugness: if the title bar is the only drag-handle for window movement, then yup.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Uh, it's a place for a title? In particular, often things like the current document may be displayed there.
    Yes, but there are two answers to that. One is that there's usually space to put it elsewhere. (Seriously, open up a recent version of, say, Excel, and tell me why there are two lines at the top instead of one, despite the contents taking up less than one full line.) The other is to ask what use a title is in any case, most of the time. When I look at a window, almost all the time I know what is in it already because I can see the contents. Alternatively, I can click on the taskbar.@boomzilla said:
    It's also handy for moving the window around. Making it smaller makes that task more difficult.
    You're right. There should be much more clickable-to-drag area on every window. What does that have to do with the title bar?

    Where does the idea of a title bar come from? Does it have any relevance at all to modern computer use?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    Does [the title bar] have any relevance at all to modern computer use?

    Yes, see here. I'd like to stress that "modern" is not the same as "fits my preference."



  • @fterfi secure said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Uh, it's a place for a title? In particular, often things like the current document may be displayed there.
    Yes, but there are two answers to that. One is that there's usually space to put it elsewhere. (Seriously, open up a recent version of, say, Excel, and tell me why there are two lines at the top instead of one, despite the contents taking up less than one full line.) The other is to ask what use a title is in any case, most of the time. When I look at a window, almost all the time I know what is in it already because I can see the contents. Alternatively, I can click on the taskbar.@boomzilla said:
    It's also handy for moving the window around. Making it smaller makes that task more difficult.
    You're right. There should be much more clickable-to-drag area on every window. What does that have to do with the title bar?

    Where does the idea of a title bar come from? Does it have any relevance at all to modern computer use?

    If a title bar isn't relevant, then it should be disabled in the OS. There's no reason for applications to fake UI elements and violate the conventions of my GUI.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If a title bar isn't relevant, then it should be disabled in the OS.
    This. And, apart from Boomzilla's 'it gives me something to click-and-drag, and I can't tell porn from code without a title-bar', there doesn't seem to be any relevance. The WTF is that 'the conventions of [your] GUI' appear to dictate wasted space at the top of the screen simply for looking pretty. Couldn't you just print out some pretty pictures and stick them along the top of your monitor, if that's what floats your goat?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    Couldn't you just print out some pretty pictures and stick them along the top of your monitor, if that's what floats your goat?

    Yes, but what does that have to do with the utility of the title bar?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    Couldn't you just print out some pretty pictures and stick them along the top of your monitor, if that's what floats your goat?

    Yes, but what does that have to do with the utility of the title bar?

    Well, you've still failed to suggest any utility for it, apart from the two suggestions I already ridiculed because they were stupid. Tell me, do any of the programs you use which have title bars use anything approaching the whole width of them? Or could you in fact put all that information on the top row along with other stuff, as well as making it clickable-to-drag, and have exactly the same utility?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    TRWTF is that only Chrome insists on using its own title bar.
    FTFY.

    Huh? I HATE when applications insist on ignoring the system UI and re-implementing their own title bars, controls, widgets, etc.. Why do that? I have my UI set up the way it is for a particular reason.

    It's got to be especially annoying if you are an OSX user. I mean, you just overpaid for your hardware solely to get a crappy OS that has the sole benefit of looking "pretty". And then some jackass (like Adobe with their Flash UI bullshit) comes along and decides to throw up some ugly, mis-matched title bar. Hey, fuck you, too.

    Oh, you are so right. A GUI OS is supposed to give us a standardized language for user interaction... but according to these developers (for whom time is apparently an unlimited resource), this standardized language is not actually good enough for any application outside of "Access for Dummies." As a result, we have another modern-day Tower of Babel to stack up next to Unicode, video plug standards, and CSS, and most modern software does less to actually better mankind than the acrylic nail industry.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    Well, you've still failed to suggest any utility for it, apart from the two suggestions I already ridiculed because they were stupid.

    Yes, we know that you think they're stupid, but we already know about your tenuous grip on reality.

    @fterfi secure said:

    Tell me, do any of the programs you use which have title bars use anything approaching the whole width of them? Or could you in fact put all that information on the top row along with other stuff, as well as making it clickable-to-drag, and have exactly the same utility?

    Yes, they quite often use the entire width. Wait...you're the type who can't function unless you have your window maximized? That's fine and all, but don't expect everyone to work the same way.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    Tell me, do any of the programs you use which have title bars use anything approaching the whole width of them?
    Yes. Full pathname of the document I'm working on, useful if I'm working with two different branches of source code concurrently. Or the name of the host I'm remoted into and currently messing with



    Of course, as boomzilla points out, not everyone works with their windows maximized so they aren't 1920 pixels wide - I typically have the windows using 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen on my 2nd monitor.



  • @PJH said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    Tell me, do any of the programs you use which have title bars use anything approaching the whole width of them?
    Yes. Full pathname of the document I'm working on, useful if I'm working with two different branches of source code concurrently. Or the name of the host I'm remoted into and currently messing with



    Of course, as boomzilla points out, not everyone works with their windows maximized so they aren't 1920 pixels wide - I typically have the windows using 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen on my 2nd monitor.

    Come to think of it, gnome-terminal may be the only application where I actually use the title bar, but it is invaluable there. However, I'm hardly the standard user. I only use 5 GUI apps: Chrome, gnome-terminal, Firefox, Skype and Pidgin..



  • @PJH said:

    not everyone works with their windows maximized so they aren't 1920 pixels wide - I typically have the windows using 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen on my 2nd monitor.
    So what you're saying is that you can't even reliably assume that any information put in the title bar will be visible?

    @PJH said:

    Full pathname of the document I'm working on, useful if I'm working with two different branches of source code concurrently. Or the name of the host I'm remoted into and currently messing with
    And that needs to be in the title bar, does it? Or rather, those applications, which do have a use for a title bar, mean you need it everywhere?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    @PJH said:
    not everyone works with their windows maximized so they aren't 1920 pixels wide - I typically have the windows using 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen on my 2nd monitor.
    So what you're saying is that you can't even reliably assume that any information put in the title bar will be visible?
    I didn't say that, but feel free to construct your straw men. But to address your scarecrow, yes, I can reliably determine whether the information is or is not totally visible. Google ellipsis sometime.

    @fterfi secure said:

    @PJH said:
    Full pathname of the document I'm working on, useful if I'm working with two different branches of source code concurrently. Or the name of the host I'm remoted into and currently messing with
    And that needs to be in the title bar, does it?
    Where else are you suggesting it goes that doesn't use up screen estate?@fterfi secure said:
    Or rather, those applications, which do have a use for a title bar, mean you need it everywhere?
    Well the converse, which you appear to be arguing for, is since you don't need it at all, no-one should have a title bar. Which frankly, is ridiculous.



    Any decent window manager has options for changing the height, or allow the complete removal of the title bar. Why don't you just set it to 0 on your systems, and stop trying to argue that those of us who do find title bars useful can do without.



  • Do tell, which ones?

     

     



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    @fterfi secure said:

    It seems very odd to me that so few programs make use of that space

    Because there is no good way to use that space. If you ask me the way chrome does it (putting tabs in the title) is batshit insane. Feels to me that somebody at google thought "hey you know what would be fun? ignoring the System Window decorator, and making our own shitty version!"

    The Ribbon is different. it was solving a problem that existed- Office 2003's commandbars and menus were, without a doubt, a screen-real estate hog.

     

    What?  My 24 pixel high Office 2003 menus were a hog whereas my 7 million pixel high dumby-bar is not?

     



  • Menus (drop-down) != "menu bar".



  • @PJH said:

    Of course, as boomzilla points out, not everyone works with their windows maximized so they aren't 1920 pixels wide - I typically have the windows using 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen on my 2nd monitor.
     

    Maximised gives me more space.

    I run pretty much every thing maximised because more space. But since everybody's on these ridiculous widescreen monitors*, maximised suddenly makes a less sense because of the huge amounts of wasted empty space. Suddenly juggling windows becomes preferable. I suppose the edge-double-click feature in Win7 alleviates the annoyance of that, but dragging window border in general is a nuisance.

    Programs I run non-maximised:

    - Windows Explorer: I generally don't spend much times in here. File managing I do in a maximised Commander. The default size is always just a little too small, though, and it never remembers window size properly. 😞
    - Notepad: there's really no point to maximising that one.
    - Task Manager
    - Most other tiny tools, I guess. Not much  in them, no reason to maximise.

    So yeah, it depends on how much content is in the windows. Generally, it's a lot. Code in Visual Studio and Editplus; file management; lists of VSS projects; databases; query results; designs in photoshop; websites plus inspectors... So, maximised it is. Because more space.

     

    ) I keep fawning over this, and I'm sorry for that, but as a friendly reminder, I work on 12001600 portrait, and I recommend it to everybody doing programming work, since pretty much all work I do is vertically-oriented.

     

    ) There are fields where horizontal orientation is far superior, namely, movie editing, animation and audio. With proper palette organization, widescreen with ample horizontal pixels is preferrable for design work as well.

     

    ) fuck, I'm starting to sound like Beardsmore.



  • @dhromed said:

    ORDNUNG MUSS SEIN. I don't agree with the absoluteness of that statement. General-purpose computing means you have to grant and take some liberties.

     

    Please. I know that this term is sometimes (ab)used in the Dutch language, but don't go spreading it around. I wish that sometime somewhere a Hollywood movie is created in which Dutch people actually speak Dutch in stead of German (or some gibberish which is supposed to be Dutch); posting things like this on the net does not help 😞

     



  • @dhromed said:

    but as a friendly reminder, I work on 1200*1600 portrait
    1920x1200 landscape + 1600x900 landscape. Somewhat contrived (I am actually using all these programs, and more, but most belong to two tasks I'm currently working on but switch between - so windows from one task may not usually be visible while working on the other one), but:



  • @PJH said:

    @dhromed said:
    but as a friendly reminder, I work on 1200*1600 portrait
    1920x1200 landscape + 1600x900 landscape. Somewhat contrived (I am actually using all these programs, and more, but most belong to two tasks I'm currently working on but switch between - so windows from one task may not usually be visible while working on the other one), but:

     

    Good shot.

    I actually thinkn you could improve usage of the big screen by portraiting it. The black windows (consoles?) can be at the bottom, and you can expand the other two windows for a significantly larger view of their vertical contents. YMMV, obviously.


  • BINNED

    That, at least, is what, IMHO, Ubuntu's Unity does right: Once you maximize a window titlebar is gone (it's pretty useless at that point anyway), however, you don't lose the title (as long as you don't mouse over the panel), and window button and global menu placement makes sense. Granted, you always have the top panel visible but since it's pretty small and actually shows useful info I don't mind it.

    That said, Chrome, of course, breaks that as well, while FF and Opera look like any other window. On Windows, I find Opera looking the least weird and as native as possible even when sticking tabs into the titlebar area. And I'm pretty sure that option can be turned off, or at least it was possible, CBA to reboot and check atm



  • @dhromed said:

    I actually thinkn you could improve usage of the big screen by portraiting it. The black windows (consoles?) can be at the bottom, and you can expand the other two windows for a significantly larger view of their vertical contents. YMMV, obviously.




    I think it'd be more comfortable with the monitor to the side of the laptop to use this - I'll give it a week or so trial.



  • @dhromed said:

    1200*1600 portrait
     

    I used to work with a portrait screen too, and it was quite good both for coding and for reading. Sadly the new pc came with a huge widescreen monitor and I had to go back to landscape. Now I mostly keep source code in the left half of the screen and terminals and stuff in the right half... 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.