I think you are all aware of the MacOS-like "universal menubar"? That is, a menubar that is permanently located at the top of the screen, as opposed to the application-window. This menubar is available on KDE3, but it's not available on KDE4 yet.

Go ahead and burn me at the stake, but I believe that KDE4 should use the universal menubar (when it becomes available) by default. My rationale is this:

a) The universal menubar is usable. It's located at the top of the screen, so it is easy to reach. Menus that are on the windows, are harder to reach, since they require more precise positioning of the mouse. Also, the menubar does not move, it's always at the exact same place.

b) The universal menubar saves space, since each application-window does not have to replicate the menubar. There would be just one desktop-wide menubar. This saved space becomes more and more important as small-screen devices like netbooks become more widely used.

c) The universal menubar would give KDE4 more individual look. Yes, it would be somewhat similar to Mac OS, but at least we would be getting rid of the old complaint that "KDE is a copy of Wndows!". Besides, if we want to copy, Apple/Mac OS is a better target to copy than Microsoft/Windows .

d) removing the menubar from the app-windows makes the UI clenaer, since there's less stuff to display in the app-window itself.

My ideal setup would have the menubar at the top of the screen, with taskbar at the top-right. The bottom of the screen would have the taskbar, and only the taskbar. That way both the menubar (and associated stuff, like systray) and taskbar would have maximum amount of space available to them. Also, the Kmenu could be moved to top-left corner (like the Apple-menu on MacOS).

At this point you are about to type "so you want KDE to become a clone of MacOS?". Well, yes and no. Right now, it's a copy of Windows. Yes it is. So as such there's nothing wrong with taking a cue or two from MacOS, since we already do the same when it comes to Windows.

Besides, KDE would be combining the best of MacOS with the best of Windows. It would have the menubar, location of Kmenu and systray from MacOS, but it would have Windows-esque taskbar, instead of the horrible Dock.

Discuss. I already have my fireproof underwear on .

I agree with the points b and d, however, ( and I'm user of OS X for quite a long time now) I tend to think that the menubar-on-top is a broken design. there's lots of problems with 2 displays (programs in one display, menubar on the other), also with non - maximized programs, if you're using something on the bottom of the screen you need to get yur mouse to the other side of the monitor just to launch an option.
I really prefer the way that it is now.

Janne wrote:Go ahead and burn me at the stake, but I believe that KDE4 should use the universal menubar (when it becomes available) by default. My rationale is this:

Is someone still working on it though? Kinda a moot point if it has been abandoned...

Janne wrote:b) The universal menubar saves space, since each application-window does not have to replicate the menubar. There would be just one desktop-wide menubar. This saved space becomes more and more important as small-screen devices like netbooks become more widely used.

True, but that saving-space is waste of time the bigger your monitor is...which is why I tended to use the MacOS style panel in KDE3.x with only the desktop entries in it (that is, those you got when right-clicking on the desktop) and the systray on the right. It became annoying pretty fast to have to move the mouse up to the top of the screen to choose something if you hadn't memorized the keyboard-shortcut.

Janne wrote:At this point you are about to type "so you want KDE to become a clone of MacOS?". Well, yes and no. Right now, it's a copy of Windows. Yes it is. So as such there's nothing wrong with taking a cue or two from MacOS, since we already do the same when it comes to Windows.

I'm not sure it is. A copy of windows I mean. Both Gnome and KDE takes ideas from both Windows and Mac, as well as having a couple of their own. At least KDE has ideas of it's own...I don't use gnome enough to know if it has but I'm sure it does. As far as KDE goes, the dashboard, system-settings, and the present-windows part is rather reminiscent of MacOS. The Kmenu and the taskbar is the same as far as Windows goes. Although the Oxygen look is far better than both Not to mention that neither Windows or MacOS X has the benefit of the kio-slaves or the (not KDE-specific) Linux infrastructure (i.e. apt-get or zypper to install programs).

Still, I don't mind having the menu-bar like MacOS (or like Gnome for that matter...) as default as long as it is easy to turn off for those who don't like it.

Tomaz wrote:I agree with the points b and d, however, ( and I'm user of OS X for quite a long time now) I tend to think that the menubar-on-top is a broken design. there's lots of problems with 2 displays (programs in one display, menubar on the other)

Yep, that certainly sucks on OS X. I know, I use two displays on my Mac. But KDE does not have to replicate that particular problem .

also with non - maximized programs, if you're using something on the bottom of the screen you need to get yur mouse to the other side of the monitor just to launch an option.

In some ways, yes. But even with non-maximized windows, the distance between the window and the menubar wouldn't be that great. Users don't keep their windows at the extreme bottom, so the distance wouldn't be THAT great. Besides, what you lose in the longer distance, you gain with the fact that the menus are in a screen-edge, thus making the easier to reach.

I'm typing this on Firefox on OS X. The app-window is non-maximized. The distance between the window and the menubar is maybe 20-30 pixels.[hr]

Kryten2X4B wrote:

Janne wrote:Go ahead and burn me at the stake, but I believe that KDE4 should use the universal menubar (when it becomes available) by default. My rationale is this:

Is someone still working on it though? Kinda a moot point if it has been abandoned...

I think it is being worked on.

True, but that saving-space is waste of time the bigger your monitor is...

Devices with smaller screens are becoming more and more common these days (think EEEpc). And even on bigger screens it wouldn't be "waste of time". You would still have the benefit of screen-edge. Right now the top-edge of the screen is wasted.

which is why I tended to use the MacOS style panel in KDE3.x with only the desktop entries in it (that is, those you got when right-clicking on the desktop) and the systray on the right. It became annoying pretty fast to have to move the mouse up to the top of the screen to choose something if you hadn't memorized the keyboard-shortcut.

While the distance you have to move the cursor is a bit bigger, you can move it faster, since the positioning of the cursor doesn't have to be as precise. That is, you can "overshoot" the menu.

I'm not sure it is. A copy of windows I mean.

Looking at the top-level UI the "inspiration" is apparent. Kmenu on bottom left, taskbar on the bottom, systray on the bottom right. Just like on Windows.

As far as KDE goes, the dashboard, system-settings, and the present-windows part is rather reminiscent of MacOS.

Sure, does are similar to the way MacOS handles things. But I'm talking about the default topmost UI on the desktop. That is, the taskbar and the like. The UI in specific apps (like systemsettings) can be very different from Windows though.

Still, I don't mind having the menu-bar like MacOS (or like Gnome for that matter...) as default as long as it is easy to turn off for those who don't like it.

Naturally .

I agree on points B and D (not so much with A and C), and I've actually played around with the idea on KDE 3.5 (didn't keep it, though, because it didn't look good with my theme and I didn't feel like changing it). With a trend of wide-screen laptops, saving some vertical space would be really nice.

I've heard, though, that there's a theme called "Bespin" which supports a menubar like that, but I haven't tried it. I wonder how difficult it would be to make all themes support that?

mh... i don't agree with none of those arguments. First, I have some windows non-maximized at the bottom of one of my two (just temporarily, though) monitor. Why moving the menubar to somewhere at the other side of the display?
Also, I don't see the point of space saving: Either I don't have a big display: then I surely have the window with that I work maximized and it doesn't matte if the main menu is above of the window decoration or below of it - or I have enough space to not maximize my windows and probably don't need this space saving.
Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years. For newbies coming from the windows world it's often hard enough not to have the word "start" at the left bottom...
And why is the UI cleaner when one application is divided into two parts spread over the screen?

If you say, that I should work for a while with Mac to see things different, you might be right - I don't know - but I don't have a Mac.. ,-)

michael4910 wrote:mh... i don't agree with none of those arguments. First, I have some windows non-maximized at the bottom of one of my two (just temporarily, though) monitor. Why moving the menubar to somewhere at the other side of the display?

Because of the reasons I listed. And I honestly don't think that it's that common to have users accessing menu's of apps that are located at the very bottom of the screen (I mean windows that are positioned so that only the titlebar and the menubar is visible).

Instead of looking at the distance you have to move the cursor to reach the menu, we should be looking at the time and effort. Reaching items that are on the edge of the screen is easier than reaching items that are not. And it's easier to reach items. that are always in the exact same plase, as opposed to reaching items that move around the screen.

Of course with the menubar the longer distance compensates that benefit somewhat, but in normal usage-scenarios, the benefit if obvious.

Also, I don't see the point of space saving: Either I don't have a big display: then I surely have the window with that I work maximized

Maybe, maybe not. And even if you use maximized windows, you get the benefit that the menu's are located in the screen-edge. Right now, if you maximize the window, the screen-edge is occupied by the titlebar. And the titlebar isn't being used for anything. With the universal menubar, that screen-edge would be put to good use.

And if there's something OS X teached me, it's that "maximizing" is dumb. The window should be big enough to display all the content it's displaying, and no more. For example: web-browser. Maximizing the window should resize it so that it displays the entire website, no more, no less. There's no point in making the window full-screen if half of the browser-window is displaying empty space (like, left and right side of planetkde.org).

Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years.

Why should KDE blindly follow everything Microsoft does? Microsoft is not the standard, it's just one implementation among many. If goal of KDE is to replicate anything Microsoft does, then I guess the claims that the claims of "KDE is a copy of Windows" are entirely justified.

KDE should not define itself through Windows. It should not be afraid to do things that are not done in Windows. If we simply follow what Windows does, then KDE will forever be a follower.

For newbies coming from the windows world it's often hard enough not to have the word "start" at the left bottom...

People don't seem to have any problems moving from Windows to MacOS en masse. Obviously the menubar is not that much of an issue.

And why is the UI cleaner when one application is divided into two parts spread over the screen?

Because the app-window is not full of UI-elements. Instead, the window would be filled with the actual content. Related to this: KDE should support an additional button on the window that can be used to hide the toolbar. (related bug-report: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155185). That way the window would show the content, and content alone.

If you say, that I should work for a while with Mac to see things different, you might be right - I don't know - but I don't have a Mac.. ,-)

It never harms to try out different things. It might give a fresh perspective on things .

Janne wrote:

michael4910 wrote:mh... i don't agree with none of those arguments. First, I have some windows non-maximized at the bottom of one of my two (just temporarily, though) monitor. Why moving the menubar to somewhere at the other side of the display?

Because of the reasons I listed. And I honestly don't think that it's that common to have users accessing menu's of apps that are located at the very bottom of the screen (I mean windows that are positioned so that only the titlebar and the menubar is visible).

Instead of looking at the distance you have to move the cursor to reach the menu, we should be looking at the time and effort. Reaching items that are on the edge of the screen is easier than reaching items that are not. And it's easier to reach items. that are always in the exact same plase, as opposed to reaching items that move around the screen.

Of course with the menubar the longer distance compensates that benefit somewhat, but in normal usage-scenarios, the benefit if obvious.

Also, I don't see the point of space saving: Either I don't have a big display: then I surely have the window with that I work maximized

Maybe, maybe not. And even if you use maximized windows, you get the benefit that the menu's are located in the screen-edge. Right now, if you maximize the window, the screen-edge is occupied by the titlebar. And the titlebar isn't being used for anything. With the universal menubar, that screen-edge would be put to good use.

And if there's something OS X teached me, it's that "maximizing" is dumb. The window should be big enough to display all the content it's displaying, and no more. For example: web-browser. Maximizing the window should resize it so that it displays the entire website, no more, no less. There's no point in making the window full-screen if half of the browser-window is displaying empty space (like, left and right side of planetkde.org).

Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years.

Why should KDE blindly follow everything Microsoft does? Microsoft is not the standard, it's just one implementation among many. If goal of KDE is to replicate anything Microsoft does, then I guess the claims that the claims of "KDE is a copy of Windows" are entirely justified.

KDE should not define itself through Windows. It should not be afraid to do things that are not done in Windows. If we simply follow what Windows does, then KDE will forever be a follower.

For newbies coming from the windows world it's often hard enough not to have the word "start" at the left bottom...

People don't seem to have any problems moving from Windows to MacOS en masse. Obviously the menubar is not that much of an issue.

And why is the UI cleaner when one application is divided into two parts spread over the screen?

Because the app-window is not full of UI-elements. Instead, the window would be filled with the actual content. Related to this: KDE should support an additional button on the window that can be used to hide the toolbar. (related bug-report: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155185). That way the window would show the content, and content alone.

If you say, that I should work for a while with Mac to see things different, you might be right - I don't know - but I don't have a Mac.. ,-)

It never harms to try out different things. It might give a fresh perspective on things .

But the "menubar" in apps should if design correktly in my mind be able to drag or youse it as an icon row as the bars below it are used.

right now its done in both ff and opera by 3party means, but in my mind its somthing that shoulb be suported from get go and an option for icon menu drop down instead of the horizontal layout of all the text menu options.

and im newer wasting space by maximizing windows, specialy not in webbrowsers as the tabbar takes upp the space and i also clutter it whit icons and stuf as i want to put to use alla space to good use..

I understand the point of time saving by positioning things in the corner of the screen. But somehow this doesn't seem so important for me. Thinking that I'm not alone with this opinion, at least it shouldn't be the default way to go.

maximizing: yes, there should be a third standard action beside "minimize" and "maximize", to make size fitting to what is displayed in the window. Apps like Okular do have this for the displayed files, for example. This is definitely missing in times of 30" displays...

Of course we shouldn't follow blindly Microsoft. But fact is that windows XP has defined what people know as GUI on their computers and this can't be changed on the fly by our few KDE percents in the market...

michael4910 wrote:I understand the point of time saving by positioning things in the corner of the screen. But somehow this doesn't seem so important for me.

Why not? I mean, isn't ease and speed of the UI-usage just about the most important thing in the UI?

Of course we shouldn't follow blindly Microsoft. But fact is that windows XP has defined what people know as GUI on their computers and this can't be changed on the fly by our few KDE percents in the market...

Sure it can be changed Like I said, OS X is very different from Windows, and there are loads of people moving from Windows to OS X. It really isn't that much of an issue. If KDE follows Windows, it will be a follower forever. And doing that diminishes the brand-identity of KDE; since it will always be somehow tied to Windows.

This isn't about changing what people expect from a GUI. This is about a GUI that people can use. And people can use a GUI that is different from Windows. OS X is a clear example of that. In OS X, the menubar works differently, there is no start-menu, there is no taskbar, there is no systray (well, kinda there is), the mouse has one button by default.... Yet people don't seem to have problems with it.

GUI does not have to replicate Windows in order to be successful. Windows is not some universal standard that everyone must replicate. Shooting down ideas because "this is not how Windows does things" is dogmatic and counterproductive.

michael4910 wrote:Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years.

Actually, Microsoft is trying to get rid of menus altogether, it seems. I guess you're lucky that you haven't used any recent Microsoft products!

Alec wrote:

michael4910 wrote:Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years.

Actually, Microsoft is trying to get rid of menus altogether, it seems. I guess you're lucky that you haven't used any recent Microsoft products!

They are trying to hide them, but they are still very much there.

Janne wrote:

Alec wrote:

michael4910 wrote:Such a menubar at least shouldn't be the default, because the convention is what Microsoft tought people over the last 10-15 years.

Actually, Microsoft is trying to get rid of menus altogether, it seems. I guess you're lucky that you haven't used any recent Microsoft products!

They are trying to hide them, but they are still very much there.

Really? In that case, could you please tell me how to enable a menu in Office 2007? I really want to know!

Alec wrote:Really? In that case, could you please tell me how to enable a menu in Office 2007? I really want to know!

I haven't used Office2007, but at least in WMP you can right-click on the titlebar. In the context-menu you have the contents of the menubar, along with a option "enable classic menus", and that brings the menu back. Hitting Alt also works.

Janne wrote:b) The universal menubar saves space, since each application-window does not have to replicate the menubar. There would be just one desktop-wide menubar. This saved space becomes more and more important as small-screen devices like netbooks become more widely used.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does moving the menubar save space? Say the menu takes up 24 pixels, what's the difference whether that 24 pixels is at the top of the screen or in the application window, you still have 24 less pixels to work with?

Nick