On 03-04-2015, at 9:56 AM, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:

And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?

That option is in an easily reachable morph menu (for certain definitions of ‘easily reachable’), so in principle it could be defaulted to off as part of the release, or a preference might be warranted.

tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Science is imagination equipped with grappling hooks.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:

And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?^^

Please no! They are very useful for 1) knowing at a glance when the system is done with a computatoin and 2) crude eye-ball timing.

Those seconds are waaaaay up there in the corner of your massive, 27" monitor, if you can't even find ObjectExplorers opening up on your desktop then those seconds moving is not going to bother you.. :-)

Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.

...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:

For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)

Best, Marcel

-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817477.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On 04-04-2015, at 3:41 PM, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Marcel Taeumel marcel.taeumel@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:

...

Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.

...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:

For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)

800x600.

Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more? Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.

What reason do you have for going for smaller?

tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim If you don't pay the exorcist do you get repossessed?

http://vote.pollcode.com/32499929

Best, Marcel

-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817641.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more?

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/

I thought you of all people would be pushing for even smaller than 800x600 to hook up an R-pi to a tiny screen...

Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.

HDTV size is for the application of watching TV. Squeak is for developing apps. :)

What reason do you have for going for smaller?

800x600 is the same size we've deployed. We are not "going smaller" and we're not "going bigger."

Because of the reasons Herbert and Frank gave, 800x600 is a good choice.

On 05/04/15 17:21, Marcel Taeumel wrote:

Then we should double-check the default window sizes *and* add a factor for larger resolutions. I thought about making it dependent from the font size but we may not use a smaller font for 800x600 this time ... should we? Well, we could... what is the opinion on the default font size for 800x600? If the font size is affected, "go full screen" is not enough anymore... but I am not a 800x600-user. :)

The difference with developer machines starts to get really large. I think 1024*720 should be safe for nearly every device sold in the past 3 years. I recently switched to 4K, and settings for 800*600 don't work too well for that.

Stephan

What about 1024x600 then?

Best -Tobias On 08.04.2015, at 17:34, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:

...

The difference with developer machines starts to get really large. I think 1024*720 should be safe for nearly every device sold in the past 3 years. I recently switched to 4K, and settings for 800*600 don't work too well for that.

My newest laptop is a Lenovo X230T with a screen resolution of 1366x768 (the best offered for that model). This is a very common screen size, lots of modern ultra-book portables use this same resolution.

By the time one accounts for the real-estate taken by the underlying OS for button bars, etc., you no longer have 768 lines of vertical resolution. So if we open Squeak at 1024x768, it guaranteed to be truncated on top and/or bottom at least by the OS widgets, which is annoying to the user.

I think it even sends a particular message that Squeak is a large and monolithic application which, it can be, but opening a 800x600 (especially on a large screen) reinforces the notion that there can also be multiple instances of Squeak running concurrently.

If you are running on 4K, my hunch is that you would do the same thing with a 1024x768 image as you would a 800x600 image -- simply expand it. :)

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 11:48:06AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Marcel Taeumel < marcel.taeumel@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:

...

Hi Eliot,

right now, I am working only on the HelpBrowser (~1-2 weeks left), doing some code clean-up and also some bug fixing -- including ui bugs. ;-)

No bigger change (major changes to standard tools or new tools) planned from my side. As for the stability, my observation is that we are getting more stable with every update.

But what about new packages for this release:

• SqueakSSL
• WebClient

Any ideas on that?

It's not my call. My concern here is VM impact. Only SqueakSSL has implications for the VM right? I would have to make sure that SqueakSSL builds correctly and the tests pass for all platforms. With help from those that have compiled and used SqueakSSL I think I could manage that.

IIRC, the SSLPlugin does not work when compiled for 64-bits, but it is probably OK for Cog/Spur compiled for 32-bits.

Dave

What about a possibility to push personal preferences to a monticello repository ? Everyone could just branch off the release version with their own version and push publish. It could make maintaining preferences across several images and computers a little easier.

Any reason this would not work?

Karl

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Karl Ramberg karlramberg@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, May I suggest removing Universes ? Universes seem totally defunct

Karl

-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817399.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.