After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 119812 - Wish: Remake the interface as an MDI
Wish: Remake the interface as an MDI
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 7379
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: User Interface
git master
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-08-13 19:00 UTC by azriell
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description azriell 2003-08-13 19:00:17 UTC
Please, please, please redesign the window system of GIMP to be an MDI
window system like Photoshop uses, or at least give the user the option
when setting it up.
It's so very irritating to keep track of a multitude of tiny windows
scattered all over the place.
When I use the GIMP, I always have to assign it to it's own virtual desktop
so that the windows will not get mixed up with whatever else I use.
But even that doesn't help when I have lots of images up at once.
As I often use the GIMP for animations of various kinds, even film clips,
having literarely hundreds of windows up at once gets very, very, very
irritating.
If it was all enclosed in one window, all I had to manage would be that one
window, so I could move it about, minimize and maximize and do whatever I
want without fuss.

Besides, other people I've asked about it would choose to pay for and use
Photoshop rather than use the GIMP, mostly because the window management is
so lousy.

The GIMP could also learn from Photoshop's layer management, and various
other things in Photoshop.
Basicly, do it like Photoshop and it will be great.

On the plus side, though, I'd like to point out that things like animations
were much easier to do in the GIMP.
To export/import a gif animation from/to a layered image is ingenious, and
something not even Photoshop handles.
And also that the GIMP can do rudimentary video editing is something
Photoshop can't handle without external applications :)
Although I was surprised to see that it didn't have support for MNG files
(yet?)
Comment 1 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 08:38:43 UTC
Don't worry, the MDI option will eventually be available in the GIMP.
I am planning to work on this, but it will take a while for me to have
enough spare time to implement it.  Anyway, this has already been
requested in bug #7379, so I will mark this one as a duplicate.  If
you want to track the status of that bug report, feel free to add your
e-mail address in its Cc: list.

Regarding your other comments, I don't think that the GIMP should do
everything like Photoshop, but you will find several bug reports about
implementing layer groups and other nice features.  As for MNG, this is
available (save only) in the development version of the GIMP.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7379 ***
Comment 2 Sven Neumann 2003-08-14 10:20:36 UTC
The 1.3 user interface doesn't necessarily have lots of tiny windows.
A typical setup uses the ability to dock windows and only has like two
or three toplevel windows. IMHO this problem is FIXED and as I stated
in #7379 already, any attempt to move everything into a single
toplevel window is a regression and should be avoided.
Comment 3 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 11:03:48 UTC
Common Sven, you cannot be serious: if you have lots of small image
windows (such as when you are editing icons), you have lots of windows
on your screen, in addition to the docks.  Other programs such as
Photoshop do not have this problem because they use MDI correctly.

This is certainly not a regression: this would be an improvement for
most users.  Those who prefer to keep multiple top-level windows can
keep on using that (I would probably be one of them), but we should
try to offer the MDI option as soon as possible because the way this
is done in 1.3 is an improvement but it only solves a part of the
problem.
Comment 4 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 11:06:44 UTC
s/Common/Come on/   ;-)
Comment 5 Sven Neumann 2003-08-14 11:12:00 UTC
I am completely serious here. The WiW approach is bad and must be
avoided. The obvious approach to the problem of many image windows is
to allow image windows to be docked using a notebook. Or of course to
use a reasonable WM that groups the windows for you...
Comment 6 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 12:07:40 UTC
A notebook and dockable image windows will not solve the problem
because the whole point of having a WiW interface with multiple child
windows is that you can have them side-by-side or stack them or tile
them to be able to work on several images at the same time.  So that
will not work.  Changing the WM is not an option either (this is the
old argument: "your window manager sucks, get another one").  Most
users do not use the GIMP every day as their main application: this is
just another tool that helps them to get their job done.  You cannot
require all users to reconfigure their whole environment for a single
application.  Besides, there is also the issue of training, especially
for Windows users or for those who come from Photoshop and are
expecting a WiW MDI interface.  

If you find a solution that is better than WiW MDI, does not require a
new WM on any OS, allows the user to work on multiple images at the
same time, reduces the number of top-level windows, and works in a
way that is similar to other applications on the same platform (in
order to reduce the re-training effort) then I would be happy to use
that.  But for the moment, the WiW MDI model seems to be the best
compromise even if it has its own flaws.
Comment 7 Sven Neumann 2003-08-14 12:27:03 UTC
It's the WM's job and we don't have the resources to work around
stupid window managers. It's not our job, why should we waste
developer resources on it? We also don't provide any workarounds for
missing features in the operating system or the lack of mouse buttons
or 8-bit displays or ... We let the underlying framework do it and I
don't see why we should handle it differently here especially since
there are working solutions available.
Comment 8 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 12:59:28 UTC
Well, it looks like the "working solutions" are the minority, alas.
And even those who use a "good" WM are still not happy with it and
would prefer to have a menu bar on top (not in every image window),
a status bar at the bottom, some easy ways to keep all GIMP windows
together, etc.

I am a diehard UNIX user who has always worked with a decent window
manager (multiple workspaces, focus-follows-mouse, etc.) but I do
understand the frustration of those who have problems with the
current GIMP user interface (both 1.2.x and 1.3.x).

Anwyay, it looks like we could argue about this forever.  If I am the
only developer who is prepared to waste his resources on this, then
so be it.  I just hope that the changes, once commited, will provide
positive user feedback that should convince you that it was not such
a bad solution after all.  ;-)
Comment 9 Daniel Rogers 2003-08-14 14:28:55 UTC
The issue is much deeper than simply _wanting_ an MDI interface.  The
concept of an MDI interface is quite forgein to the Window
Manager/X/Client split in the Unix world.  Essentially, the problem is
that since clients (like the GIMP) are deliberatly kept in the dark
about the details of the window manager (note that this is a
deliberate abstraction in the X api's) there is no way to make the
internal MDI window manager behave like the normal window manager.

For the unix world it really would be a painful, confusing, and unwise
hack.  This is, I think, probably Sven's deeper reasoning for
considering this idea stupid.

this says nothing, however, for the Windows port, for which it _might_
work better to have an mdi interface (this depends on how well gtk
would let us do this).

There is a reason that there exists NO apps with an mdi interface on unix.
Comment 10 Raphaël Quinet 2003-08-14 14:42:59 UTC
Yes, I am fully aware of the problems related to implementing MDI on
UNIX.  I have quite some experience with the interactions between WMs
and apps, the ICCCM, etc.  But it is simply a fact that some UNIX users
are requesting an MDI option, not only the Windows users.  See also the
comments in bug #7379 (especially the one mentioning that the container
widget should not even try to look the same as the WM decorations).

Regarding the applications using MDI interfaces on UNIX, you have
probably never used SunONE Studio, Eclipse, StarOffice, Photoshop... ;-)
Comment 11 Simon Budig 2003-08-14 18:19:02 UTC
I used Maple with WIW-Style MDI and it had some kind of Motif Window
Manager inside. Click to focus (I prefer sloppyfocus), active windows
were marked green (I used blue outside). It simply was horrible.

I don't know about the other programs, but Eclipse uses a "Tabbed" MDI
interface for the files that are part of a project and I am unaware of
a way to make two files visible side-by-side. The other "windows" use
a fixed tiled layout. This is not really a WIW-MDI.

I highly doubt that WIW-MDI can be implemented in a non-intrusive manner.
Comment 12 Sven Neumann 2003-08-14 18:54:08 UTC
The changes need to be discussed beforehand. Please don't simply
commit something to convince people.
Comment 13 Daniel Rogers 2003-08-14 19:04:40 UTC
hmm, if want you want is a tabbed interface ala eclipse (which I use
at work all the time and is very much not the same as MDI), I suspect
that this is not only possible, but probably rather easy considering
that the gimp dockable interface already exists.  It my be as easy as
allowing several images to be tabbed through in the same window and
allowing dockables to be put in that same window.

I find this idea both much more achievable, appealing and possible
even desirable.

Incidentally, StarOffice did have an MDI sytle that sucked a lot of
ass, (for precisely the reasons described above and mostly 'cause I
couldn't turn it off) and has turned that feature off by default (it
may still have it, I wouldn't know, I never looked for it).