Written by sicofante the 8 Mar 10 at 07:05.

Merging both bars in one will save vertical screen space and won't affect the way we use the windows now.

There's actually no need for more than the three buttons (minimize, maximize, close) since the window menu can be accessed by right clicking on the window's title or no-menu area.

When the window is too narrow for displaying the full title, we can provide a tooltip showing it in full. Also, developers would be careful by choosing what to display as a window title. Name of the application is usually unnecessary (we know what the application is, we launched it...) and usually only the document name is important.

How to technically doing it is out of the scope of this idea (I'm not a developer). Maybe it's just about removing the titlebar altogether (or reducing it to 0 pixels) and add the title and control buttons to the menubar.

Merging both bars in one will save vertical screen space and won't affect the way we use the windows now. There's actually no need for more than the three buttons (minimize, maximize, close) since the window menu can be accessed by right clicking on the window's title or no-menu area. When the window is too narrow for displaying the full title, we can provide a tooltip showing it in full. Also, developers would be careful by choosing what to display as a window title. Name of the application is usually unnecessary (we know what the application is, we launched it...) and usually only the document name is important. How to technically doing it is out of the scope of this idea (I'm not a developer). Maybe it's just about removing the titlebar altogether (or reducing it to 0 pixels) and add the title and control buttons to the menubar.

Written by Klau3 the 10 Mar 10 at 23:25.

Merge title and menu bar like on the screenshot . To see the menu again the user has to click on the “Menu/Options” button in the left corner. Also remove the status bar and replace it by a mouseover information that will appear after a half second – like it is in Lucid right now for the Places menu.

<img src="http://nureineidee.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nautilus-lucid-lynx-2-mockup.png?w=650" /> Merge title and menu bar like on the screenshot . To see the menu again the user has to click on the “Menu/Options” button in the left corner. Also remove the status bar and replace it by a mouseover information that will appear after a half second – like it is in Lucid right now for the Places menu.

Written by daas88 the 11 Mar 10 at 00:45.

It would be nice if for example the menu bar showed when I press Alt, Alt+M or one of the Fx keys. And there should be a small button in the title bar doing the same thing as the keyboard shortcut.

It would be nice if for example the menu bar showed when I press Alt, Alt+M or one of the Fx keys. And there should be a small button in the title bar doing the same thing as the keyboard shortcut.

Written by Mirek2 the 14 Mar 10 at 14:47.

As someone who has tried a prototype of this, let me tell you that with small windows, small screens, or large menus, it's a nightmare trying to move windows around, if possible at all.
I think Chrome has a good compromise: remove the text from the title bar and make it a lot thinner, but still keep the height big enough so that one can easily move and resize windows without accidentally opening up menus instead.
With maximized windows, the title bar should merge with the menu bar completely, as one can't move a window in maximized state and as it suits the Fitts law nicely (that is, if you remove the top panel in Ubuntu).

As someone who has tried a prototype of this, let me tell you that with small windows, small screens, or large menus, it's a nightmare trying to move windows around, if possible at all. I think Chrome has a good compromise: remove the text from the title bar and make it a lot thinner, but still keep the height big enough so that one can easily move and resize windows without accidentally opening up menus instead. With maximized windows, the title bar should merge with the menu bar completely, as one can't move a window in maximized state and as it suits the Fitts law nicely (that is, if you remove the top panel in Ubuntu).

Written by A.I. the 14 Mar 10 at 23:00.

Install gnome2-globalmenu applet by default to move menubar to top of screen (as in Mac OS X). User can disable it.

Install gnome2-globalmenu applet by default to move menubar to top of screen (as in Mac OS X). User can disable it.

Written by isantop the 16 Mar 10 at 00:22.

Think something similar to UNR. Remove the title from the active window, and display it in the top panel instead, which has wasted space on most systems by default. Long titles can be truncated like in the task list.

Make the titlebar thicker, and put the menubar in it, leaving space to grab and drag, like solution 4. If a windows is narrow, truncate the menu and place a "More..." button, similar to solution #1

Think something similar to UNR. Remove the title from the active window, and display it in the top panel instead, which has wasted space on most systems by default. Long titles can be truncated like in the task list. Make the titlebar thicker, and put the menubar in it, leaving space to grab and drag, like solution 4. If a windows is narrow, truncate the menu and place a "More..." button, similar to solution #1

Written by LukeM33P the 25 Mar 10 at 01:30.

There are a few points I'd like to make:

Most widescreens are 18.5 inches or greater. Many are also high-resolution. Lower-resolution screens are often 4:3, where this is not a problem and the resolution is the problem.

For the few places where the scenario at top makes sense (auto-detection on install would be nice for this), button sizes should be reduced, text should be reduced, and the bottom panel shrunk in height.

Next in line, we realize the top panel is mostly indicators which theoretically have popups which will appear over the windows. The links on the upper toolbar are quick-launch-like, and the drop down menus are mostly unnecessary when applications that are screen-filling are necessary. So, the top menubar is always behind any windows in a full-screen mode, but retains its solid shape for smaller windows. To avert frustrations when trying to use the full screen with multiple applications, lock points on the screen (user customizable) should allow an undefined number of applications to lock to a full screen view (taking up the full screen as a group, moving as a normal window would, or locking AeroSnap-esque, based on preference or per-window setting). Other non-full-screen applications, of course, would still be visible.

Possible solution.

There are a few points I'd like to make: Most widescreens are 18.5 inches or greater. Many are also high-resolution. Lower-resolution screens are often 4:3, where this is not a problem and the resolution is the problem. For the few places where the scenario at top makes sense (auto-detection on install would be nice for this), button sizes should be reduced, text should be reduced, and the bottom panel shrunk in height. Next in line, we realize the top panel is mostly indicators which theoretically have popups which will appear over the windows. The links on the upper toolbar are quick-launch-like, and the drop down menus are mostly unnecessary when applications that are screen-filling are necessary. So, the top menubar is always behind any windows in a full-screen mode, but retains its solid shape for smaller windows. To avert frustrations when trying to use the full screen with multiple applications, lock points on the screen (user customizable) should allow an undefined number of applications to lock to a full screen view (taking up the full screen as a group, moving as a normal window would, or locking AeroSnap-esque, based on preference or per-window setting). Other non-full-screen applications, of course, would still be visible. Possible solution. Edit: Forgot to mention GnomeShell. GnomeShell will make the top bar superfluous. Look up GnomeShell if you want more details.

Written by annex666 the 26 Mar 10 at 12:31.

I.e. implement the exact same functionality as that in the Hide Menubar plug-in for Firefox - the menubar is hidden until the user presses the Alt key; it is then rehidden when the user presses Alt again.

I.e. implement the exact same functionality as that in the Hide Menubar plug-in for Firefox - the menubar is hidden until the user presses the Alt key; it is then rehidden when the user presses Alt again.

Written by Liso22 the 27 Mar 10 at 18:37.

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved.

[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462fd.png[/img][/url]">http:/ /www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462 fd.png[/img][/url]

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462fd.png[/img][/url]

Written by Liso22 the 27 Mar 10 at 18:49.

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. (I don't know how to make the image show I'll just paste a couple of links click any)

http://i40.tinypic.com/2eeh7v7.jpg

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png>http://www.freeima gehosting.net/uploads/th.134b0462fd.png alt="Free Image Hosting by FreeImageHosting.net">

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. (I don't know how to make the image show I'll just paste a couple of links click any) http://i40.tinypic.com/2eeh7v7.jpg http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png <a href=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png><img src=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.134b0462fd.png alt="Free Image Hosting by FreeImageHosting.net"></a>

Written by ave2 the 29 Mar 10 at 11:31.

start looking at ways to use the horizontal space for menus- look at blender 2.5 as a good example of this...

start looking at ways to use the horizontal space for menus- look at blender 2.5 as a good example of this...

Written by Pfanne the 31 Mar 10 at 00:49.

Just use Docky as the lower panel.
Yeah i know Ubuntu will look alot like Mac OS, but who cares?
Apple did some good design choices with their desktop. Why shouldnt we copy them?

Just use Docky as the lower panel. Yeah i know Ubuntu will look alot like Mac OS, but who cares? Apple did some good design choices with their desktop. Why shouldnt we copy them?

Written by geoff.m the 31 Mar 10 at 01:40.

1. The titlebar and menubar are merged. we need to see always the window titles in order to see quickly what they are at all times, but not the menus. menus appear over windowtitle when mouse hovers around it.

2. The toolbars also need to be accessed often, but they have little need to be seen all the time. therefore they could just dock under the titlemenubar.

2.a. in the case of browsers, the url could appear next to the window title

Then we would have 1 bars instead of 3, saving about 80 pixels in height that can be now used for actuel software and content space.

1. The titlebar and menubar are merged. we need to see always the window titles in order to see quickly what they are at all times, but not the menus. menus appear over windowtitle when mouse hovers around it. 2. The toolbars also need to be accessed often, but they have little need to be seen all the time. therefore they could just dock under the titlemenubar. 2.a. in the case of browsers, the url could appear next to the window title Then we would have 1 bars instead of 3, saving about 80 pixels in height that can be now used for actuel software and content space.

Written by Duncan J Murray the 1 Apr 10 at 20:11.

Anyone who has used Workbench would remember the right-click and hold would bring up the menu over the title bar.

To implement this into Ubuntu I would suggest that the menu bar is removed, but would appear, temporarily replacing the title bar when the right mouse button is clicked and held (with the selection being made on the release of the right mouse button).

An alternative would be that a single right click would transform the title bar into the menu, and then you can navigate the menu as you normally would, left clicking to select.

This method does not add any extra key presses or mouse clicks in accessing the menu, which I think is crucial, but will save one horizontal bar of vertical space.

Anyone who has used Workbench would remember the right-click and hold would bring up the menu over the title bar. To implement this into Ubuntu I would suggest that the menu bar is removed, but would appear, temporarily replacing the title bar when the right mouse button is clicked and held (with the selection being made on the release of the right mouse button). An alternative would be that a single right click would transform the title bar into the menu, and then you can navigate the menu as you normally would, left clicking to select. This method does not add any extra key presses or mouse clicks in accessing the menu, which I think is crucial, but will save one horizontal bar of vertical space.

Written by DadsAndGrads the 3 Apr 10 at 21:39.

In the new OS X clone style:



This configuration keeps all the current information. If a window is made too small then first the title could be truncated then the menus if need be.

<img src="http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3367/ambicompact.png" /> <br /> In the new OS X clone style: <img src="http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9748/ambientcompactosxclone.png" /> <br /> This configuration keeps all the current information. If a window is made too small then first the title could be truncated then the menus if need be.

Written by jerome.bouat the 4 Apr 10 at 14:08.

What about putting the current top panel on the left on the desktop ?

The "Applications", "Shortcuts" and "System" menu could be replaced by icons.

The vertical position of panel at the left can lead to less area consumption than the top position of the same panel.

Currently, a 16/10 form ratio screen makes 17/10 form ratio of the maximized windows.

Therefore the panel at the left would make the maximized windows form ratio like ~16/10 instead of 17/10 currently. The horizontal form ratio is mostly used for watching movies in fullscreen. Thus the ~16/10 ratio of the maximized windows would make the use of the firefox and
openoffice easier but not impact the other applications.

What about putting the current top panel on the left on the desktop ? The "Applications", "Shortcuts" and "System" menu could be replaced by icons. The vertical position of panel at the left can lead to less area consumption than the top position of the same panel. Currently, a 16/10 form ratio screen makes 17/10 form ratio of the maximized windows. Therefore the panel at the left would make the maximized windows form ratio like ~16/10 instead of 17/10 currently. The horizontal form ratio is mostly used for watching movies in fullscreen. Thus the ~16/10 ratio of the maximized windows would make the use of the firefox and openoffice easier but not impact the other applications.

Written by la_serpe the 7 Apr 10 at 22:51.

Think about it for a moment. How often do you use Help and About menu for instance? What about the Tabs menu? Isnt it easier to use mouse? Bookmarks and Go have basically the same function. Instead of File you can simply right click on the blank surface. This redundancy isn't only annoying, but it's also confusing. It has been inherited from Windows 3.1 I guess. Let's abandon it finally!

Think about it for a moment. How often do you use Help and About menu for instance? What about the Tabs menu? Isnt it easier to use mouse? Bookmarks and Go have basically the same function. Instead of File you can simply right click on the blank surface. This redundancy isn't only annoying, but it's also confusing. It has been inherited from Windows 3.1 I guess. Let's abandon it finally!

Written by wenex the 9 Jun 10 at 12:04.

For the application you can normaly show or hide statusbar etc.

You should be abele to have there:

show/hide menubar or menu-button or menu-buttons (=for each entry a button; file, edit, view...)
use/not use global menu bar in the panel
merge/unmerge statusbar, titlebar
etc.
preferences for each programm

For the application you can normaly show or hide statusbar etc. You should be abele to have there: show/hide menubar or menu-button or menu-buttons (=for each entry a button; file, edit, view...) use/not use global menu bar in the panel merge/unmerge statusbar, titlebar etc. preferences for each programm

Written by wenex the 7 Jul 10 at 19:47.

a compiz effect that "hide" titlebar, so it looks like the other boarders. When the mousepointer is over the top window boarder, it expands to the titlebar.

give some options to choose hide and unhide delay and how it scales, if its a maximized window ...

merge titlebar and menubar into a single bar with the option to have a menu button in the titlebar.

a compiz effect that "hide" titlebar, so it looks like the other boarders. When the mousepointer is over the top window boarder, it expands to the titlebar. give some options to choose hide and unhide delay and how it scales, if its a maximized window ... merge titlebar and menubar into a single bar with the option to have a menu button in the titlebar.

Written by Lachu the 19 Dec 10 at 10:13.

Titlebars should been hidden, when mouse cursor are above of active/foreground window(having keyboard focus). It should appear again, when some button(like alt) pressed or mouse cursor are outside foreground window. Titlebar isn't part of active window(let's say).
Also titlebar of active window would appear when mouse react on top-corner of window.

In most times we don't need a titlebar at all. We've used it only to move window around or changing active window.
Dialog(like progress dialogs) contains a lot of useful information about which progress it observe... Conclusion is: we need a titlebar only to change active window and drag window around.

When window is maximized we should have top corner displayed, but it will be very small. When window is maximized there's way to display titlebar. On window is foreground we only move cursor at top of it or outside and we can drag it. When mouse is placed outside foreground window, we can also see titlebar of other window.

Titlebars should been hidden, when mouse cursor are above of active/foreground window(having keyboard focus). It should appear again, when some button(like alt) pressed or mouse cursor are outside foreground window. Titlebar isn't part of active window(let's say). Also titlebar of active window would appear when mouse react on top-corner of window. In most times we don't need a titlebar at all. We've used it only to move window around or changing active window. Dialog(like progress dialogs) contains a lot of useful information about which progress it observe... Conclusion is: we need a titlebar only to change active window and drag window around. When window is maximized we should have top corner displayed, but it will be very small. When window is maximized there's way to display titlebar. On window is foreground we only move cursor at top of it or outside and we can drag it. When mouse is placed outside foreground window, we can also see titlebar of other window.

Written by ester4 the 31 Dec 10 at 17:07.

Similar idea to this brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/26826/

Allow users to customize the Titlebar by adding icons and menus to the Titlebar to decrease the need for toolbars below the Titlebar.

Similar idea to this brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/26826/ Allow users to customize the Titlebar by adding icons and menus to the Titlebar to decrease the need for toolbars below the Titlebar.

Written by doyousina the 10 Jan 11 at 21:01.

There's already one project in google code which provides a Mac-like menubar: http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/
Although it doesn't works on firefox and openoffice (applications i use on a daily basis).

There's already one project in google code which provides a Mac-like menubar: http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/ Although it doesn't works on firefox and openoffice (applications i use on a daily basis).

Written by Klau3 the 17 Oct 10 at 13:56.

If two windows use all vertical space and they touch each other it should be possible to resize both windows, dragging the mouse cursor between them to the left or the right.

If two windows use all vertical space and they touch each other it should be possible to resize both windows, dragging the mouse cursor between them to the left or the right.

Written by Ssdg the 18 Oct 10 at 08:19.

In order not to mess with people's habits, the "multiple-resizing" feature should be associated with another button. Because left is linked with "legacy resizing" and because right shows the menu (I use it a lot, it helps see a window bigger than the screen) so let's use the middle mouse button.

In order not to mess with people's habits, the "multiple-resizing" feature should be associated with another button. Because left is linked with "legacy resizing" and because right shows the menu (I use it a lot, it helps see a window bigger than the screen) so let's use the middle mouse button.

Written by Lachu the 18 Oct 10 at 13:55.

Allow to use now floating mode in Metacity, but restrict settings to certain window. Each window will remember positioning type. By switching window, we switching also positioning mode.

You can imagine that like using fullscreen app. By switching to this window, it takes whole screen. When switching it off, it are minimized. We can extend this to remember different settings of sets of window, but each will be related to one main window. Now, by select another main window fullscreen application will be showed as normal window in ex. right-bottom edge.

Allow to use now floating mode in Metacity, but restrict settings to certain window. Each window will remember positioning type. By switching window, we switching also positioning mode. You can imagine that like using fullscreen app. By switching to this window, it takes whole screen. When switching it off, it are minimized. We can extend this to remember different settings of sets of window, but each will be related to one main window. Now, by select another main window fullscreen application will be showed as normal window in ex. right-bottom edge.

Written by Aielyn the 19 Oct 10 at 07:04.

Give the system the ability to attach windows to each other as far as layout issues are concerned - basically, you could anchor one window to another one, with various settings to allow you to anchor them in the way that suits you.

This would not only enable the functionality desired by this idea (moving two, or more than two, connected window boundaries simultaneously), but would also grant a few other features, including the ability to always keep the windows together in the display stack (so, in the image above, if you minimise the writer, it minimises firefox, and vice versa, and if you give one focus, the other is displayed directly "beneath" it in terms of display depth, above all other windows).

Options for the anchoring process would include:

- "Common Frame", which would make the windows operate as though they were a single window for the purposes of resizing, etc (drag Writer's right border to the left, and Firefox shrinks in proportion, while keeping the borders aligned - halve Writer's width, and Firefox's width is also halved).
- "Common Border", which would do as suggested in the idea, and move both borders without moving any other borders.
- "Glued Border", which would cause the borders to be held together, but otherwise leave all details of the windows separate; move the Writer right border to the left, and the Firefox window moves to the left so the borders still remain aligned, but the Firefox window keeps its size and shape.
- "Free Borders", which would decouple the window borders, but still attach the windows to each other.

Give the system the ability to attach windows to each other as far as layout issues are concerned - basically, you could anchor one window to another one, with various settings to allow you to anchor them in the way that suits you. This would not only enable the functionality desired by this idea (moving two, or more than two, connected window boundaries simultaneously), but would also grant a few other features, including the ability to always keep the windows together in the display stack (so, in the image above, if you minimise the writer, it minimises firefox, and vice versa, and if you give one focus, the other is displayed directly "beneath" it in terms of display depth, above all other windows). Options for the anchoring process would include: - "Common Frame", which would make the windows operate as though they were a single window for the purposes of resizing, etc (drag Writer's right border to the left, and Firefox shrinks in proportion, while keeping the borders aligned - halve Writer's width, and Firefox's width is also halved). - "Common Border", which would do as suggested in the idea, and move both borders without moving any other borders. - "Glued Border", which would cause the borders to be held together, but otherwise leave all details of the windows separate; move the Writer right border to the left, and the Firefox window moves to the left so the borders still remain aligned, but the Firefox window keeps its size and shape. - "Free Borders", which would decouple the window borders, but still attach the windows to each other. In all cases above, moving one window would also move the other window. Further gluing would be possible in order to attach more windows to each other, even sharing a single border. In the "Free Borders" option, only movement of windows would make a difference, resizing of windows would not matter.

Written by Mrinal Saurabh the 19 Oct 10 at 18:51.

Every new window opened should be a tab in title bar. Then a multiple display feature could be used to see more than one windows together.

Every new window opened should be a tab in title bar. Then a multiple display feature could be used to see more than one windows together.

Written by dsterry the 20 Oct 10 at 22:08.

If you want two windows to split the screen, you should be able to grab each one and move them toward their respective sides of the screen to put them in this auto-resized mode. Then if you want to move the boundary between them, you should be able to grab the boundary on either side of that split and move it back and forth horizontally.

This is similar to what another OS does but the addition of being able to drag the adjoining barrier can make this more useful for me. For example, I may want my web browser to be bigger than my gedit with as few clicks and drags as possible.

This may collide with compiz's ability to drag windows between desktops but it's a valid tradeoff.

Furthermore, this should be default behavior for Ubuntu.

If you want two windows to split the screen, you should be able to grab each one and move them toward their respective sides of the screen to put them in this auto-resized mode. Then if you want to move the boundary between them, you should be able to grab the boundary on either side of that split and move it back and forth horizontally. This is similar to what another OS does but the addition of being able to drag the adjoining barrier can make this more useful for me. For example, I may want my web browser to be bigger than my gedit with as few clicks and drags as possible. This may collide with compiz's ability to drag windows between desktops but it's a valid tradeoff. Furthermore, this should be default behavior for Ubuntu.

Written by 3esmit the 21 Oct 10 at 19:17.

Built as a Compiz 'plugin'.
While pressing super button, select windows to resize, and if the resizing selected window reaches other selected window, it will move it and if there is no space to move, resize it.

Built as a Compiz 'plugin'. While pressing super button, select windows to resize, and if the resizing selected window reaches other selected window, it will move it and if there is no space to move, resize it.

Written by david4dev the 24 Oct 10 at 23:19.

Introduce a window manager mode where windows do not overlap and act more like frames. By default the screen space should be shared equally but the borders between frames should be adjustable (a bit like terminator). Opening a new application window or selecting a frame from the window list (or alternatives) should add this window to the list of frames on the screen. The existing frames should automatically resize to accommodate the new frame. Clicking on the window list button for a particular frame that is showing (so the minimise action) should remove it from the screen and the existing windows should automatically resize to fill the space. This should not be a default but should be easy to enable or disable.

Introduce a window manager mode where windows do not overlap and act more like frames. By default the screen space should be shared equally but the borders between frames should be adjustable (a bit like terminator). Opening a new application window or selecting a frame from the window list (or alternatives) should add this window to the list of frames on the screen. The existing frames should automatically resize to accommodate the new frame. Clicking on the window list button for a particular frame that is showing (so the minimise action) should remove it from the screen and the existing windows should automatically resize to fill the space. This should not be a default but should be easy to enable or disable.

Written by argh0 the 25 Oct 10 at 08:11.

Introduce new options when right-clicking on the windows list (gnome-panel applet) :
- rearange the open windows vertically
- rearange the open windows horizontally
-> and when doing that, associate the connecting windows borders in order to move them together

Introduce new options when right-clicking on the windows list (gnome-panel applet) : - rearange the open windows vertically - rearange the open windows horizontally -> and when doing that, associate the connecting windows borders in order to move them together

Written by ganassa the 26 Oct 10 at 17:18.

In a tiling Wm like Ion, Xmonad, i3 etc., this problem is solved at the source: windows can't overlap each other, with some exception using floating windows and tabbed frames. It would really nice if metacity, or whetever WM adopted, could manage this behaviour.

In a tiling Wm like Ion, Xmonad, i3 etc., this problem is solved at the source: windows can't overlap each other, with some exception using floating windows and tabbed frames. It would really nice if metacity, or whetever WM adopted, could manage this behaviour.

Written by lemuelinchrist the 3 Nov 10 at 03:09.

Most users, when using a big screen (say 22'') almost never use the maximize button anymore. So why not give the user freedom to customize the maximize button such that it would only fill half or maybe 2/3 or 1/3 of the screen depending on his choice?

Or if we want to preserve the function of the maximize button, why not add a fourth button for this in addition to the min, max, and close button.

Sometimes manually resizing windows can be burdensome. pressing the maximize window is a lot quicker to fill up screens

Most users, when using a big screen (say 22'') almost never use the maximize button anymore. So why not give the user freedom to customize the maximize button such that it would only fill half or maybe 2/3 or 1/3 of the screen depending on his choice? Or if we want to preserve the function of the maximize button, why not add a fourth button for this in addition to the min, max, and close button. Sometimes manually resizing windows can be burdensome. pressing the maximize window is a lot quicker to fill up screens

Written by ejh the 4 Nov 10 at 17:32.

This is one area that I think windows 7 beats ubuntu. Windows 7's "aerosnap" function works as shown in this video: youtu.be/bopeB6QbOjI.

Ubuntu could implement the windows 7 functionality, then make it better by allowing you to move the vertical boundary between two programs which are sharing your screen left and right, by holding ctrl or shift or using a different mouse button.

This is one area that I think windows 7 beats ubuntu. Windows 7's "aerosnap" function works as shown in this video: youtu.be/bopeB6QbOjI. Ubuntu could implement the windows 7 functionality, then make it better by allowing you to move the vertical boundary between two programs which are sharing your screen left and right, by holding ctrl or shift or using a different mouse button.

Written by cyprys the 10 Nov 10 at 01:15.

Windows attached in the following manner should maximise and share one virtual space: there's a windows list on the bottom gnome-panel in Ubuntu - drag one window from this list and drop it on another window while holding "Super" key, repeat as needed.

When manually changing the width of one window neighbouring window should auto-resize (shrink or grow).

When certain width of the neighbouring window is approached during shrinking auto-resize of the next neighbouring window should start or the process should stop (when there are no more neighbouring windows).

Minimizing one of the attached windows should hide whole virtual space and all windows sharing it.

Unmaximising one of the attached windows should unattach only this one window and release previously occupied space so it could be redistributed between other attached windows.

Multiple virtual spaces on one workspace should be created by attaching two windows to each other (one virtual space) and then attaching two different windows to each other (second virtual space), etc.

When switching between windows (e.g. alt+tab), virtual space should be treated as one window regardless of number of actual windows sharing it.

Windows attached in the following manner should maximise and share one virtual space: there's a windows list on the bottom gnome-panel in Ubuntu - drag one window from this list and drop it on another window while holding "Super" key, repeat as needed. When manually changing the width of one window neighbouring window should auto-resize (shrink or grow). When certain width of the neighbouring window is approached during shrinking auto-resize of the next neighbouring window should start or the process should stop (when there are no more neighbouring windows). Minimizing one of the attached windows should hide whole virtual space and all windows sharing it. Unmaximising one of the attached windows should unattach only this one window and release previously occupied space so it could be redistributed between other attached windows. Multiple virtual spaces on one workspace should be created by attaching two windows to each other (one virtual space) and then attaching two different windows to each other (second virtual space), etc. When switching between windows (e.g. alt+tab), virtual space should be treated as one window regardless of number of actual windows sharing it.

Written by jeffster the 10 Nov 10 at 05:07.

If there is one window that is already set up, taking half the screen, double clicking another window's corner will fill the remaining space.

If there is one window that is already set up, taking half the screen, double clicking another window's corner will fill the remaining space.

Written by koenfloris the 14 Nov 10 at 09:33.

kubuntu already does this, just implent it in compiz and metacity

kubuntu already does this, just implent it in compiz and metacity

Written by Gonz-IT the 11 Nov 10 at 12:16.

Windows 7 implements a very neat way for window resizing and positioning. If you select a window and type WindowsKey (Super) + Right Arrow, the window will take exactly half of the space available in the right side of the screen, and so on with the WindowsKey + Left combo.

I think this is a very nice usability feature that should be implemented with Ubuntu.

Windows 7 implements a very neat way for window resizing and positioning. If you select a window and type WindowsKey (Super) + Right Arrow, the window will take exactly half of the space available in the right side of the screen, and so on with the WindowsKey + Left combo. I think this is a very nice usability feature that should be implemented with Ubuntu.

Written by thamawij pirajnaraporn the 28 Dec 10 at 08:53.

- User may increase/decrease slot numbers for a single workspace.
- Treat each slot as a cell in a spreadsheet, a user may merge them with the adjacent cells.

Currently, I'm not so clear about how it should works or the way that possibly implemented, I will add some details later.

- User may increase/decrease slot numbers for a single workspace. - Treat each slot as a cell in a spreadsheet, a user may merge them with the adjacent cells. Currently, I'm not so clear about how it should works or the way that possibly implemented, I will add some details later.

Written by thamawij pirajnaraporn the 28 Dec 10 at 09:11.

It would be nice if we can make one of our workspace split; for example, a 1280x960 may split into 4, 640x480, screens or 2, 640x960, screens as virtual attached monitors. Maximize make a window fit a monitor.

(In my head, it looks like compiz's Expo view with adjustable numbers of adjacent workspaces to show at the time)

I'm not so sure if this idea is implementable. Just share the idea so the superior in system and programming may see the way to go.

It would be nice if we can make one of our workspace split; for example, a 1280x960 may split into 4, 640x480, screens or 2, 640x960, screens as virtual attached monitors. Maximize make a window fit a monitor. (In my head, it looks like compiz's Expo view with adjustable numbers of adjacent workspaces to show at the time) I'm not so sure if this idea is implementable. Just share the idea so the superior in system and programming may see the way to go.

Written by readmanr the 6 Mar 10 at 21:00.

Move the buttons back over to the top right for the final Ubuntu 10.04 release.

Move the buttons back over to the top right for the final Ubuntu 10.04 release.

Written by Akerbos the 6 Mar 10 at 21:38.

I think it is most intuitive if the buttons are ordered the same in relation to the window center ("To close, click the outermost button"), so

Right: min-max-close

relates to

Left: close-max-min

I think it is most intuitive if the buttons are ordered the same in relation to the window center ("To close, click the outermost button"), so Right: min-max-close relates to Left: close-max-min

Written by jeffd1830 the 7 Mar 10 at 08:56.

I think having the buttons on both sides would also be a viable option. I understand that this would detract visually from the simplicity, but maybe if the buttons were subdued until the mouse hovers over the bar?

(I feel less than confident about this solution, but thought it needed mentioning.)

I think having the buttons on both sides would also be a viable option. I understand that this would detract visually from the simplicity, but maybe if the buttons were subdued until the mouse hovers over the bar? (I feel less than confident about this solution, but thought it needed mentioning.)

Written by Long Lazuli the 7 Mar 10 at 11:34.

In xubuntu, user cas can choose where are the button on the titlebar.

In xubuntu, user cas can choose where are the button on the titlebar.

Written by la_serpe the 7 Mar 10 at 16:29.

It can be movable so the user could change it intuitively

It can be movable so the user could change it intuitively

Written by Vlad_Alfredov the 8 Mar 10 at 11:13.

Well the title pretty much says it...Default is to have it on right, but to include an option in "Change Desktop Background" >> Theme >> Customize, to move the buttons to a user defined position.

Well the title pretty much says it...Default is to have it on right, but to include an option in "Change Desktop Background" >> Theme >> Customize, to move the buttons to a user defined position.

Written by marvo the 10 Mar 10 at 10:28.

There are some themes that look better when the buttons are placed on the left side (like Ambiance, Radiance and Gorilla) and there are some themes that look better with the buttons being on the right side (like Glider, Human, Clearlooks or SphereCrystal).

So i propose to set the default alignment depending on the chosen theme and make it easily switchable.

The current way to change the alignment of the buttons back to the right by typing
gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
is a bit tedious.

There are some themes that look better when the buttons are placed on the left side (like Ambiance, Radiance and Gorilla) and there are some themes that look better with the buttons being on the right side (like Glider, Human, Clearlooks or SphereCrystal). So i propose to set the default alignment depending on the chosen theme and make it easily switchable. The current way to change the alignment of the buttons back to the right by typing gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "menu:minimize,maximize,close" is a bit tedious.

Written by Lex the 10 Mar 10 at 11:04.

Put Close button in the corner - depending on chosen solution will be left or right corner or window.

Put Close button in the corner - depending on chosen solution will be left or right corner or window.

Written by euxneks the 11 Mar 10 at 01:31.

I think that Minimize and Maximize are more similar to the menu anyway, so put them on the left, and put the close button on the right, this harkens back to the days of old Unix and I think would still allow the theme to stand out.

I think that Minimize and Maximize are more similar to the menu anyway, so put them on the left, and put the close button on the right, this harkens back to the days of old Unix and I think would still allow the theme to stand out.

Written by i386dx the 14 Mar 10 at 12:50.

Move the Min, Max and Close-buttons back to the right.

Be able to close a window by double-clicking the window-icon at the left. This is much faster than clicking the icon and selecting 'Close' in the menu.

Move the Min, Max and Close-buttons back to the right. Be able to close a window by double-clicking the window-icon at the left. This is much faster than clicking the icon and selecting 'Close' in the menu.

Written by MoebusNet the 15 Mar 10 at 01:04.

Rationale: In VirtualBox without Guest Additions, the right-hand side of the desktop and the lower part of the desktop are not visible until you scroll. Having the above-mentioned buttons on the top-left side of the window by default makes them accessible when (not if) Guest Additions do not work/are unavailable or when scrolling for whatever reason does not work. This is especially true for development versions.

I _am_ in favor of choice, so this should be fairly easy for a user to change (preferably by GUI) to right, left or both.

Just my opinion.

Rationale: In VirtualBox without Guest Additions, the right-hand side of the desktop and the lower part of the desktop are not visible until you scroll. Having the above-mentioned buttons on the top-left side of the window by default makes them accessible when (not if) Guest Additions do not work/are unavailable or when scrolling for whatever reason does not work. This is especially true for development versions. I _am_ in favor of choice, so this should be fairly easy for a user to change (preferably by GUI) to right, left or both. Just my opinion.

Written by neblogas the 16 Mar 10 at 15:58.

Because Mark said that in 10.10 the windows will have something new in the right side, but now, there is no need to change the buttons, and this is LTS release! in 10.10 when you will finish the new mysteriuos window features on the right then you can put the buttons on the left. As I said, there is no need now to change. Its an LTS release and the people and companies won't change until the next LTS, so there won't be for them new mysteriuos windows features on the right!

Because Mark said that in 10.10 the windows will have something new in the right side, but now, there is no need to change the buttons, and this is LTS release! in 10.10 when you will finish the new mysteriuos window features on the right then you can put the buttons on the left. As I said, there is no need now to change. Its an LTS release and the people and companies won't change until the next LTS, so there won't be for them new mysteriuos windows features on the right!

Written by TrueSongMedia the 16 Mar 10 at 17:16.

Yes the button location can be changed via Terminal, but for the average user...the Terminal can be a bit scary. I think it would be appropriate to place a simple option in the Appearance Preferences window.

Something like this:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/40647960/window_controls_position_gui.png

Yes the button location can be changed via Terminal, but for the average user...the Terminal can be a bit scary. I think it would be appropriate to place a simple option in the Appearance Preferences window. Something like this: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/40647960/window_controls_position_gui.png

Written by ichido the 17 Mar 10 at 17:53.

Move the Top Bar to the Right Side-Vertical Bar and the Bottom Bar would be on the Left Side Vertical.
This would allow for more Vertical Space.
The user would be able to Swap the Left Bar with the Right Bar and also the Size/Thickness of the Bars.
Applications could maintain the Top Bar or a Side or a Bottom bar for their Window.

Move the Top Bar to the Right Side-Vertical Bar and the Bottom Bar would be on the Left Side Vertical. This would allow for more Vertical Space. The user would be able to Swap the Left Bar with the Right Bar and also the Size/Thickness of the Bars. Applications could maintain the Top Bar or a Side or a Bottom bar for their Window.

Written by Wiplash4 the 19 Mar 10 at 12:17.

Hello
I would like to add one idea: Replace the menubar (File, Edit, View, etc.), which can be found in every window, with an icon and put that icon into the titlebar. It worked out for my terminal.
Regards

Hello I would like to add one idea: Replace the menubar (File, Edit, View, etc.), which can be found in every window, with an icon and put that icon into the titlebar. It worked out for my terminal. Regards

Written by Wiplash4 the 19 Mar 10 at 16:40.

I figured out that the status bar is only filled up to 1 / 4. Why not put those messages displayed in the status bar in the title bar?

I figured out that the status bar is only filled up to 1 / 4. Why not put those messages displayed in the status bar in the title bar?

Written by a_pirard the 20 Mar 10 at 03:14.

Modify all applications to be consistent with Lucid : move all close buttons to the left, for example, OpenOffice document close, Firefox tab close, File Explorer side pane close, etc... etc...

Modify all applications to be consistent with Lucid : move all close buttons to the left, for example, OpenOffice document close, Firefox tab close, File Explorer side pane close, etc... etc...

Written by luojie-dune the 20 Mar 10 at 21:01.

Instead of corner, make it POSSIBLE to place buttons in the MIDDLE.

I knew there is no such a solution according to "ewmh".

But, I guess most people have their cursor in the middle of a window for most of the time they using it.

Instead of corner, make it POSSIBLE to place buttons in the MIDDLE. I knew there is no such a solution according to "ewmh". But, I guess most people have their cursor in the middle of a window for most of the time they using it.

Written by LukeM33P the 25 Mar 10 at 01:13.

Compiz managers and decorators are already effective at options. Placing the Metacity and Kwin options in Emerald Decorator manager, which would be preinstalled, along with CCSM (or a custom replacement) would be the solution, with CCSM/replacement simplified to look like (in functionality and basic organization) the KDE settings manager, but using default schemes and such, of course.

For KDE users, alongside the CCSM/replacement, the interface would be integrated into the System Settings, just like the traditional settings.

The reason I propose this is because options, while not easy to find and configure (and why I propose the reorg) are very powerful. Setting up Metacity and KWin to show up as options and adding the appropriate settings, if necessary, seems to make sense (to me) as a long-term solution. The operating system needs to seem as encompassing as KDE or even more so, and combining these options so that the system is even more universal would be a step towards this.

An addition to the application of managing the system title bar like the KDE or GNOME dashboards would be similarly useful, and may be all of this potential solution that should be used. Default should stay in line with last-gen human theme, even if the colors and buttons look different.

Compiz managers and decorators are already effective at options. Placing the Metacity and Kwin options in Emerald Decorator manager, which would be preinstalled, along with CCSM (or a custom replacement) would be the solution, with CCSM/replacement simplified to look like (in functionality and basic organization) the KDE settings manager, but using default schemes and such, of course. For KDE users, alongside the CCSM/replacement, the interface would be integrated into the System Settings, just like the traditional settings. The reason I propose this is because options, while not easy to find and configure (and why I propose the reorg) are very powerful. Setting up Metacity and KWin to show up as options and adding the appropriate settings, if necessary, seems to make sense (to me) as a long-term solution. The operating system needs to seem as encompassing as KDE or even more so, and combining these options so that the system is even more universal would be a step towards this. An addition to the application of managing the system title bar like the KDE or GNOME dashboards would be similarly useful, and may be all of this potential solution that should be used. Default should stay in line with last-gen human theme, even if the colors and buttons look different.

Written by 2cute4u the 25 Mar 10 at 03:37.

XFCE has for many years had a very easy convient way to configure the placment of titlebar buttons. See.http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfwm4#wm-settings
It would not be too difficult to add somethng like this to gnome; that way everyone can be happy.

XFCE has for many years had a very easy convient way to configure the placment of titlebar buttons. See.http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfwm4#wm-settings It would not be too difficult to add somethng like this to gnome; that way everyone can be happy.

Written by MisterLinOx the 26 Mar 10 at 21:52.

Have the min, max, close buttons on both sides of the title bar, but hide them. The only time they should show is on mouseover of the bar, but depending on which side you mouseover decides which side the buttons show.

For example, cursor closer to the left side? Mouse over the top-left and the buttons will appear. Vice-versa for the right side.

Have the min, max, close buttons on both sides of the title bar, but hide them. The only time they should show is on mouseover of the bar, but depending on which side you mouseover decides which side the buttons show. For example, cursor closer to the left side? Mouse over the top-left and the buttons will appear. Vice-versa for the right side.

Written by emucosmos the 27 Mar 10 at 03:11.

make apear a messagebox in the begining of the instalation asking where do we want to have those buttons, coz personally I love the new mac style, but considering the ubuntu objectives, it's a good option to let the users choice.

make apear a messagebox in the begining of the instalation asking where do we want to have those buttons, coz personally I love the new mac style, but considering the ubuntu objectives, it's a good option to let the users choice.

Written by darkham the 29 Mar 10 at 08:23.

Let user chose on the First Run, after installation.

Let user chose on the First Run, after installation.

Written by tomjb24 the 3 Apr 10 at 09:25.

Hover over the window border, click the middle mouse button, scroll to choose (close, minimise, maximise)

Hover over the window border, click the middle mouse button, scroll to choose (close, minimise, maximise)

Written by rrnwexec the 3 Apr 10 at 20:26.

Create a version of Ubuntu for those who like the (standard) Ubuntu desktop's "look and feel" just the way it is. Solicit Mark's (SABDFL) endorsement.

Enjoy how growingly quaint it feels as time passes by!

Create a version of Ubuntu for those who like the (standard) Ubuntu desktop's "look and feel" just the way it is. Solicit Mark's (SABDFL) endorsement. Enjoy how growingly quaint it feels as time passes by!

Written by jase21 the 4 Apr 10 at 11:54.

Make Mac styled menu bar which is available in KDE. The current active windows menu appears on the bar. So no accidental closing of windows.

Or move the window control buttons to the right.

Make Mac styled menu bar which is available in KDE. The current active windows menu appears on the bar. So no accidental closing of windows. Or move the window control buttons to the right.

Written by Jon Monreal the 17 Apr 10 at 23:49.

Please note that this is not an idea for the imminent release of 10.04, but would be better included in the next update ISO.

Experienced users already know how to change the buttons back to the original location, so server installations shouldn't be so much of a problem.

For absolute beginner users, the first slide in the installation slideshow could be one explaining the benefits of having the buttons on the left side and asking the user to choose what they could like to do.

In the minimal install, it would also be easy to add a simple option (most users using the minimal install are probably fairly experienced).

This would solve the real issue here: beginners possibly not using Ubuntu at all because it changes something.

Please note that this is not an idea for the imminent release of 10.04, but would be better included in the next update ISO. Experienced users already know how to change the buttons back to the original location, so server installations shouldn't be so much of a problem. For absolute beginner users, the first slide in the installation slideshow could be one explaining the benefits of having the buttons on the left side and asking the user to choose what they could like to do. In the minimal install, it would also be easy to add a simple option (most users using the minimal install are probably fairly experienced). This would solve the real issue here: beginners possibly not using Ubuntu at all because it changes something.

Written by land_grab the 5 May 10 at 23:23.

I found this extremely easy fix how to move the min, max, and close buttons back to the right side.


http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-u buntu-10.04/

Even I was able to follow these directions and make it happen!

I found this extremely easy fix how to move the min, max, and close buttons back to the right side. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/ Even I was able to follow these directions and make it happen!

Written by turbolad the 5 Jul 10 at 15:42.

As per title. Buttons to the right by default, with an option to move to the left.

Don't forget to keep the little circle, which when clicked on, has options such as "Always On Top", "Move to Workspace Right" etc. These options should never be removed and I think the 3 buttons should be on the right by default, as most newbies are familiar with that setup.

As per title. Buttons to the right by default, with an option to move to the left. Don't forget to keep the little circle, which when clicked on, has options such as "Always On Top", "Move to Workspace Right" etc. These options should never be removed and I think the 3 buttons should be on the right by default, as most newbies are familiar with that setup.

Written by baretobareto the 3 Aug 10 at 20:31.

Fisrt of all, sorry for my English.

Why we really needs buttons to the right? Well theres no real difference between having your buttons on the left or on the right, its just a matter of have the enough time to get used to one position or another.
But what about if we have these button in a complete new position.
What about having min, max, close buttons on the right BUT in the lower side of the windows instead of the upper side.

If you think about it, when you open a document or a web-page, you need to scroll down to really knows if that document is what you are looking for. When a document is too long, you need to use the scroll down arrow. So your mouse-arrow will be closer to the lower right of the window instead of the upper side of the window.
If you want to look to a minimize window that you think it would be not useful anymore, you need to un-minimize this window. If the buttons are in the lower right of the window it will be needed much less movement of your hand to close it after un-minimize because the close button will be closer to the task bar.

<a target="_blank" title="ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting" href="http://img641.imageshack.us/i/screenshot5qs.png/"><img src="http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8462/screenshot5qs.png" border="0"/></a> Fisrt of all, sorry for my English. Why we really needs buttons to the right? Well theres no real difference between having your buttons on the left or on the right, its just a matter of have the enough time to get used to one position or another. But what about if we have these button in a complete new position. What about having min, max, close buttons on the right BUT in the lower side of the windows instead of the upper side. If you think about it, when you open a document or a web-page, you need to scroll down to really knows if that document is what you are looking for. When a document is too long, you need to use the scroll down arrow. So your mouse-arrow will be closer to the lower right of the window instead of the upper side of the window. If you want to look to a minimize window that you think it would be not useful anymore, you need to un-minimize this window. If the buttons are in the lower right of the window it will be needed much less movement of your hand to close it after un-minimize because the close button will be closer to the task bar. As you see there are some reason to have buttons in the lower side of the window BUT I know there are others to have this buttons on others positions. So, why not to put this buttons in a completely new position. This could be a ubuntu-only-feature just like the recycle bin in the task bar is a ubuntu-only-feature.

Written by r0g the 7 Apr 10 at 22:44.

I crave stability and polish over features and think the next release (10.10) should forget about adding new functionality until it has fixed the most glaring bugs and omissions in core technologies like X-windows, Pulse audio, Search and Gnome/Nautilus.

As I say I'm not going to be specific about what's wrong with them, enough people know first hand! The fact is that effort spent on improving the quality and completeness of the above core technologies will go to benefit the whole Linux community and while I'm sure Ubuntu is no more a charity than it is a democracy there is still a case for quality.

Remember Linux trades on its reputation for stability and security, without that it has nothing.

I crave stability and polish over features and think the next release (10.10) should forget about adding new functionality until it has fixed the most glaring bugs and omissions in core technologies like X-windows, Pulse audio, Search and Gnome/Nautilus. As I say I'm not going to be specific about what's wrong with them, enough people know first hand! The fact is that effort spent on improving the quality and completeness of the above core technologies will go to benefit the whole Linux community and while I'm sure Ubuntu is no more a charity than it is a democracy there is still a case for quality. Remember Linux trades on its reputation for stability and security, without that it has nothing.

Written by Otus the 8 Apr 10 at 10:54.

The non-LTS 10.10 should be about new features, but there should also be a concentrated effort to fix any bugs that may be left in 10.04 after release. Those can be released normally as 10.04.1 etc, but should also be publicized so those unhappy with initial 10.04 will find them.

Those who want stability foremost should be able to get their bugfixes with the LTS release. Those who also want features should have a way to get them in 10.10.

The non-LTS 10.10 should be about new features, but there should also be a concentrated effort to fix any bugs that may be left in 10.04 after release. Those can be released normally as 10.04.1 etc, but should also be publicized so those unhappy with initial 10.04 will find them. Those who want stability foremost should be able to get their bugfixes with the LTS release. Those who also want features should have a way to get them in 10.10.

Written by DaVince the 11 Apr 10 at 19:26.

That's what the .10 and LTS releases are for anyway, right? Of course, major, quick to fix and non-regressing bugs will still always be fixed for next release if found.

That's what the .10 and LTS releases are for anyway, right? Of course, major, quick to fix and non-regressing bugs will still always be fixed for next release if found.

Written by Chtfn the 13 Nov 10 at 13:54.

In the "system" tab of the system monitor, some information could be added :

- the architecture of the operating system after the version number :
"Version 10.10 (Maverick) i686" or "Version 10.10 (Maverick) x86_64"

- the architecture(s) supported by the CPU in the "hardware" part :
"32 or 64 bits" or "32 bits"

In the "system" tab of the system monitor, some information could be added : - the architecture of the operating system after the version number : "Version 10.10 (Maverick) i686" or "Version 10.10 (Maverick) x86_64" - the architecture(s) supported by the CPU in the "hardware" part : "32 or 64 bits" or "32 bits"

Written by Goury the 13 Nov 10 at 18:59.

just as subj

just as subj

Written by Klau3 the 17 Nov 10 at 21:31.

Version 10.10 (Maverick) 64-Bit
or
Version 10.10 (Maverick) 32-Bit

Rest as #1

Version 10.10 (Maverick) 64-Bit or Version 10.10 (Maverick) 32-Bit Rest as #1

Written by turbolad the 21 Nov 10 at 12:12.

When booting up, the splash screen (which shows the 5 dots below the word "ubuntu") could tell users both the Ubuntu version and its architecture. This can be used in "live" mode too.

When booting up, the splash screen (which shows the 5 dots below the word "ubuntu") could tell users both the Ubuntu version and its architecture. This can be used in "live" mode too.

Written by rubdos the 3 Dec 10 at 21:01.

"Version 10.10 (Maverick) 32-bit (i686)" or "Version 10.10 (Maverick) 64-bit (x86_64)"

"Version 10.10 (Maverick) 32-bit (i686)" or "Version 10.10 (Maverick) 64-bit (x86_64)"

Written by zroo3d the 10 Dec 10 at 14:17.

When I need to know version of application, often I can find it in Help > About panel. Instead of Ubuntu history may be better to show informations about PC and Ubuntu version.

When I need to know version of application, often I can find it in Help > About panel. Instead of Ubuntu history may be better to show informations about PC and Ubuntu version.

Written by ramkris the 13 Dec 10 at 02:33.

A keyboard shortcut, say ALT+a could be made to give Architecture details

A keyboard shortcut, say ALT+a could be made to give Architecture details

Written by dlithgow the 4 Jan 11 at 19:54.

Lets build on the system we have already. Under 'System > About Ubuntu" on my machine it says:

"You are using Ubuntu 11.04 - the Natty Narwhal..."

By adding a simple script or with some manual intervention it could have read:

"You are using Ubuntu 11.04 - the Natty Narwhal (32-bit (i686))..."

... so let's add a little script to either the CD building system or the install system which adds the relevant information.

Lets build on the system we have already. Under 'System > About Ubuntu" on my machine it says: "You are using Ubuntu 11.04 - the Natty Narwhal..." By adding a simple script or with some manual intervention it could have read: "You are using Ubuntu 11.04 - the Natty Narwhal (32-bit (i686))..." ... so let's add a little script to either the CD building system or the install system which adds the relevant information.

Written by flaggy82 the 16 Nov 10 at 21:02.

Have a unique UI, user-friendly, may can show how the page will be printed out, in the same language of the system.

Have a unique UI, user-friendly, may can show how the page will be printed out, in the same language of the system.

Written by niallabrown the 21 Nov 10 at 22:26.

Any printers outside of the popular brands will not work properly on Linux until the printer companies themselves are involved in the process. There is no way that the community can write one dialog that accommodates all of a printers functions like the Epson Photo 1400 and a HP Deskjet D2600. The existing dialogs don't even have the appropriate print quality settings for anything but the most mainstream printers so they just print out a mess of lines. Encourage the companies to open their drivers.

Any printers outside of the popular brands will not work properly on Linux until the printer companies themselves are involved in the process. There is no way that the community can write one dialog that accommodates all of a printers functions like the Epson Photo 1400 and a HP Deskjet D2600. The existing dialogs don't even have the appropriate print quality settings for anything but the most mainstream printers so they just print out a mess of lines. Encourage the companies to open their drivers.

Written by czr114 the 24 Nov 10 at 22:18.

A redesign should allow for printer-specific options to be included, but in a way which preserves consistency in visual layout and user habituation, instead of allowing each make and model of printer to reinvent the wheel and confuse users with wildly-different dialogs. (see my comment below)

A redesign should allow for printer-specific options to be included, but in a way which preserves consistency in visual layout and user habituation, instead of allowing each make and model of printer to reinvent the wheel and confuse users with wildly-different dialogs. (see my comment below)

Written by Rodrigo the 28 Apr 10 at 16:08.

The information about the sunset and sunrise could be visible even while off line.
That way you could have more info even if you are traveling and you are not connected.
I think is a very useful info specially if you like to run or want to wake up "with the sun"

The information about the sunset and sunrise could be visible even while off line. That way you could have more info even if you are traveling and you are not connected. I think is a very useful info specially if you like to run or want to wake up "with the sun"

Written by spaik the 8 May 10 at 20:53.

it should be able to download and save the info for 48 hours. its easy to get weather info for even more than that. it should also show some how that its off-line data and it can change any time.

the sunset and sunrise could be calculated easily at least for the saved countries. like it calculate it when you pick the countries and have an Internet connection at this point.

it should be able to download and save the info for 48 hours. its easy to get weather info for even more than that. it should also show some how that its off-line data and it can change any time. the sunset and sunrise could be calculated easily at least for the saved countries. like it calculate it when you pick the countries and have an Internet connection at this point.

Written by mandavi the 10 May 10 at 12:26.

include the necessary tables into the program and calculate sunrise and sunset independent from the internet

include the necessary tables into the program and calculate sunrise and sunset independent from the internet

Written by nharris the 15 May 10 at 05:41.

When copying/moving files, there could be file icons in the directory they're being copied/moved to with progress bars and % completed 'on top' of their icons http://imgur.com/JCB1y.jpg

There could also be a menubar icon that when clicked on would show all the files being copied and moved in a dropdown menu with the progress bar 'behind' the file name. Clicking on the file name would take you to the directory. http://imgur.com/UapX5.jpg This icon should only be present when files are being moved or copied by the user.

It would look pretty darn slick, it's a feature both Windows and Mac are lacking to my knowledge and it's one of the little things that would go a long way, IMO.

When copying/moving files, there could be file icons in the directory they're being copied/moved to with progress bars and % completed 'on top' of their icons http://imgur.com/JCB1y.jpg There could also be a menubar icon that when clicked on would show all the files being copied and moved in a dropdown menu with the progress bar 'behind' the file name. Clicking on the file name would take you to the directory. http://imgur.com/UapX5.jpg This icon should only be present when files are being moved or copied by the user. It would look pretty darn slick, it's a feature both Windows and Mac are lacking to my knowledge and it's one of the little things that would go a long way, IMO.

Written by Wim the 17 May 10 at 07:42.

I like the idea, but maybe we could generalize it a bit. Basically the copy/move dialogue is nothing more than a progress bar, so why not make a panel applet that "catches" and can display all the progress bars active at that moment.

You would need to give some kind of visual feed back that this happens, though, like briefly showing the progress bars window.

I like the idea, but maybe we could generalize it a bit. Basically the copy/move dialogue is nothing more than a progress bar, so why not make a panel applet that "catches" and can display all the progress bars active at that moment. You would need to give some kind of visual feed back that this happens, though, like briefly showing the progress bars window.

Written by annex666 the 14 May 10 at 22:07.

This problem can be solved quite easily by putting greater effort into unifying common look-and-feel in the System | Preferences menu.

Specifically, all configuration that relates to the way applications look (already partially implemented) should be under:

* System | Preferences | Appearance
o Themes
o Fonts
o ...

All configuration options that relate to the behaviour of the OS should be under:

* System | Preferences | Behaviour
o Windows
o Tabs
o ...

The above configuration options should be picked up by all applications - for example, setting shortcut keys for "open tab" and "close tab" in "System | Preferences | Behaviour | Tabs" should cause all applications to adopt those key bindings.

This problem can be solved quite easily by putting greater effort into unifying common look-and-feel in the System | Preferences menu. Specifically, all configuration that relates to the way applications look (already partially implemented) should be under: * System | Preferences | Appearance o Themes o Fonts o ... All configuration options that relate to the behaviour of the OS should be under: * System | Preferences | Behaviour o Windows o Tabs o ... The above configuration options should be picked up by all applications - for example, setting shortcut keys for "open tab" and "close tab" in "System | Preferences | Behaviour | Tabs" should cause all applications to adopt those key bindings.

Written by maverickalex the 15 Mar 10 at 08:16.

Smooth sound volume fade to zero, and GUI fade out to black on a system level upon logout from the system, or restarting/shutting down.

Smooth sound volume fade to zero, and GUI fade out to black on a system level upon logout from the system, or restarting/shutting down.

Written by pererik87 the 17 Mar 10 at 09:50.

When i shut of it should turn of instantly and when i turn it on it should turn on instantly. The closer we get to this statement, the better.

When i shut of it should turn of instantly and when i turn it on it should turn on instantly. The closer we get to this statement, the better.