D2006 Tool Palette So Inferior
Mike Vance
When is the Delphi group going to improve this terrible weakness to the
IDE? This is the #1 weakness that D2006 has. The D7 tool palette could
display so many more categories and icons than the D2006 version. It is
such a weakness! Also, it is sad that the D2006 tool palette has to use
this mini component icons instead of the larger ones than worked so well
for so many years. Sometimes it is tempting to move back to D7 for its
tool palette alone. Somebody do something!
Luke
slow, but many keywords, object and method names are not clickable!
E.g. look up "TButton.Create" and you'll get its syntax:
constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
but TComponent is not hyperlinked in BDS 2006! It's really annoying! I
have to look it up manually! Also F1 seems to be doing nothing.
Even when I use newest versions I still use D7 help.
L.
Liz
And 2006 allows you to search by name... which IMHO is better as you
dont need to remember categories you can just type but, and anything
starting but will appear.
--
Liz the Brit
Delphi things I have released: http://www.xcalibur.co.uk/DelphiThings
Marcus Mönnig
>> The D7 tool palette was so much more useful than the D2006 version.
>> When is the Delphi group going to improve this terrible weakness to
>> the IDE? This is the #1 weakness that D2006 has. The D7 tool
>> palette could display so many more categories and icons than the
>> D2006 version. It is such a weakness! Also, it is sad that the
>> D2006 tool palette has to use this mini component icons instead of
>> the larger ones than worked so well for so many years. Sometimes it
>> is tempting to move back to D7 for its tool palette alone. Somebody
>> do something!
>
> And 2006 allows you to search by name... which IMHO is better as you
> dont need to remember categories you can just type but, and anything
> starting but will appear.
And didn't David show in the first webinar that you can actually replicate
the pre-BDS toolbar by setting some options? Or he tried and failed, but the
point is that it seems to be possible.
Marcus (aka mini)
Andreas Hausladen
> Somebody do something!
http://andy.jgknet.de/dspeedup/images/DDevExtOldPalette.png
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Sometimes it is tempting to move back to D7 for its
> tool palette alone.
Yuck. The first thing I do when I install D7 is add the free CompBar
tool to replace the palatte. In D2006 I can find the component I want
with a couple of quick keystrokes. In D7 I have to scroll and scroll
and scroll and scroll with the mouse.
Try this in D2006.
1) Show a form.
2) Ctrl+Alt+P
3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
Easy, no? Now try and find a component that quickly in D7.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Useful articles about InterBase development:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/category/21.aspx
Liz
> And didn't David show in the first webinar that you can actually
> replicate the pre-BDS toolbar by setting some options? Or he tried
> and failed, but the point is that it seems to be possible.
Yep you can put names at the top and tabs at the top and components
across and stuff..
Joe Hendricks
> 1) Show a form.
> 2) Ctrl+Alt+P
> 3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
Yes, I could never go back to the D7 style, the BDS tool palette way is
so much faster!
JoeH
Tom Corey
> I could say the same about the whole help crap. It's not just awfully
> slow, but many keywords, object and method names are not clickable!
I don't think there's anyone, even at CodeGear, who would disagree with
you about that. The help system is pretty much universally recognized
as, um, 'bad'.
Arno Garrels
> Mike Vance wrote:
>
>> Somebody do something!
>
> http://andy.jgknet.de/dspeedup/images/DDevExtOldPalette.png
I love it!! Thanks a lot.
Arno Garrels
Luke
Since nobody likes it, why keep delivering it?
L.
Tom Corey
> The first thing I do when I install D7 is add the free CompBar
> tool to replace the palatte.
My favorite part of programming is the cosmetic design of the forms and
dialogs. Unfortunately, that is also the part that takes the least
time. Far more of my time is spent coding in the editor. Point being, I
use the component palette infrequently enough that the (perceived)
shortcomings in either one have never really been an issue.
> Try this in D2006.
> 1) Show a form.
> 2) Ctrl+Alt+P
> 3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
> Easy, no? Now try and find a component that quickly in D7.
You must be one of those optimists I hear about from time to time. I
don't think the OP is interested in a solution - I think he just likes
to gripe. :)
Ray Konopka
I understand what you are saying. I don't really like the default settings
for the palette with a single column that shows the name of the component as
well. However, it is quite easy to change a few settings and get a palette
that shows many more components at one time than the old style palette.
In particular, right click on the palette and select Properties. Then
change the Button Size to Large, this will instruct the palette to display
32x32 size icons for the components. Next uncheck Show Button Captions.
With this setup you get a grid of component icons (rather than just one row)
in each group. What is also nice is that you can see multiple groups open at
the same time.
When I'm designing a form, I don't use the keyboard too much, so I don't
really use the new keyboard searching capabilities of the new component
palette. However, some users really like this new feature as well.
Ray
Didier Gasser-Morlay
Thanks a lot, that makes a world of a difference, I am using Turbo
explorer to evaluate D2006, this kills one of my biggest gripes with it.
Didier
Mike Vance
D2006 component palette really is! Sometimes my thinking gets in a rut,
and that is exactly where I was at when it came to this component
palette issue. I simply set the icon size to medium and turned off the
button captions and wow, everything looks great and I am very happy.
Thank you for jolting me from my sad state of mind :-) I am so glad
you responded with those simple but necessary tips. You are a wonderful
man Ray, and am a proud owner of Raize Components and even ScratchPad
:-)
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> The D7 tool palette could display so many more categories and icons
> than the D2006 version.
D2006 can display as many categories, or do you mean on the screen at
the same time?
> Also, it is sad that the D2006 tool palette has to use this mini
> component icons instead of the larger ones..
Change the properties to use "Medium" instead of "Small".
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Tom Corey
> Then now I am starting to hope that somebody will get rid of this
> crap! Since nobody likes it, why keep delivering it?
It should be obvious. They can't just wave their hands and have a good
version, up to date with the latest BDS, magically appear. It takes
time - lots of it - to fix that much content.
Meanwhile, they have to deliver something, and this is what they've got.
And before anyone raises the objection "Well, why don't they just ship
D7 help files with BDS2006" - if they did that, there'd be a whole
battalion of people bitching and moaning that their shiny new expensive
product is shipping with an out-of-date help file using obsolete help
system technology.
David Erbas-White
So instead, they have something unusable instead of obsolete. Does this
make sense?
Markus Humm
Why don't you use the classic floating layout in BDS2006 and stop
complaining because of being happy again?
;-)
Greetings
Markus
Tom Corey
> So instead, they have something unusable instead of obsolete. Does
> this make sense?
As I see it, BDS 2005 was pretty whacked across the board. They've done
an impressive job fixing things with BD S2006, but as is always the
case work has to be prioritized. I'd love to have a flawless help
system, but since the world is all about trade-offs, I'd certainly
rather have a fast and stable IDE, since I spend a lot more time
working there than reading the help.
People will bitch about it either way. Hell, even if it was perfect,
someone here would find some cause to complain.
Tom Corey
> Thank you for jolting me from my sad state of mind
> :-) I am so glad you responded with those simple but necessary tips.
> You are a wonderful man Ray, and am a proud owner of Raize Components
Get a room! :)
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
I am 10 times more productive with the BDS2006 palette.
It *really* is a better implementation, give it some time
and use it with lookup, you'll never want to go back.
David Erbas-White
So let me get this straight -- you feel it's better to spend resources
to BREAK the help system, rather than leave the existing system in place
and explain that the resources weren't available -- is that correct?
If they had simply kept the old help system, they would have had to make
minor updates (for whatever was new), and people would have complained
that the help system was getting old.
Going to the new help system meant that they spent additional resources
to provide something that is essentially unusable.
I would argue that the second case has provided far more negative user
experience than the first one would have. If the first path had been
followed, folks would have complained for the sake of complaining. In
the ACTUAL case, EVERYONE agrees that the help system is broken --
there's not even a defense for it.
David Erbas-White
Tom Corey
> So let me get this straight -- you feel it's better to spend
> resources to BREAK the help system, rather than leave the existing
> system in place and explain that the resources weren't available --
> is that correct?
Not even close. It is a sadly amusing attempt to misrepresent what I
said though. I congratulate you on remaining true to form.
David Erbas-White
I've asked you to clarify -- you refuse to do so. I don't see your
previous statement as being rational.
Assume it's my fault/deficiency -- it probably is. So, would you please
explain to this poor, illiterate, and unknowing programmer, why the
choice made ANY kind of sense???
David Erbas-White
Q Correll
| Try this in D2006.
|
| 1) Show a form.
| 2) Ctrl+Alt+P
| 3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
The problem I have is knowing the name(s) of the component(s) I want!
<g>
--
Q
11/15/2006 15:36:20
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
David Clegg
> If they had simply kept the old help system, they would have had to
> make minor updates (for whatever was new), and people would have
> complained that the help system was getting old.
IIRC, they were hitting the upper limit of the maximum content allowed
by the old system. They may not have been physically able to add the
new content.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"I know I'm not usually a praying man, but if you're up there, please
Superman, help me!" - Homer Simpson
David Clegg
> It really is a better implementation, give it some time
> and use it with lookup, you'll never want to go back.
Hear hear! And if you want to feel even better about the BDS one, try
using the VS2005 counterpart (especially once you've installed a few
third party controls).
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"When will I learn? The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom
of a bottle, they're on TV!" - Homer Simpson
Q Correll
| In particular, right click on the palette and select Properties.
| Then change the Button Size to Large, this will instruct the palette
| to display 32x32 size icons for the components. Next uncheck Show
| Button Captions.
I sure wish that the icons rendered more legibly. <sigh> They really
suck.
--
Q
11/15/2006 15:44:59
Q Correll
| I sure wish that the icons rendered more legibly. <sigh> They really
| suck.
I should have said "some of the icons."
--
Q
11/15/2006 15:48:15
Nathaniel L. Walker
SDK documentation into the old help system, given Microsoft has
moved from help files to HTML Help v2 and porting Platform
SDK documentation to WinHelp is as much a waste of resources
as the new help system it seems.
- Nate.
"David Erbas-White" <der...@arachneering.com> wrote in message
news:455b89df$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Q Correll
| Try to use the palette the way it is supposed to be used
| I am 10 times more productive with the BDS2006 palette.
| It really is a better implementation, give it some time
| and use it with lookup, you'll never want to go back.
Yep. Same here with me. I tried using the old palette again, just to
"test" my usage. I was surprised at how much I now disliked the old
way. And the new palette didn't really take that much "getting used
to."
--
Q
11/15/2006 15:52:47
Nathaniel L. Walker
UI design is a small part of most projects. Most developers find
themselves in the code editor and thus aren't apt to complain about
these things in this way (especially almost a year after release) because
code editing and other IDE features trump IDE preferences. It's not
like it's "broken."
- Nate.
"Mike Vance" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc4f03...@forums.borland.com...
Ray Konopka
I won't argue with you on that one. In Delphi 2005, the stock VCL
components only supported the 16x16 images. Even the tried and
true 24x24 icons were removed.
However, in BDS 2006 most of the stock components do support all
three component icon sizes. The data related ones appear to be the
ones that were never updated with the new sizes.
However, my biggest complaint with the component icons is that
many of them were redesigned and frankly are difficult to locate.
For example, I still do not understand the 3D wireframe image to
represent TPanel.
Ray
Ray Konopka
-Ray
Ray Konopka
> am a proud owner of Raize Components and even ScratchPad
Forgot to mention this in my last message. All of the controls in
Raize Components support all three sizes of component images.
-Ray
Q Correll
| For example, I still do not understand the 3D wireframe image to
| represent TPanel.
It doesn't seem to make much sense.
--
Q
11/15/2006 21:40:50
Bruno Fierens [tmssoftware.com]
> using the VS2005 counterpart (especially once you've installed a few
> third party controls).
don't say that too loud
or Microsoft will copy-cat that as well in the next version ;)
Kryvich
> slow, but many keywords, object and method names are not clickable!
> E.g. look up "TButton.Create" and you'll get its syntax:
> constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
> but TComponent is not hyperlinked in BDS 2006! It's really annoying! I
> have to look it up manually! Also F1 seems to be doing nothing.
Hm. Very strange. I can get TComponent opened when I ctrl-click on
TComponent in constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
Try to compile your project before.
Dave Jewell
news:xn0etr14b...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> And before anyone raises the objection "Well, why don't they just ship
> D7 help files with BDS2006" - if they did that, there'd be a whole
> battalion of people bitching and moaning that their shiny new expensive
> product is shipping with an out-of-date help file using obsolete help
> system technology.
You need to differentiate between help system *technology* and help system
*content*. Frankly, the new help system technology is dog-slow to load, and
once it's on-screen, the content is almost useless. The "obsolete" help
system technology, on the other hand, loads instantly and is a lot more
informative. For what it's worth, I often run D7 help (or even D5 help)
alongside BDS2006. Those old help systems contain many strange and wondrous
examples of something called "sample code" - a concept that was apparently
alien to the creators of the BDS2005/2006 help system. ;-)
Dave
Dave Jewell
news:455b...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Because they could not integrate .NET framework and platform
> SDK documentation into the old help system, given Microsoft has
> moved from help files to HTML Help v2 and porting Platform
> SDK documentation to WinHelp is as much a waste of resources
> as the new help system it seems.
That's a reasonable argument. However, given the mess we ended up with, it
would have made far more sense to put the newer .NET documentation into HTML
Help 2.0 and LEAVE THE EXISTING DELPHI HELP ALONE. The current situation is
probably the worst of all possible worlds.
Dave
Dave Jewell
news:455bf076$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> For example, I still do not understand the 3D wireframe image to
> represent TPanel.
[Slaps forehead!] So that's what it is! <big grin>
Seriously, I suppose futtzing around with the component icons was more fun
than sorting out the dreadful help system. Sigh...
Dave
IanH
I'm amazed that Nick doesn't include shiny new component icons in his
list of reasons to upgrade ;-)
IanH
Dave,
You have to wonder how long the people responsible were either: saying
it will all be all right by release time, before they were found out;
or screaming for more resources as they saw the train wreck approaching.
Which of these was the more likely? I know what my money would be on ;-)
Ian
Dave Jewell
news:455c...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> You have to wonder how long the people responsible were either: saying
> it will all be all right by release time, before they were found out;
> or screaming for more resources as they saw the train wreck approaching.
> Which of these was the more likely? I know what my money would be on ;-)
[Nervous phone voice] Hello? Microsoft? Errr... BDS2005 hits the streets
next week and I was....errr... just wondering how my job application was
coming along?
Dave ;-)
Rick Carter
>You have to wonder how long the people responsible were either: saying
>it will all be all right by release time, before they were found out;
>or screaming for more resources as they saw the train wreck approaching.
>
>Which of these was the more likely? I know what my money would be on ;-)
More likely scenario: Documentation team comes up with plan, and
presents it to Borland management with a request for the necessary
funding and resources. Documentation team is assured of support, and
told to proceed with plan. Borland PHB manager decides to commit
resources elsewhere, and tells documentation team they must still
implement plan, but with drastically reduced resources.
Rick Carter
cart...@despammed.com
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
IanH
> IanH wrote:
> > You have to wonder how long the people responsible were either:
> > saying it will all be all right by release time, before they were
> > found out; or screaming for more resources as they saw the train
> > wreck approaching.
> >
> > Which of these was the more likely? I know what my money would be
> > on ;-)
>
> More likely scenario: Documentation team comes up with plan, and
> presents it to Borland management with a request for the necessary
> funding and resources. Documentation team is assured of support, and
> told to proceed with plan. Borland PHB manager decides to commit
> resources elsewhere, and tells documentation team they must still
> implement plan, but with drastically reduced resources.
I didn't add the inevitable failure of Borland PHBs to provide the
required resource - I took that as a given :-(
I'm sure that your scenario is what actually happened: I feel sorry for
the people on the inside who knew what was going to happen, and had no
power to improve things. Basic management failure.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
Your perspicacity is amazing. ;-)
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
Brad White
news:455c9f0f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Rick --
>
> Your perspicacity is amazing. ;-)
>
>
perspicacity \pur-spuh-KAS-uh-tee\, noun: comes from Latin perspicax,
perspicac-, "sharp-sighted," from perspicere, "to look through," from per,
"through" + specere, "to look."
Clearness of understanding or insight; penetration, discernment.
I take that to mean "You hit the nail on the head Rick."
--
HTH,
Brad.
Brad White
news:1554524688.2...@gmail.com...
>> constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
>
>> but TComponent is not hyperlinked in BDS 2006! It's really annoying! I
>> have to look it up manually! Also F1 seems to be doing nothing.
>
> Hm. Very strange. I can get TComponent opened when I ctrl-click on
> TComponent in constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
>
> Try to compile your project before.
>
And what does comiping your project have to do with the help?
--
Thanks,
Brad.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> I take that to mean "You hit the nail on the head Rick."
Not quite --
I am neither confirming nor denying that what Rick said is what
happened. I do think Rick is, however, a very clear thinker. ;-)
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > but TComponent is not hyperlinked in BDS 2006! It's really
> > annoying! I have to look it up manually! Also F1 seems to be doing
> > nothing.
>
> Hm. Very strange. I can get TComponent opened when I ctrl-click on
> TComponent in constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
He said "TComponent is not hyperlinked", ie in the help for
TButton.Create, which it isn't. I am wondering however, to what level
the hyperlinks should go, eg in the example, should the word
"constructor" be hyperlinked, too?
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
JED
> Kryvich wrote:
>
> > > but TComponent is not hyperlinked in BDS 2006! It's really
> > > annoying! I have to look it up manually! Also F1 seems to be doing
> > > nothing.
> >
> > Hm. Very strange. I can get TComponent opened when I ctrl-click on
> > TComponent in constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent);
>
> He said "TComponent is not hyperlinked", ie in the help for
> TButton.Create, which it isn't.
Actually I believe this is a limitation with the help format. Not
having these hyperlinks. There are closed reports in QC that state this.
> I am wondering however, to what level
> the hyperlinks should go, eg in the example, should the word
> "constructor" be hyperlinked, too?
If constructor had help then perhaps yes. You can get too hyperlink
happy.
The real issue is probably the "See Also" sections should have links to
these things in them. If hyperlinks aren't supported in the text area.
--
Compact Framework for Delphi 2006: http://www.jed-software.com/cf.htm
QualityCentral Windows Client: http://www.jed-software.com/qc.htm
Visual Forms IDE Add In: http://www.jed-software.com/vf.htm
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Then change the Button Size to Large, this will instruct the palette
> to display 32x32 size icons for the components. Next uncheck Show
> Button Captions.
Wow.. it almost looks like the D7 palette now. Image posted to
.attachments <g>
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Mike Vance wrote:
>
> > Sometimes it is tempting to move back to D7 for its
> > tool palette alone.
>
> tool to replace the palatte. In D2006 I can find the component I want
> with a couple of quick keystrokes. In D7 I have to scroll and scroll
> and scroll and scroll with the mouse.
>
> Try this in D2006.
>
> 1) Show a form.
> 2) Ctrl+Alt+P
> 3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
>
> Easy, no? Now try and find a component that quickly in D7.
D7:
1. Show a form (much easier with a properly working undocked IDE, btw)
2. Click on palette page containing required component
(you know which component you want, therefore you know either
where it is installed or on which page you have moved it to
in your own personally organised palette. To suggest otherwise
only makes sense if you are deliberately contriving an artifical
example to make name searching appear beneficial)
3. Click on the palette tool for the component you require.
Much easier, imho.
To really push the point home, you need to add into the list of steps
the placement of the component and the times you move your hand from
keyboard to mouse:
BDS:
1) Show a form (place hand on mouse)
2) (mouse -> keyboard) Ctrl+Alt+P
3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
4) (keyboard -> mouse) Place component
D7:
1) Show a form (place hand on mouse)
2) Click on palette
3) Click on component tool
4) Place component
In D7, I, the user, enter "form design mode", which in Delphi, thank
goodness, is a visual, primarily mouse driven activity. I can stay in
this mouse driven mode unless the properties I'm setting on the newly
placed component require keyboard entry (many, perhaps even "most"
don't, with the obvious and immediate exception of "Name", <g>).
In BDS I'm constantly switching from keyboard to mouse.
A huge leap backwards imho.
--
Jolyon Smith
David S
" Tom Corey" <omtay....@otmailhay.omcay> wrote:
>Luke wrote:
>
>> I could say the same about the whole help crap. It's not just awfully
>> slow, but many keywords, object and method names are not clickable!
>
>you about that. The help system is pretty much universally recognized
>as, um, 'bad'.
>
What "Help" system? Most of the time when I search for stuff, I
get links for things that aren't related to Delphi, even though
I've only got Delphi installed on the computer. I've literally
typed KNOWN function names into the search field and had the
results come back not even listing the function as one of the
matches. This is fairly common for the various IO functions,
like ExtractFileName().
And... where did the examples go? Hey, even though most of them
have been useless anyway, it would still be nice to see SOMETHING!
-David
Eric Grange
Solution: keep your components sorted so you don't have to search for
them, don't just treat your component palette as a dump.
Once that's done, you'll have access to hundreds of components in /at
most/ two clicks with the D7 palette. Try doing that in D2006...
The keyboard+mouse combo usage *requirement* of the new palette is a
humongous step back IMO. With it, "tidy" devs have to deal with a UI
made for "untidy" devs that couldn't take the few minutes needed to sort
their new components, rather than just dump them in the IDE. Rather than
having a UI that contributes to solving the problem once and for all,
the new palette UI favours inefficiency all the time.
When you have several components that are supposed to work together (and
will be dropped on the form together), but don't start with the same
characters, the D2006 palette turns into pure unmitigated hell compared
to D7's.
And then there is the screen space waste, the smaller blurry icons, the
flashy background that doesn't improve readability, the location
inconsistency, the scrollbar, etc. It's almost worthy of an "all the
things you shouldn't do" UI case study.
Eric
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Once that's done, you'll have access to hundreds of components in /at
> most/ two clicks with the D7 palette. Try doing that in D2006
You'll have to list the steps, because I don't know how to do it in
less clicks in D7 than in D2006.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Eric Grange
> less clicks in D7 than in D2006.
1) Click on the category tab.
2) Click on the component.
If your components are properly sorted, the tab captions shortened, even
in *800x600* screen resolution, you can have two-click access to 300+
components with the old palette, one-click access to 20+ components and
15 category tabs.
And these are 24 pixel component icons, not the tiny, blurry 16 pixels
icons of the new palette, yet, the screen real-estate used by the D7
palette is practically negligible in comparison to D2006's...
As for the "improvement" of searching by component's name first
characters, that's a straw-man: if you can remember a component's name
well enough to type it without mistakes, you certainly can certainly
remember its category. The opposite isn't true however.
Eric
Mikko Laiho
>
> In particular, right click on the palette and select Properties.
> Then change the Button Size to Large, this will instruct the palette
> to display 32x32 size icons for the components. Next uncheck Show
> Button Captions.
>
> one row) in each group. What is also nice is that you can see
> multiple groups open at the same time.
>
Otherwise pretty nice but some icons, like InterBase Express and Indy,
look horrible.
-- Mikko
Michael C.
> I could say the same about the whole help crap.
Tell me about it.
I can't even get it to work.
Every document is "The page cannot be displayed".
Michael C.
>
> People will bitch about it either way. Hell, even if it was perfect,
> someone here would find some cause to complain.
The help system is "%100 imperfect" on my computer.
The only thing I can see is the contents and the index.
That's about it.
I think you need to realize that this help system is worst Delphi help ever.
Tom Corey
> I think you need to realize that this help system is
> worst Delphi help ever.
Ummm. I do realize that. Read the thread.
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> 1) Click on the category tab.
> 2) Click on the component.
Same as in D2006.
> And these are 24 pixel component icons, not the tiny, blurry 16
> pixels icons of the new palette,
Unless of course you change to "Medium" size in D2006.
> yet, the screen real-estate used by
> the D7 palette is practically negligible in comparison to D2006's...
That's odd, because they take up about the same amount of screen real
estate in D2006 for me. See the screenshot I posted in .attachments a
couple of days ago. Note that in D7 you can't have more than one
category expanded at once, so imagine the real estate used with just
one category expanded.
> As for the "improvement" of searching by component's name first
> characters, that's a straw-man: if you can remember a component's
> name well enough to type it without mistakes, you certainly can
> certainly remember its category.
To each his own. I'm far better remembering the component name than the
category.
> The opposite isn't true however
That would be true if everyone thought the same as you.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Eric Grange wrote:
>
> > 1) Click on the category tab.
> > 2) Click on the component.
>
> Same as in D2006.
Difference: In D7 the palette is part of the IDE toolbar - I can
arrange it so that the single expanded category extends the entire width
of my screen or, more practically, the 2/3rds of the screen that I don't
need for the rest of my main IDE tool box.
In BDS2006 I can only dock the palette to the top of the code
editor/form design pane. Any other panes docked to the left/right
eating into the HORIZONTAL real estate of the palette itself, and the
palette now has it's OWN TOOLBAR (for crying out loud!) which eats into
the VERTICAL real estate of my editor/designer. Of course, I could
leave the palette floating, but this is the one part of the IDEA that
makes SENSE to be docked the whole time, seeing as how (in D7 at least)
it's natural shape and configuration gave it a natural home in the IDE
toolbar that had copious room to accomodate it.
Now we have a useless palette AND a wasted IDE toolbar.
And in any event, you seem keen to compare apples and apples, so the BDS
palette should be compared in it's best possible DOCKED configuration,
which, as I said before, means getting perhaps 50% of the screen width.
So in BDS2006 it is far more likely to be not:
1) Click on category
2) Click on component
but
1) Click on category
2) Scroll category to find component
3) Click on component
After all, if it was JUST AS EASY as D7 there would be no need to have
any palette search tools!
;)
> > And these are 24 pixel component icons, not the tiny, blurry 16
> > pixels icons of the new palette,
>
> Unless of course you change to "Medium" size in D2006.
See above - with the imposition of the palette's own toolbar, to try and
reduce screen real estate consumption of the BDS palette you HAVE to use
the small icons.
> > yet, the screen real-estate used by
> > the D7 palette is practically negligible in comparison to D2006's...
>
> That's odd, because they take up about the same amount of screen real
> estate in D2006 for me.
If that screen shot is supposed to demonstrate equivalence of D7 and BDS
2006 palettes then your definitions of "same" is truly bizarre. And as
for what you think "practically negligible" must mean....
;)
lol
> To each his own. I'm far better remembering the component name than the
> category.
You snipped the point that the palette organization is not cast in stone
in D7 - you don't HAVE to remember the category that the component was
originally packaged in, you can put it in whatever category makes sense
for you.
But most people don't bother organizing their palette. Many people seem
oblivious even to the fact that they can!
The BDS2006 palette changes made it "prettier" and addressed a
user/documentation failure by changing the usage to suit people who
didn't know how to use the palette properly.
Ugh, "prettier" in the above paragraph is of course a subjective term.
I personally think it stinks. To make matters worse, the redesign
included an arbitrary and questionable change in some of the component
icons. e.g. TPanel.
In face, this pretty much sums up what was wrong with the whole palette
modification exercise.
The new TPanel icon is much prettier than the boring old rectangle. Of
course, the new much prettier icon has b*gger all to do with the control
that it represents though. i.e. purely an exercise in pointless
cosmetic change, completely missing the point of the purpose that
component icon is intended to serve.
Which, as I say, neatly sums up the palette changes in their entirety
imho. Of course, the new palette looks so much nicer in the screenshots
sent to the Marketting Dept than the old one.
;)
Of course, all of this would have been fine if at the same time they had
retained the ability to keep using the palette properly and efficiently
as well.
But they didn't.
The baby went flying out with the bathwater. I just hope that's not a
sign of things to come.
:(
--
Jolyon Smith
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > > 1) Click on the category tab.
> > > 2) Click on the component.
> >
> > Same as in D2006.
>
> Difference: In D7 the palette is part of the IDE toolbar
Difference: I was talking about the number of clicks.
> And in any event, you seem keen to compare apples and apples, so the
> BDS palette should be compared in it's best possible DOCKED
> configuration
The fact that the palette *can't* be undocked in D7 is a major drawback
for me.
> So in BDS2006 it is far more likely to be not:
>
> 1) Click on category
> 2) Click on component
>
> but
>
> 1) Click on category
> 2) Scroll category to find component
> 3) Click on component
Same as in D7, if there are enough components in the category.
> > > And these are 24 pixel component icons, not the tiny, blurry 16
> > > pixels icons of the new palette,
> >
> > Unless of course you change to "Medium" size in D2006.
>
> See above - with the imposition of the palette's own toolbar, to try
> and reduce screen real estate consumption of the BDS palette you HAVE
> to use the small icons.
Which you can't do in D7.
> You snipped the point that the palette organization is not cast in
> stone in D7 - you don't HAVE to remember the category that the
> component was originally packaged in, you can put it in whatever
> category makes sense for you.
Which still doesn't change my point.
> But most people don't bother organizing their palette. Many people
> seem oblivious even to the fact that they can!
A lot of people are oblivious to what they can do with the BDS 2006
palette.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
JED
> Difference: In D7 the palette is part of the IDE toolbar - I can
> arrange it so that the single expanded category extends the entire
> width of my screen or, more practically, the 2/3rds of the screen
> that I don't need for the rest of my main IDE tool box.
My palette isn't even visible. I just use the Ctrl+Alt+P shortcut to
show the palette and either select or type in a filter.
I just wish pressing Ctrl+Alt+P would hide the palette again.
JED
Try this...
open a command prompt at the "C:\Program
Files\borland\bds\4.0\help\Common" folder (path depends on your install
folder).
reghelp -7
then
reghelp 1 (just common help items)
reghelp 3 (command and win32)
reghelp 5 (win32 and .NET)
reghelp 7 (to install common, win32 and .NET)
Jolyon Smith
> My palette isn't even visible. I just use the Ctrl+Alt+P shortcut to
> show the palette and either select or type in a filter.
>
> I just wish pressing Ctrl+Alt+P would hide the palette again.
Point: In D7, being able to hide the palette wasn't an issue because its
implementation _worked_ as part of the IDE, rather than being something
you had to find ways around to make work_able_.
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Jolyon Smith
>
> > > > 1) Click on the category tab.
> > > > 2) Click on the component.
> > >
> > > Same as in D2006.
> >
> > Difference: In D7 the palette is part of the IDE toolbar
>
> Difference: I was talking about the number of clicks.
Difference: It takes more clicks if you have to scroll. Apples with
apples remember. ;)
> The fact that the palette *can't* be undocked in D7 is a major drawback
> for me.
How so? How does it being docked in a space where nothing else can
sensibly be docked make it a problem if you can't UNdock it from that
space that you have no other better use for?
Does it's mere presence in your visual field cause offence?
;)
Bottom line - I and numerous others can point to real, point-a-stick-at-
them problems with the BDS palette - these aren't just questions of
preference.
What is the real point-a-stick-at-it problem with not being able to
undock the D7 palette?
Genuinely curious - after all the D7 palette is basically not much
changed from the D1 palette.
Some would see this as intrinsically cause for complaint - there is a
pre-occupation in some quarters with change-for-changes sake. The other
way of looking at it of course is that it was a design that had worked
for many, many years, thru numerous versions of the software.
What, precisely, was the compelling driver for change?
> Same as in D7, if there are enough components in the category.
Point: Yes, the same if it is necessary to scroll, but it is far less
_likely_ to be necessary since more components are immediately available
without having to resort to scrolling!
> > See above - with the imposition of the palette's own toolbar, to try
> > and reduce screen real estate consumption of the BDS palette you HAVE
> > to use the small icons.
>
> Which you can't do in D7.
Which isn't an issue because the palette didn't hog screen estate in
D7!!!!
Just about all of the additional "functionality" of the BDS palette is
only useful because that palette would be even more unusable WITHOUT
those capabilities!! You can't offer "make do and mend" features as
additional, positive features.
> > You snipped the point that the palette organization is not cast in
> > stone in D7 - you don't HAVE to remember the category that the
> > component was originally packaged in, you can put it in whatever
> > category makes sense for you.
>
> Which still doesn't change my point.
No, but it is relevant to the validity of your point.
Both sides of the argument are that the palette in version X is
better/easier to use than the palette in version Y. But you can't
sensibly take that position if you aren't comparing the most effective
way of using one with the most effective way of using the other.
You have all sorts of examples of tips, tricks and configuration tweaks
that you think make the BDS palette "better", but won't let us point out
how you could already use the previous palette in better ways than you
seem to have been used to?
That's hardly fair now, is it?
;)
> > But most people don't bother organizing their palette. Many people
> > seem oblivious even to the fact that they can!
>
> A lot of people are oblivious to what they can do with the BDS 2006
> palette.
Yes - I would love to have been able to afford the many hours that it
seems are necessary to figure out how to make what should be a
productivity aid usable at even the most basic level.
Unfortunately I have to fit that sort of effort in around my actual job
of work.
I can justify spending hours learning new language features - they
should help me improve the quality of my work. But if installing a new
version of a tool immediately reduces my productivity with no benefit,
either intially or even eventually, in some areas, then such an
experience is simply going to cause me (and perhaps more importantly, my
employer) to turn away from that new version.
I do not think it would be unfair to say that this sort of experience
would ring a fair number of bells among the community of Delphi
developers who are still plugging away supremely productively with D7,
and who don't really see the costs ($$s and time) of moving to the
latest versions(s) as being in any way offset by having a dialog box to
help us declare a variable!!
(Ok, overly flippant maybe: sure there are other benefits, but like I
say, it's not just bout the eventual benefits, but also about the
upfront costs, and however unfairly they may seem weighted, these are
necessarily weighted more heavily)
+0.02
--
Jolyon Smith
JED
> Point: In D7, being able to hide the palette wasn't an issue because
> its implementation worked as part of the IDE, rather than being
> something you had to find ways around to make work_able_.
Point: In BDS+ I don't have to see the tool palette when I spend
probably 5% or less of my day in the form designer.
The D7 palette was nice in its day - but its day is over and has been
replaced by a much better model. Hopefully the next version of BDS will
see it evolve further.
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Difference: It takes more clicks if you have to scroll. Apples with
> apples remember. ;)
Well yeah.. you may have to scroll in D7. Apples with apples.
> > The fact that the palette can't be undocked in D7 is a major
> > drawback for me.
>
> How so?
So I can put it where I want.
> Point: Yes, the same if it is necessary to scroll..
So it is actually apples and apples?
> Which isn't an issue because the palette didn't hog screen estate in
> D7!!!!
There's not much difference with BDS 2006, especially if you configure
them similarly, as I've said already.
> You have all sorts of examples of tips, tricks and configuration
> tweaks that you think make the BDS palette "better", but won't let us
> point out how you could already use the previous palette in better
> ways than you seem to have been used to?
How have I not allowed that? I have merely been pointing out that the
new palette does not have the drawbacks that some think it has, mainly
because they don't seem to have taken the time to actually find out
what they can do with it.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > Which isn't an issue because the palette didn't hog screen estate
> > in D7!!!!
>
> There's not much difference with BDS 2006, especially if you configure
> them similarly, as I've said already.
As a demo, pic posted to .attachments. As can be seen, in BDS 2006 I
don't even *have* to scroll.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Q Correll
| As a demo, pic posted to .attachments. As can be seen, in BDS 2006 I
| don't even have to scroll.
But you may have to click up to five times or so to find the right
group. <g>
Seriously, are there hints that show the "tab" name when you hover over
the tool palette items?
--
Q
11/20/2006 17:11:30
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
Jolyon Smith
says...
To pick a category, yes. But if you've clicked on a category with more
components in it that the (default) standard group? One with so many
components that not all category tabs are able to be visible and
possibly not all components even in the selected category....?
On the other hand, look at ALLLLLL the space in the D7 palette for
components in any given category.
We were obviously at cross purposes - the scrolling I was referring to
was specifically scrolling of _components_. I never have to scroll to
find a category since I have a multi-line tabbed component palette, so I
can see all category names, in full, and each category gets a whole
screen width-worth of space in which to show its components.
How so? GExperts
Such a common and popular (and FREE) plugin one wonders why Borland
didn't just do a deal and incorporate it in the product with a bit of
Borland polish (a la FastMM, for example).
And I've just realised that I myself am now hoist by my own petard -
that of comparing apples with apples, for no doubt you are now going to
accuse me of not comparing the "standard" BDS palette with the
"standard" D7 palette.
And I must confess, of that charge I would be guilty.
But then in my defense, GExperts is pretty much defacto a part of the
product - preBDS at any rate - I don't really think of it as separate
any more. I certainly don't know anyone who doesn't use it for one
reason or another, but by no means everyone finds the palette features
attractive, preferring the "standard" D7 palette, re-organised so that
all components (that they actually use) are in a fewer number of
categories, such that all categories are visible and all components in
each category are visible when that category is selected.
And of course, upgrading from D7 to D7 + GExperts is completely free.
:D
(FTR - The only palette related parts of GExperts I use is the multi-
line flat tabs feature)
--
Jolyon Smith
Marius
1) Show a form
2) Alt-View-Component list (Alt-V-C)
3) type in the name of the component
I have also another addon to search, including the vcl hierarchy.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> Mike Vance wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it is tempting to move back to D7 for its
>> tool palette alone.
>
> Yuck. The first thing I do when I install D7 is add the free CompBar
> tool to replace the palatte. In D2006 I can find the component I want
> with a couple of quick keystrokes. In D7 I have to scroll and scroll
> and scroll and scroll with the mouse.
>
> Try this in D2006.
>
> 1) Show a form.
> 2) Ctrl+Alt+P
> 3) Type the first few letters of the component you want.
>
Eric Grange
>> 2) Click on the component.
>
> Same as in D2006.
Nope. The category tab may not be visible (scrolled out), and it's
actually a very common occurrence as soon as any tab contains more than
a handful of components.
>> And these are 24 pixel component icons, not the tiny, blurry 16
>> pixels icons of the new palette,
>
> Unless of course you change to "Medium" size in D2006.
These are then 32 pixel components, still blurry, and the amount of
screen estate wasted is so huge that you can barely see more than a
handful at any time.
> That's odd, because they take up about the same amount of screen real
> estate in D2006 for me. See the screenshot I posted in .attachments a
> couple of days ago.
Is that a joke?
Your palette is huge, most tabs are unreadable, and you only see about
15 components. Sorry, but it's a mess.
I posted a simulated 800x600 version of my D7 palette, ie. less screen
space used, yet you can see more components and you can even have tab
names with more than 3 characters.
Also I actually posted the whole D7 menu, while you posted only the
palette, yet, I'm still ending up with a smaller image...
> Note that in D7 you can't have more than one category expanded at once,
And? the amount of screen space wasted by the new palette makes that
entirely irrelevant. See screenshot.
> so imagine the real estate used with just one category expanded.
That's the case in your screenshot, yet you still use more space,
display less component, and your tabs are unreadable.
> To each his own. I'm far better remembering the component name than the
> category.
Most likely because you never organized or sorted your palette.
And even then, I'm rather certain that's not the case, especially for
the less commonly used of your components.
Given that you accept to work (?) with a palette where there are
multiple tabs named by "Ind..." or "Exp...", I can certainly understand
you can't use tabs in any meaningful way, but that's more due to a
shortcoming in your work methodology/palette organization.
> That would be true if everyone thought the same as you.
You're getting desperate here. Your palette is unorganized, and its
category unreadable, and so unusable.
Even then, I doubt that more than 30 sec of live quizzing would be
necessary to demonstrate that you don't remember all the component names
exactly.
Eric
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > Same as in D2006.
>
> Nope. The category tab may not be visible (scrolled out)
Same as in D7, as per your screenshot.
> > Unless of course you change to "Medium" size in D2006.
>
> These are then 32 pixel components
AFAICT, they're 24 x 24.
> > That's odd, because they take up about the same amount of screen
> > real estate in D2006 for me. See the screenshot I posted in
> > .attachments a couple of days ago.
>
> Is that a joke?
> Your palette is huge
I guess huge is subjective.
> , most tabs are unreadable
..as is unreadable.
> , and you only see
> about 15 components. Sorry, but it's a mess.
Again, subjective.
> I posted a simulated 800x600 version of my D7 palette, ie. less
> screen space used, yet you can see more components and you can even
> have tab names with more than 3 characters.
Most of which cannot be reached without scrolling, as per your
screenshot.
> Also I actually posted
> the whole D7 menu, while you posted only the palette, yet, I'm still
> ending up with a smaller image...
Both of my images dont have the menu, to illustrate how little
difference in screen real estate is used. Presumably "little" is vastly
different for you than it is for me.
> > Note that in D7 you can't have more than one category expanded at
> > once,
>
> And?
..and in BDS 2006 you can.
> the amount of screen space wasted by the new palette makes that
> entirely irrelevant.
Sure, mainly because the D7 palette would take more real estate if it
could show more than one category at a time.
> Most likely because you never organized or sorted your palette.
Wrong.
> > That would be true if everyone thought the same as you.
>
> You're getting desperate here. Your palette is unorganized, and its
> category unreadable, and so unusable.
Like I said earlier, obviously it's subjective, because it works for me
just fine.
> Even then, I doubt that more than 30 sec of live quizzing would be
> necessary to demonstrate that you don't remember all the component
> names exactly.
Of course I don't remember every single one. I fail to see the
relevance.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Eric Grange
My screenshot is a 800x600 simulation, yours is... hmm? rings a bell?
I guess next time you'll be posting a screenshot in 3200 resolution,
stretched over two 1600 monitors to demonstrate scrolling is unnecessary.
Also had you opened a tab with more components, opened more than one
tab, or forgotten to *waste* a click manually closing a tab, some of
your rightmost tabs will scroll out.
And that despite using more screen space.
And that despite the tabs being unreadable.
> I guess huge is subjective.
It uses more than twice the pixel space.
It's title area + 3 buttons toolbar uses almost as much space as the
whole D7 palette.
> ..as is unreadable.
A collection of "Dat...", "Ind..." and "Exp..." with no differentiation
is readable to you? In vertical orientation to boot?
This is getting ridiculous.
> Again, subjective.
That you grew accustomed to the mess is a different problem, but quite
frankly, calling that "subjective" reminds me more of a kid claiming his
room is tidy...
> Both of my images dont have the menu, to illustrate how little
> difference in screen real estate is used.
No that's not illustration, that's deception, because the D2006 menu
*without* the palette is practically as big as the D7 one *with* the
palette.
> Presumably "little" is vastly different for you than it is for me.
No, I don't think so.
> ..and in BDS 2006 you can.
What's the point since one category opened already has the palette crowded?
That's a "handbreak on the spare wheel" kind of option (dunno if it
translates well).
> Wrong.
You're in denial.
Your screenshot demonstrates the opposite with those similarly named
tabs, as does your claim that you can find a component more easily by
its name than its category.
> Like I said earlier, obviously it's subjective, because it works for me
> just fine.
Kid and his tidy room.
> Of course I don't remember every single one. I fail to see the
> relevance.
Well, it was your claim:
"I'm far better remembering the component name than the category."
Eric
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > Same as in D7, as per your screenshot.
>
> My screenshot is a 800x600 simulation, yours is...
..irrelevant, since in my screenshot both the D7 palette and BDS 2006
are in the same resolution, and the D7 palette still needs scrolling.
> > I guess huge is subjective.
>
> It uses more than twice the pixel space.
Time to replace that calculator.
> > ..as is unreadable.
>
> A collection of "Dat...", "Ind..." and "Exp..." with no
> differentiation is readable to you? In vertical orientation to boot?
Sure.
> > Both of my images dont have the menu, to illustrate how little
> > difference in screen real estate is used.
>
> No that's not illustration, that's deception, because the D2006 menu
> without the palette is practically as big as the D7 one with the
> palette.
Sorry, but my D2006 menu takes up the same amount of room as my D7 menu.
> > ..and in BDS 2006 you can.
>
> What's the point since one category opened already has the palette
> crowded?
The point I was making there is not about real estate, but about
functionality.
> > Wrong.
>
> You're in denial.
Being that you are *not* me, I know whether I have organised or sorted
my palette, and you don't.
> Your screenshot demonstrates the opposite with those similarly named
> tabs, as does your claim that you can find a component more easily by
> its name than its category.
Strange that you misquote me here, yet correctly quote me at the end of
your post. Re-read the correct quote, because it is not what you're
saying here.
> > Like I said earlier, obviously it's subjective, because it works
> > for me just fine.
>
> Kid and his tidy room.
Some people I know have things organised and looking so wretched to me,
I can't fathom how they manage, yet they do.
> > Of course I don't remember every single one. I fail to see the
> > relevance.
>
> Well, it was your claim:
> "I'm far better remembering the component name than the category."
Right.. note how I said: "I'm far better at.." not "I can recall
every..".
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Mike Vance
I read the title of it, it serves as a reminder that a person needs to
be very careful about what words they use. The D2006 tool palette is
actually superior than D7's. Please rename this thread or just let it
die.
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > Same as in D7, as per your screenshot.
>
> My screenshot is a 800x600 simulation, yours is...
..irrelevant, since in my screenshot both the D7 palette and BDS 2006
are in the same resolution, and the D7 palette still needs scrolling.
> > I guess huge is subjective.
>
> It uses more than twice the pixel space.
..and huge is relative.
> > ..as is unreadable.
>
> A collection of "Dat...", "Ind..." and "Exp..." with no
> differentiation is readable to you? In vertical orientation to boot?
Sure.
> > Both of my images dont have the menu, to illustrate how little
> > difference in screen real estate is used.
>
> No that's not illustration, that's deception, because the D2006 menu
> without the palette is practically as big as the D7 one with the
> palette.
Sorry, but my D2006 menu takes up the same amount of room as my D7 menu.
> > ..and in BDS 2006 you can.
>
> What's the point since one category opened already has the palette
> crowded?
The point I was making there is not about real estate, but about
functionality.
> > Wrong.
>
> You're in denial.
Being that you are not me, I know whether I have organised or sorted
my palette, and you don't.
> Your screenshot demonstrates the opposite with those similarly named
> tabs, as does your claim that you can find a component more easily by
> its name than its category.
Strange that you misquote me here, yet correctly quote me at the end of
your post. Re-read the correct quote, because it is not what you're
saying here.
> > Like I said earlier, obviously it's subjective, because it works
> > for me just fine.
>
> Kid and his tidy room.
Some people I know have things organised and looking so wretched to me,
I can't fathom how they manage, yet they do.
> > Of course I don't remember every single one. I fail to see the
> > relevance.
>
> Well, it was your claim:
> "I'm far better remembering the component name than the category."
Right.. note how I said: "I'm far better at.." not "I can recall
Michael C.
> Michael C. wrote:
>> Every document is "The page cannot be displayed".
>
> Try this...
>
> open a command prompt at the "C:\Program
> Files\borland\bds\4.0\help\Common" folder (path depends on your install
> folder).
>
> reghelp -7
>
> then
>
> reghelp 1 (just common help items)
> reghelp 3 (command and win32)
> reghelp 5 (win32 and .NET)
> reghelp 7 (to install common, win32 and .NET)
>
>
Thanks for trying to help with this problem.
I was able to perform the steps as you outlined.
After what seems to be a recompile,
I restarted help.
I got a dialog saying "Help is updating to reflect your recent changes."
However, I see am unable to view any entry.
I still get "The page cannot be displayed".
( In the help box it says I'm using Microsoft Document Explorer version 7.0.
I'm not sure if that's relevant. )
Pete Fraser
and then open the help - should be nothing in there
Then do ONE of the following
reghelp 1 (just common help items)
reghelp 3 (command and win32)
reghelp 5 (win32 and .NET)
reghelp 7 (to install common, win32 and .NET)
You can view the help for BDS2006 by creating a shortcut
with following data:
Target: "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft
Shared\Help\dexplore.exe" /helpcol ms-help://borland.bds4
Also, it would be interesting to know what happens when you
run Namespace.exe from
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Help 2.0 SDK\Unsupported Tools"
Under Namespaces\borland.bds4 you should have some titles
which have paths to hxs files in the BDS 4.0 directory -
check that those files exist - if they don't your help won't
work.
It might be worth taking this to email. I may be able to
help.
--
HTH Pete
=================================
www.frasersoft.net
GenHelp: "Making writing help fun"
"Michael C." <Mic...@Anonymous.net> wrote in message
news:4564653a$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Michael C.
I *was* reading the thread.
But it didn't seem like you knew that the help is and was useless to some people
- just "um bad".
The Delphi 7 help system would be a dramatic step up from
the current state of the help system on my computer.
It would actually be -->> usable <<--.
Perhaps, Borland, um CodeGear, should have it's own help viewer and system.
Heck, make a product out of it!
Do something special instead of relying on Microsoft for crappy products.
Tom Corey
> I was reading the thread.
> But it didn't seem like you knew that the help is and was useless to
> some people - just "um bad".
<rolls eyes>
Sorry you didn't pick up on the purpose of the intentional
undertatement. Now if only I could figure out why you're still
complaining to me about the help system.
Michael C.
> Try reghelp -7
> and then open the help - should be nothing in there
Ok. There was nothing there except for my default Internet home page.
> Then do ONE of the following
> reghelp 1 (just common help items)
> reghelp 3 (command and win32)
> reghelp 5 (win32 and .NET)
> reghelp 7 (to install common, win32 and .NET)
I did reghelp 7.
>
> You can view the help for BDS2006 by creating a shortcut
> with following data:
> Target: "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft
> Shared\Help\dexplore.exe" /helpcol ms-help://borland.bds4
I did this and then launched shortcut.
I can the "help is updating to reflect recent changes" message again.
I still get the "The page cannot be displayed" message.
The top of the MS help says "Borland Help - Invalid syntax error"
> Also, it would be interesting to know what happens when you
> run Namespace.exe from
> "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Help 2.0 SDK\Unsupported Tools"
It turns out I didn't have this installed.
But I had a hard time finding a download that didn't require
VisualStudio to be installed.
I did find how to use the Visual Studio installer with a patch at
http://www.helpware.net/mshelp2/h2faq.htm#novsnet2
So I did that.
MS help 2.0 is now installed.
I rebuilding help using reghelp -7 ... reghelp 7
Ran help .. "Updating" ...
Still getting "This page cannot be displayed" for everything!
.. going to run Namespace.exe
> Under Namespaces\borland.bds4 you should have some titles
> which have paths to hxs files in the BDS 4.0 directory -
> check that those files exist - if they don't your help won't
> work.
I've checked several... apparently they exist.
> It might be worth taking this to email. I may be able to
> help.
Nah, I want others to view the solution if it exists.
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Eric Grange wrote:
>
> > > Same as in D2006.
> >
> > Nope. The category tab may not be visible (scrolled out)
>
> Same as in D7, as per your screenshot.
Nope - add GExperts et voila - all tabs, all fully readable.
> I guess huge is subjective.
>
> > , most tabs are unreadable
>
> ..as is unreadable.
Nope - "Indy Components" is clearly and OBjectively more readable than
"Ind..."
> > > Note that in D7 you can't have more than one category expanded at
> > > once,
> >
> > And?
>
> ..and in BDS 2006 you can.
How many times are you looking for a component in more than one category
at a time? How many categories can you visually process simultaneously?
On the one hand you effectively are dismissing the usefulness of
categories at all, by suggesting that you always find components by
NAME, not their category.
And yet now you are offering up the ability to see multiple categories
simultaneously as an advantage....
raise EInconsistentArgument.Create;
;)
> > Most likely because you never organized or sorted your palette.
>
> Wrong.
You perhaps didn't organize it well enough then.... ;)
> > Even then, I doubt that more than 30 sec of live quizzing would be
> > necessary to demonstrate that you don't remember all the component
> > names exactly.
>
> Of course I don't remember every single one. I fail to see the
> relevance.
Because this all started (as palette discussions often do these days)
with at least one of the supposed benefits being the ability to find
components by name.
Which would kind of require you to know the name of the component you
are looking for.
If you don't, then this capability is meaningless and less worthwhile
than a palette that can be visually organised to improve browsing,
rather than demanding searching.
--
Jolyon Smith
Michael C.
> Michael C. wrote:
>
>> I was reading the thread.
>> But it didn't seem like you knew that the help is and was useless to
>> some people - just "um bad".
>
> <rolls eyes>
>
> Sorry you didn't pick up on the purpose of the intentional
> undertatement.
Communication is difficult sometimes especially when it's pure text. :-)
> Now if only I could figure out why you're still
> complaining to me about the help system.
>
>
Just letting you and others know that it just
doesn't "suck" it's the worst help system I've ever had.
If that info isn't useful - oh well.
I'm sure it's useful for others.
Q Correll
| The Delphi 7 help system would be a dramatic step up from
| the current state of the help system on my computer.
| It would actually be -->> usable <<--.
Thomas Mueller wrote an expert for D2006 to use the Delphi7 Help
system. I'm using it. You can get it from Code Central.
http://cc.borland.com/item.aspx?id=23948
23948_delphi_7_help_for_bds_expert_updated_again.ZIP
--
Q
11/22/2006 12:18:47
Jolyon Smith
says...
> > A collection of "Dat...", "Ind..." and "Exp..." with no
> > differentiation is readable to you? In vertical orientation to boot?
>
> Sure.
Ooops - I owe you an apology.
I honestly thought you were being serious, but clearly your BDS palette
evangelism was an extended piece of ironic humour - obviously it was all
just an immense joke.
And I congratulate you, I think you had us all taken in.
ROTFLMFAO
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Because this all started (as palette discussions often do these days)
> with at least one of the supposed benefits being the ability to find
> components by name.
Eric's comment was:
> As for the "improvement" of searching by component's name first
> characters, that's a straw-man: if you can remember a component's
> name well enough to type it without mistakes, you certainly can
> certainly remember its category.
If you're looking for a category a component is in, you *already* know
the component name. That's why the point about remembering every
*single* component name was irrelevant, and why when you know the
component name, it is far easier to find it by typing in (or start
typing it in) the component name than having to recall which category.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Q Correll
Did you see my reply to you in the other branch thread?
--
Q
11/22/2006 14:18:16
Michael C.
> Michael,
>
> Did you see my reply to you in the other branch thread?
>
Yes. Thanks for the info.
Unfortunately, I don't have Delphi 7 ( I only have Delphi 1 through 5 ).
I sure wish I could download some Delphi 7 help files. :-)
Perhaps, CodeGear will offer such a service in the future for every Delphi.