Not within the same window though. If I wanted to copy a long number/text from one web page into another (and I couldn't just c&p it), I'd have to open the second web page in a new firefox window. Otherwise I'd have to ctrl-pgup/dn back and forth between them.
I don't understand. In both cases you need to open a new window. There is no difference.
You're assuming your Firefox windows need to be maximized, for some odd reason.
Additionally, sometimes I want to resize the window WITHOUT firefox "conveniently" remembering the obscure dimensions I set next time I "restore down". With MDIs that's not a problem.
You can change this behaviour with the "Session Manager" extension. No MDI needed.
Also, with MDIs, you can arrange all your web pages in the same window so that they are cascaded, tiled (h or v), minimised, etc, at the click of a button. If I wanted to do the same in firefox, the only way to do it automagically in one click would be to tell windows to do it. That works fine when I only have firefox open, but I never just have firefox open, so it ends up tiling every window I have and screwing up ALL my window sizes.
This is true, I'm not aware of an easy way to "cascade Firefox windows". But I'm not sure this still a solid usecase.
Here's another reason, as a side note, why MDIs suck today: When I windows-TAB in Vista and multiple Firefox windows, I can see them all as selectable windows. Similarly, if I use an Expose-like program, I can see all of my Windows individually to select. With MDIs, all you see is your Opera window with tiny, unreadable windows inside of it -- far less useful in a modern desktop environment, Window-powered (not application-powered) environment.
Since when have Microsoft ever appealed to anyone other than the lowest common denominator? They're known for making user friendly applications that appeal to the widest customer base, which is a strategically genius business model for computer software, but leaves some people wanting more.
There's still a place for CLIs, even though Microsoft have pretty much abandoned them entirely.
This isn't true, actually. Microsoft has an incredibly powerful, new CLI (that one-ups most Unix CLIs):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell
It'll be bundled in new versions of Windows (eg, Windows Server 2008 and later).
And I think your statement is grossly misinformed. The .NET API and libraries are by far the most comprehensive out of any out there, Unix world included. WPF and the like offer unparalleled flexibility in a interface rendering component also. There are over 6,000 fully implemented base classes developers can use in .NET, vs 2,000 in Java, for instance.
Microsoft got where it is not by making it the simplest interface, lowest-common-denominator -- that's Apple. Microsoft allowed far more customization and flexibility, and that's even more true now than before. You can still implement MDIs in .NET, it's just not implemented for you because MDIs are, quit provably, inferior interfaces in many respects. There are some features of MDIs that can be nice, eg cascading windows, but those are not exclusive to MDI. If enough people actually WANTED to do that in, say, Firefox (I've never heard of it before) you could trivially implement that functionality also -- without the overhead and the confusion of the base window.
MDIs are just a bad idea from the start. Here's an interesting article:
I seem to be fielding a large number of people who are using MDI on Windows. I usually find out about them because they ask how they can bring that to Linux, or the Mac.
There's no really nice way to put it -- you need to rethink your user interface. This isn't some grand scheme to make your life hard. It's not some conspiracy to keep you from porting to another platorm. It simply is a bad idea. Even on Windows.
Mac and Linux do not have the concept of MDI. You can hack it, or you may have found others who've hacked it. But it's not officially supported, nor is it wanted. It isn't even wanted on Windows!
Usually, at this point, people then ask "well if it's such a bad idea, then why is it even an option on Windows?" My retort is that it's not an option on Windows. It's a conventionally deprecated feature of the OS which remains for backwards compatibility. Sure, it's not officially deprecated by Microsoft. Sure, it's still supported by the OS vendor. Guess what -- so is sysedit! No, really -- try it. Hit WindowsKey+R (to bring up Run) and type "sysedit" (without the quotes) and hit enter. Just because the option exists doesn't mean that people should be using it! Sysedit isn't the only ancient application still installed on Windows -- progman is still there too.
In case you're still not convinced that MDI is a terrible UI for your application... In case you still feel the need to point to certain pieces of software which use MDI... let me point out some facts for you.
1) When Windows 95 was released, Microsoft officially deprecated use of MDI and said it was going to be yanked from the OS. They've since retracted the "yanking" part since that would break old code. But they strongly discourage use of MDI. So even on the platform which spawned MDI, the OS vendor is telling you not to use it. No, really -- read all about it in the Windows User Experience docs. They devote five paragraphs to explaining why MDI is not a good choice. In fact, in their FAQ about whether you should use MDI or SDI, they explicitly state that you should always try to use SDI.
2) MDI is terrible for multiple monitor support. Due to the nature of the frame, there's really no good way to interact with MDI on multiple monitor systems. It just plain old won't work well.
3) MDI constrains your work area. The user cannot see what's behind your MDI application because it takes up so much screen real estate. This was fine in Windows 3.1 when you could only have one app running at a time (it wasn't a preemptive multitasking system). But for the last 10 years, it's not been a good way for a user to work.
4) MDI confuses users because it's the odd-man-out. You can't alt-tab into a MDI child window. MDI child windows don't show up on the task bar. Things like this make MDI very frustrating to use. People who aren't comfortable with computers are confused because it works contrary to the way "everything" else works. People who are used to computers are annoyed because standard shortcuts to navigate the system are useless.
There's simply no pleasant way to say this, so I'm going to be blunt (this isn't for the faint of heart): if you have an MDI interface, please stop. Please! Redesign your interface. You might think the interface "works" on Windows, but I can assure you -- it doesn't. There is no such thing as a "good" MDI application on Windows. If you are thinking of porting your app to Linux or the Mac, it's a great time to consider a UI overhaul. But even if you're not porting across platforms and just target Windows -- do your users a favor and stop the madness.
MDI does not stand for "Multiple Document Interface." It stands for "Most Despised Interface."
This is one of the inherent problems with Opera, as I see it: it doesn't follow platform interface guidelines. When I use it, it does not feel like a Windows application. Buttons are not in the specified places, the widgets are non-native, the dialog boxes look absurd with gratuitous blue borders, etc. It goes even more fundamental than that: its fundamental interface design, MDI, is officially discouraged from use in Windows for a variety of very valid reasons. Opera, at its core, has awful interface designers -- the best milestones made in their new interfaces were essentially ripoffs of its competitors.
This alone goes a long way to explaining Opera's acceptance as a browser, or lack thereof. Computers are hard enough for a lot of people, changing the rules on them just ain't cool.
Out of curiosity, you should look through Bugzilla's entries for Firefox interface "bugs", you'll see how much effort goes into designing each aspect of the interface and making it feel native to each platform.
