Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA28387 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 00:28:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzxhl25856; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 00:26:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA21007; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 00:26:54 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 00:26:54 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <9601060527.AA12705@sutm.2sprint.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: mward@sutm.2sprint.net (Marcus Ward)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Lightwave Reviews
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>In a message dated 96-01-05 17:34:21 EST, you write:
>
>>>I HATE floating windows
>>
>>Floating windows are great as long as you have the ability to save your
>>window
>>positions. That's what we use here
I just have to add my 2 cents in here...
I use both LW and Photoshop, one has floating windows, the other doesnt...
IM a lot faster in lw being able to just peg a button becuase its ALWAYS
there, as opposed to this side or that... floating windows is nice, but I
dont think its practical for a program that uses as many "mouse" clicks as