RE: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?

[Drew Adams]

> > You need to be able to do the same kinds of things with frames
> > that you can do with Emacs windows - *from the keyboard* (and with
> > a mouse). Including move around incrementally, resize
> > incrementally, cycle/choose, tile/split, and so on.
> >
> > I use Emacs that way, but as I say, this is not provided out of
> > the box with `emacs -Q'.  (It should be, IMO.)
> 
> You are throwing teaser around - is your emacs config some=where
> on=ine, so that I could take a look at your configuration regarding
> frames?

I really did not mean it that way.  I'm more interested here in
looking at the use cases that people might think really apply to
Emacs windows inherently.

It's about a thought experiment: WHAT IF you could easily do with
frames what you do with windows, using the keyboard (or the mouse)?
Would you still see some scenarios where you would prefer to use
a window?  If so, what would they be?

I do use code that tries to make frames more convenient to use, but
that really is beside the point of my question.  What I would like
is for vanilla Emacs to provide frame-friendly manipulation.

I do understand that Emacs does not have real control over
window-manager windows (i.e., frames); it can only request/suggest
changes to be made by the window manager.  And different platforms
& window managers are different, so it is likely that there would
never be a 100% cross-platform solution with the level of control
that we have with Emacs windows.

Still, I know from my own experience that it is possible to obtain
pretty much all of the control I expect, at least across GNU/Linux,
UNIX, and MS Windows - I can't vouch for others.


[If you do want to try the code I use, just to get an idea of what
I mean, look here: http://www.emacswiki.org/OneOnOneEmacs.
But again, I'm *not* proposing such code as the solution or even
as *a* solution to the problem of easily doing with frames what
you do with Emacs windows.  This is code that I use to try to
overcome the problem, imperfectly.  That's all.]