text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|3 Jun 2003
|Filing date
|10 Jan 2000
|Priority date
|27 Jan 1997
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Laura J. Butler, Adam Smith
|Original Assignee
|Microsoft Corporation
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (11), Non-Patent Citations (20), Referenced by (146), Classifications (13), Legal Events (6)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/786,969, entitled "Robust Display Management in a Multiple Monitor Environment," filed Jan. 27, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,340 which is incorporated herein by reference.
1. The Field of the Invention
This invention relates to managing cursor and window displays in a multiple monitor environment.
2. The Prior State of the Art
A typical computer system as shown in FIG. 1 includes a computer 300 having a central processing unit 304, an input/output unit 306 and memory 302 containing various programs used by the computer 300 such as an operating system 303 and one or more application programs 305. An end-user of the computer system communicates with computer 300 by means of various input devices (keyboard 320, mouse 310) which transfer information to the computer via input/output unit 306. The computer 300 replies to this input data, among other ways, by providing responsive output to the end-user, for example, by displaying appropriate text and images on the screen of a display monitor 330.
Operating systems often include a graphical user interface ("GUI") by which the operating systems and any applications it may be running (e.g., a word-processing program) may communicate with an end-user. A commonly used GUI implementation employs a desktop metaphor in which the screen of the monitor is regarded as a virtual desktop. The desktop is an essentially two-dimensional working template area supporting various graphical objects, including one or more display regions. As shown in FIG. 2, information is displayed on the desktop 21 within display regions 23 (e.g., window, dialog box, pop-up menu, pull-down menu, drop-down list, icon), which are rectangular in shape. Each display region 23 may be dedicated to a specific application or to the operating system under which the applications are running. By manipulating a cursor 25 (such as with standard point & click and drag & drop techniques), an end-user can manage the display regions 23 as desired, for example, by creating new display regions or eliminating old ones, or by resizing or repositioning the display regions to fit the end-user's needs. The end-user may "activate" a particular display region and its associated application, for example, by "clicking" the cursor 25 when it appears within the desired region.
In a computer system using a single monitor 330 as shown in FIG. 1, a problem of screen clutter may occur when an end-user has a large number of display regions open on the monitor at the same time. Screen clutter tends to confuse the end-user and reduce his or her efficiency. Moreover, end-users of certain applications (desktop publishing, CAD/CAM/CAE, video conferencing, etc.) typically will want to be able to view and use two large display regions (e.g., an editing window and an output window) at substantially the same time, but often the most useful sizes of the two windows are too large to fit side-by-side on a single monitor.
To alleviate this problem, a computer system such as that shown in FIG. 3 having two monitors 330 and 332 has been used. In the multiple monitor system of FIG. 3, the combination of the monitor spaces (two in the case shown—one monitor space 41 corresponding to monitor 330 and a second monitor space 43 corresponding to monitor 332) may be treated as a single, contiguous virtual desktop 45 as shown in FIG. 4. Through appropriate cursor manipulations, an end-user may move objects, such windows A, B, C, D and cursor 25, back and forth between the two monitor spaces 41 and 43 or may even position one of these objects (e.g., window C in FIG. 4) so that it spans the two monitor spaces.
In one aspect of the invention, a computer having a display engine displays a window across multiple monitor spaces by determining that a display window that appears entirely within a first monitor space is to be moved or resized so that a first portion of the display window remains in the first monitor space and a second portion of the display window appears in a second monitor space. The first portion of the display window is displayed in the first monitor space by performing a bit block transfer operation, and the second portion of the display window in the second monitor space by passing the second portion of the display window through the display engine. If, however, the second monitor space has substantially the same color characteristics as the first monitor, both portions of the display window are displayed by performing a bit block transfer operation.
Windows that are moved to span monitor boundaries are re-drawn in an intelligent and efficient manner. The portion of the window that remains in the same monitor space is redrawn by moving a block of bits from one portion to another of the frame buffer for that monitor. Only the portion of the window that appears on a different monitor is "repainted" from scratch. This reduces the number of necessary pixel calculations while maintaining the color characteristics of the various monitors being used.
In another aspect of the invention, a cursor image is displayed in one of multiple available monitor spaces upon an event being generated in response to movement of an input device, for example, a mouse. While the event is pending, a new position for the cursor image is determined based on an old position of the cursor image and the movement of the input device. If the new position of the cursor image is on a different one of the monitor spaces than the old cursor image, then the cursor image is displayed at its new position if a process running in the computer is not relying on the old position of the cursor image. Otherwise, an operation is placed in a queue to display the cursor image at its new position after the event has lapsed. Subsequently, the cursor image is displayed at its new position based on a queue of pending cursor image moves. In any event, all pending cursor image moves are performed before the applications are notified of the moves.
In one aspect of the invention, objects (e.g. a cursor image, a window or other display region) are displayed in one of multiple monitor spaces by comparing a position of the object with a position of each of the monitor spaces. A monitor space is chosen from among the multiple monitor spaces based on a result of the comparison, and the object is displayed in the chosen monitor space. If the object is a cursor image, for example, the comparison may be based on a squared distance between the position of the cursor and the positions of each of the monitor spaces. The cursor image may be displayed in the monitor space (for example, at a point on the edge of the monitor space) that has the smallest squared distance between it and the cursor.
Alternatively, the comparison may be accomplished by establishing a bounding rectangle for the monitor spaces by determining their union, and then comparing the position of the cursor with a position of the bounding rectangle. The cursor's position is moved to a point within the bounding rectangle if the comparing determines that the cursor was at a position outside of the bounding rectangle. The cursor image may be displayed in the monitor space that has a closest Euclidean distance—the length of a hypothetical line drawn from the cursor to the monitor space such that the line is perpendicular to the edge of the monitor space—between the monitor space and the cursor.
If the object is a window or other display region (e.g., dialog box, pop-up menu, pull-down menu), the comparison may be based on an area of overlap between the display region and each of the available monitor spaces. In that case, the monitor space that has a largest area of overlap with the display region is chosen for display. If no monitor space has an area of overlap with the display region, then the primary display, determined at the start up of the computer system, may be chosen. Alternatively, the monitor space containing the largest portion of surface area of the currently active window may be chosen. Once chosen, the window or other display region is moved so that it appears entirely within the chosen monitor space.
Positioning of display regions may be used to decide in which monitor space a minimized window should be maximized in response to input from the end-user. In that case, the position of a prior non-minimized state of the window is used in the overlap comparison, and the window may be maximized in the monitor space that contains the largest area of overlap with the window under consideration when it was in its prior non-minimized state.
Advantages of this invention may include one or more of the following. The techniques described here provide an end-user with a GUI that behaves and responds in a predictable and useful manner even if the GUI spans multiple monitor spaces. The cursor image always remains visible on exactly one monitor in a position that the end-user would most likely expect in response to the mouse being moved.
Display windows are positioned within a single monitor space so that the end-user can readily view and read the information displayed therein. Where appropriate, several Windows� operations (e.g., switching window, Print Screen, maximization, etc.) are directed towards a single predictable monitor space. In most cases, this monitor will be the one that is most likely for the end-user to presently be viewing. Windows are maximized onto a single monitor space in a manner that their edges do not spill over into an adjacent monitor space. The end-user is prevented from being able to reposition a window such that its title bar is entirely off-screen and thus inaccessible.
Because of the manner in which the cursor and display windows (and other display regions) are handled in a multiple monitor environment, the composite desktop need not itself be rectangular. Rather, the individual monitor spaces that make up the desktop may be positioned adjacent to one another in a manner that results in an irregularly shaped (i.e., non-rectangular) composite desktop.
Other advantages and features will become apparent from the following description, including the drawings and claims.
The methods and mechanisms described here are not limited to any particular operating system or hardware configuration, but rather they may find applicability in any computing or processing environment that uses multiple output devices.
The techniques described here may be implemented in hardware or software, or a combination of the two. Preferably, the techniques are implemented in computer programs executing on programmable computers that each include a processor, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and two or more output devices. Program code is applied to data entered using the input device to perform the functions described and to generate output information. The output information is applied to one or more output devices.
Each program is preferably implemented in a high level procedural or object oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. However, the programs can be implemented in assembly or machine language, if desired. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language.
Each such computer program is preferably stored on a storage medium or device (e.g., CD-ROM, hard disk or magnetic diskette) that is readable by a general or special purpose programmable computer for configuring and operating the computer when the storage medium or device is read by the computer to perform the procedures described in this document. The system may also be considered to be implemented as a computer-readable storage medium, configured with a computer program, where the storage medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer system having a single display monitor.
FIG. 2 is a diagram showing display regions in a graphical user interface as used in the computer system of FIG. 1.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a computer system having multiple display monitors.
FIG. 4 is a diagram showing display regions in a graphical user interface as used in the computer system of FIG. 3.
FIG. 5 is a single monitor display architecture block diagram for the computer of FIG. 1.
FIG. 6 is a multiple monitor display architecture block diagram for the computer of FIG. 3.
FIG. 7 is a diagram of the virtual desktop with an example of moving a cursor between two adjacent monitor spaces in a multiple monitor environment.
FIG. 8 is a diagram of the virtual desktop with an example of moving a cursor between two adjacent monitor spaces in a multiple monitor environment.
FIG. 9 is a flowchart for determining where to place a cursor when moving it between adjacent monitor spaces in a multiple monitor environment.
FIG. 10 is a flowchart for setting the cursor owner variable in a multiple monitor environment.
FIGS. 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) are example screen displays of maximizing a window in a multiple monitors environment.
FIGS. 12(a) and 12(b) are example screen displays of positioning a dialog box in a multiple monitors environment.
FIGS. 13(a) find 13(b) are example screen displays of positioning a window in a multiple monitors environment.
FIG. 14 is a flowchart for painting a window that spans monitors in a multiple monitors environment.
Operating in a multiple monitor environment creates several complexities and problems that are not present in a single monitor environment. In particular, the manner in which graphical objects should be handled and displayed in a GUI in response to end-user input (or application program requirements) varies considerably between the single monitor and multiple monitor environments. If single monitor solutions were applied in a multiple monitor environment, application programs would appear to the end-user to behave incorrectly or strangely and the end-user frequently would be confused and frustrated by his interaction with the GUI. To appreciate the differences in how objects should be managed by a GUI when changing from a single monitor to a multiple monitor environment, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of their respective display architectures.
One operating system that uses a GUI is the Microsoft� Windows� 95 operating system which is described in the Microsoft� Development Library (July 1996), incorporated herein by reference. FIG. 5 is an abstract representation of a display architecture that may be used in Windows� 95 for the single monitor computer system of FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 5, an end-user uses a presentation shell (e.g. a GUI) to communicate with the operating system and one or more application programs 32. An application running on the computer system may display information in one or more of the display regions through a graphical device interface subsystem 34 ("GDI") provided by the operating system. GDI serves as a link between the application program and a graphics device, such as a video display adapter 36 (e.g., a plug-in card) included with the computer to provide graphics output signals to the computer monitor 37.
GDI lies logically between the application program 32 and a graphics device driver 35, which is a computer program designed to control a particular graphics hardware device such as the video display adapter. The device driver is not technically part of the operating system. Rather, the driver is a software module supplementing the operating system for updating the status of the video display adapter and the monitor in response to calls made to functions of the operating system in general and to functions of GDI in particular.
Communication between the GDI and the device driver is facilitated by a device driver interface 38 ("DDI"). DDI 38 is a set of functions provided by the device driver for access by GDI 34. Information is passed between GDI and the device driver through input and output parameters of the DDI functions. A GDI call to the "DrvEnableDriver( )" function initializes the device driver and passes back to GDI a function list of driver-supported DDI functions. GDI itself handles any operations not represented in the function list received. For example, if the device driver lacks an optional function "DrvLineTo( )" for drawing a single solid cosmetic line, GDI handles drawing the line without calling DrvLineTo( ).
Some DDI functions are necessary for communication between GDI and DDI, while others are optional. Necessary DDI functions include, for example, "DrvGetModes( )" for listing video modes supported by the adapter and "DrvAssertMode( )" for resetting the video mode. Depending on how a device driver is implemented, other functions may or may not be necessary. For example, a display driver typically is not required to handle fonts unless the device adapter involved has one or more resident fonts (i.e., fonts defined by the adapter, not by the operating system). If the adapter has a resident font, the device driver must supply information to GDI about the font.
In response to application program originated function calls routed through GDI, the device driver must ensure that the video display adapter produces the required output I.e., in response to a request from an application, if GDI determines that a function relating to the request is supported by the device driver, GDI calls the function. It is the responsibility of the device driver to execute the function properly and return control to GDI upon completion of processing instructions associated with the function.
Typically, in response to calls to its DDI, the device driver updates the status of the video display adapter by changing the contents of memory and registers used by the adapter. The memory used by the adapter is referred to as "screen memory" or the "frame buffer." What appears on the; monitor's screen is controlled directly by the adapter and corresponds to the contents of the screen memory and the registers. The device driver also typically performs additional functions such as monochrome-to-color conversion of bitmaps, drawing of repetitive patterns in screen memory, and moving of an image from one portion of screen memory to another (referred to as a "bit block transfer" or "BitBlt"). Often, the operating system cannot perform these additional functions as quickly because, unlike the device driver, the operating system is not adapted to take advantage of the video display adapter's particular characteristics and capabilities.
The display windows appearing on the screen are contained within a logical space corresponding to the desktop. The screen of the monitor may show only a portion of the desktop at any given time. The operating system allows applications running on the computer to specify desktop object characteristics such as colors, font sizes, output resolutions and the like without regard for the specific limitations of a particular video display adapter or monitor. GDI converts the application's specified characteristics to conform to the adapter's and monitor's limitations. For example, the application may specify a yellow color, but the adapter and monitor combination may be capable of displaying gray scales only. If so, GDI converts the yellow color to a gray scale.
When the operating system is started the video display adapter is initialized by another operating system subsystem "USER" 33. USER provides functions relating to the GUI, including functions to create, move, size, and remove screen objects such as display windows, selection menus appearing in the display windows, graphical icons, and the like. For example, an application program can call a USER function to remove a display window associated with the application program. USER also controls other resources such as a sound driver, a timer, and communications ports. In addition, end-user input from a mouse, a keyboard, or other input device is directed by USER to an application program.
In some of the Windows� operating system products (e.g., Windows� 95), USER is able to interact directly with the adapter's device driver. In that case, USER requires the device driver to provide cursor support directly, i.e., it requires the device driver to make directly available some functions relating to displaying a mouse pointer (cursor). These functions include "CheckCursor( )" for drawing the cursor if drawing is not disabled, "InquireCursor( )" for retrieving information about the cursor, "MoveCursor( )" for moving the cursor to a specified position on the screen, and "SetCursor( )" for setting the cursor's shape. In other Windows� operating system products (e.g., Windows� NT), USER does not communicate directly with the adapter's device driver but rather communicates with NT's equivalent of GDI (referred to as "GRE" for "graphics engine"), which in turn communicates with the device driver.
When the Windows□ 95 operating system first starts (at "boot-time"), USER calls the InquireCursor( ) function to retrieve information about the cursor. USER then sets a system timer to call the CheckCursor( ) function on each timer interrupt (i.e., at predetermined intervals) and starts a mouse-related device driver. As a result, whenever it is moved by the end-user, the mouse generates an event (e.g., a hard, asynchronous interrupt) causing the operating system to call MoveCursor( ) to re-display the cursor image at the screen location designated by the end-user. USER and application programs subsequently set the shape of the cursor using SetCursor( ). In this example, because USER calls MoveCursor( ) at the occurrence of each mouse move event, MoveCursor( ) sets a flag with a non-interruptable instruction (e.g., "bts") to prevent the MoveCursor( ) function from being called again before completing processing of a current call. Once the flag is set, MoveCursor( ) determines a new position (i.e., the x and y coordinates) and draws the cursor in the new position. When finished, MoveCursor( ) clears the flag with another non-interruptable instruction. Meanwhile, the CheckCursor( ) function is called at each timer interrupt to determine whether the cursor should be redrawn and whether drawing is enabled. If so, the function redraws the cursor.
Windows� NT does not use interrupts for performing cursor display and management functions but rather uses synchronous procedure calls ("APCs")—an alternative mechanism for handling events. An APC is a function that executes asynchronously in the context of a particular thread. Whenever the mouse is moved or otherwise manipulated by the end-user, an APC is queued for a thread dedicated to input handling. When this thread next runs, it executes the functions specified by the APCs in its queue. The dedicated input thread runs concurrently with any active applications and performs essentially the same functions for managing the cursor as described above with respect to the interrupt-based event handling mechanism.
FIG. 6 illustrates a multiple monitor display architecture used in one embodiment which includes two device drivers 35, 203 and two monitors 37, 207. The multiple monitor architecture is similar to the single monitor display architecture except that it also includes a Forking Display Driver 201—a piece of software code that may be dynamically inserted or removed when a second monitor is installed or removed accordingly. The forking display driver effectively splits the graphics stream from the GDI into a number of parts equal to the number of monitors being used (e.g., two parts for two monitors) and thus distributes the virtual desktop across multiple monitors. Details on the forking driver may be found in commonly-assigned U.S. Ser. No. 08/786,971, entitled "Allocating Display Information" which was filed concurrently with this application and is incorporated by reference.
As noted above, the USER code is responsible for, among other things, the manner in which various objects (e.g., windows, menus, dialog boxes, the cursor and the like) are displayed to the end-user. When the end-user enters input via the mouse or keyboard that is intended to affect the display (e.g., cursor movement, window repositioning or resizing), it is USER's job to respond to that input by changing the display in a robust manner—i.e., in a manner that accurately reflects the end-user's intentions and which does not surprise, confuse or frustrate the end-user in interacting with the GUI. Performing this task in a multiple monitor environment poses several challenges that were not present in the single monitor environment.
Accordingly, in one embodiment, USER manages in a robust manner objects within a GUI that spans two or more monitors. USER accomplishes this robust management through program code specifically designed for the multiple monitor environment. The specialized program code can be logically divided into two broad categories: (1) program code that places objects (e.g., dialog boxes, maximized windows, menu pop-ups) on one of the available monitors rather than displaying them across several monitors; and (2) program code that relocates objects (e.g., cursor, windows) so that they are not lost in display gaps that arise when the monitors are arranged to form an irregularly shaped (i.e., non-rectangular) composite desktop.
In FIG. 7, two monitors have been installed and are being used by the computer system so that the virtual desktop 45 spans monitor spaces 41 and 43 Desktop 45 corresponds to the union of monitor space 41 and monitor space 43. In this example, monitor space 41 and monitor space 43 are different sizes. The end-user has arranged the two monitor spaces in logical space (using a GUI utility provided by the operating system) arbitrarily such that they contact each other along one edge but do not share a common top or bottom line. Techniques for arranging multiple monitor spaces in logical space such that they form a contiguous, non-overlapping virtual desktop are discussed in commonly-assigned U.S. Ser. No. 08/786,972, entitled "Logical Monitor Configuration in a Multiple Monitor Environment," which was filed concurrently with this application and is incorporated by reference. As a result of the end-user's placement of the monitors in logical space, the virtual desktop 45 has two "null" regions 47 that do not correspond to, or appear in, either of monitor spaces 41 or 43.
To ensure robust interaction with the end-user, USER must manage the desktop display so that objects are not "lost" (become entirely invisible to the end-user) in one of the null regions 47. At the same time, USER must ensure that a single object is not displayed redundantly such that identical information incorrectly appears in more than one monitor space. One such object that USER must manage in. this manner is the cursor display.
In the single monitor case, managing the cursor display is relatively straightforward. When an end-user moves or otherwise manipulates the mouse, an event is generated and is sent, along with data descriptive of the mouse's manipulation, to the operating system to notify it that the end-user is, for example, requesting movement of the cursor on the screen display. In response, the USER code invokes MoveCursor( ) to determine where (in X and Y coordinates) the cursor should end up on the screen based on the cursor's present position, the mouse manipulation data generated in connection with the event and any special mouse settings (e.g., cursor acceleration feature) that the end- user may have selected. The new position for the cursor image is communicated to the single monitor's display driver, which has remembered the cursor's current position. Upon receiving data representative of the cursor's new position from USER, the display driver "undraws" (i.e., repaints or restores the background image presently covered by the cursor image) the cursor's current position and draws the cursor's new position as determined by MoveCursor( ).
Complications arise in the above approach when the cursor is to be displayed on a desktop that spans multiple monitor spaces. In that case, at least two monitors form the virtual desktop and the cursor must move seamlessly between these monitor spaces in response to mouse input from the end-user. By definition, any two adjacent monitor spaces must share a common edge but cannot overlap. The cursor accordingly may be displayed only in one of monitor spaces at any given time. As long as the end-user's mouse input corresponds to cursor movement that remains within a single display, the single monitor approach may be used with correct results. If, however, the end-user manipulates the mouse to indicate movement of the cursor from one monitor space to another, or to a null region, special cursor display management techniques must be employed.
In FIG. 7, assume that the cursor appears at position 25 at time T(0) and that the end-user user moves the mouse in such a manner that the cursor would, in a single display environment (i.e., if desktop 45 was co-extensive with a single monitor's space), appear at position 51 at time T(1). In the multiple monitor environment of FIG. 7, however, position 51 is within a null region 47. The cursor accordingly cannot be displayed by USER at position 51 because it does not fall within any monitor space and thus would be invisible to the end-user. Instead, USER selects one of the multiple monitor's spaces for display of the cursor by determining which of the monitor spaces is closest to the cursor. This determination is based on the length in device coordinates of a logical perpendicular line between the cursor's "hotspot" (a single point at the arrow's tip for the cursor shown in FIG. 7) and the closest edge of each monitor space under consideration.
Once USER has selected one of the multiple monitors on which the cursor is to be displayed, USER displays the cursor image on that monitor by communicating the cursor's position to the display driver associated with the chosen monitor. At essentially the same time, USER instructs the display driver for each of the unchosen monitors, each of which has its own independent cursor, to turn off its cursor display.
In FIG. 7, position 51 is a distance 53 from monitor space 43 and a distance 55 from monitor space 41. Because distance 55 is shorter than distance 53, USER displays the cursor in monitor space 41 50 that the cursor's hotspot appears at position 49—a point directly below point 51 on the edge of monitor space 41. In this sense, monitor space 41 is said to "own" the cursor. Cursor ownership is maintained by a dedicated variable in USER and is used, for example, to identify which monitor's display driver USER should communicate with when the cursor display must be moved or otherwise modified (e.g., change the cursor image from an arrow to an hour glass using the SetCursor( ) function).
In the example shown in FIG. 8, the end-user has manipulated the mouse such that a cursor starting at position 25 at time T(0) would end up at position 57 at time T(1) if desktop 45 was coextensive with a single monitor space. Because position 57 falls within null region 47, however, the cursor is instead displayed at time T(1) at position 59 in monitor space 43. Monitor space 43 was determined to be the "owner" of the cursor, and thus the proper space in which to display the cursor, because monitor space 43 is closer than monitor space 41 to position 57—i.e., the perpendicular horizontal distance 61 between position 57 and the edge of monitor space 43 is shorter than the perpendicular vertical distance 63 between position 57 and the edge of monitor space 41.
The process by which MoveCursor( ) performs the above-described trans-monitor cursor moves is described in connection with the flowchart of FIG. 9. At step 900, MoveCursor( ) waits until a mouse move event has occurred, thereby indicating movement of the mouse by the end-user. A mouse move event causes USER to suspend execution of all current applications and to transfer the locus of execution to a mouse move interrupt routine.
When the end-user moves the mouse to a new location, the corresponding raw destination point of the cursor (e.g., point 57 in FIG. 8) is somewhere in logical space that does not necessarily fall within a monitor space. Accordingly, MoveCursor( ) must display the cursor so that it always appears on exactly one monitor regardless of where the mouse has been moved.
At step 904, MoveCursor( ) determines which monitor is closest in Euclidean (perpendicular) distance to the clipped point by using the Pythagorean theorem (D2=X2+Y2). First, the (X,Y) coordinates of the origin 44 of monitor space 41 are subtracted from the (X,Y) coordinates of position 57. The resulting X and Y values are squared and then added together to determine D41 2—the square of the distance from position 57 to the origin 44 of monitor space 41. Corresponding calculations are performed with respect to monitor space 43 to determine D43 2—the square of the distance from position 57 to the origin 46 of monitor space 43. Even though they are the squares of the distances to their respective monitors, the smaller of these two values (D41 2 or D43 2) neverthless represents the closer monitor. As a result, taking the square root of the two values (D41 2 and D43 2) to find the actual distances is unnecessary in determining which monitor space is closer.
These simplified calculations result in considerable processor time savings because no floating-point math is required. In FIG. 8, because D43 2 is smaller than D41 2 it means that the Euclidean distance 61 from position 57 to monitor space 43 is shorter than the Euclidean distance 63 from position 57 to monitor space 41.
An alternative way to determine the Euclidean distance from the raw cursor destination point to each of the monitors may be used. The first step in this alternative method is to "clip" the raw cursor destination point so that it falls within a logical bounding rectangle just large enough to encompass both monitor spaces 41 and 43. This clipping may be accomplished by the following code segment which changes the coordinate values of the raw destination point so that they do not exceed the maximum X and Y coordinates that define the bounding rectangle:
if (raw_point.x<screen.left)
else if (raw_point.x>screen.right);
if (raw_point.y<screen.top)
else if (raw_point.y>screen.bottom)
raw_point.y>screen bottom;
Once the raw destination point has been in clipped in the above manner it is assured to have (i) a Y coordinate within the range of Y coordinates occupied by one monitor space (e.g., monitor space 43); and (ii) an X coordinate within the range of X coordinates occupied by another monitor space (e.g., monitor space 41). Accordingly, under the alternative method MoveCursor( ) may calculate the respective distances from the clipped point to each of the monitor spaces using only subtraction operations. In FIG. 8, for example, distance 61 equals X coordinate of left edge of monitor space 43 minus X coordinate of position 57; distance 63 equals Y coordinate of top edge of monitor space 41 minus Y coordinate of position 57. The alternative method avoids floating point operations and thus provides a performance advantage similar to the method described above with respect to step 904.
Once the Euclidean distance to each of the monitors has been determined, at step 906 Movecursor( ) picks the monitor having shortest distance to the clipped point and moves the cursor to a location on the edge (or just inside) that monitor space. At step 908, USER then instructs the display driver which had the cursor image at its former position to clear it and instructs the display driver now having the cursor image to draw it at the proper location. All of steps 900-908 in FIG. 9—i.e., from the time the mouse is moved to the time the cursor is redrawn at its new position—occur during a single mouse move event sequence.
As noted above, USER maintains a variable that indicates which monitor in a multiple monitor environment currently owns the cursor. Exactly one monitor can own the cursor at any given time. Accordingly, the cursor owner variable is updated, if necessary, each time MoveCursor( ) is invoked by a mouse move event sequence. However, complications may arise because USER or some other process may be using the cursor owner variable for another purpose thus rendering it unavailable for updating during a mouse move event sequence. If the cursor owner variable is not updated when the cursor has in fact moved to a different monitor, subsequent USER functions could cause the cursor to appear on the incorrect display, or on both displays. USER solves this problem through a semaphore approach.
A semaphore is a programming technique for enforcing mutual exclusion. Ordinarily, a semaphore is implemented by disallowing a process from changing a variable until it has been released by another process that is currently using it. In Windows�, a strict semaphore lock on the cursor owner variable would cause the mouse move event sequence to wait for the semaphore lock to be released before updating the cursor owner variable. However, because the mouse move event sequence must complete before any other processes will continue, the process using the cursor owner variable cannot release the semaphore lock during the event sequence. As a result, the operating system would appear to "freeze" to the end-user.
USER avoids this problem by using a "soft" semaphore approach as shown in the flowchart of FIG. 10. When a mouse move event occurs, USER first determines at step 910 whether or not the cursor owner variable is being used by another process (i.e., whether it is semaphore locked). If the cursor owner variable is free, the cursor position is updated at step 912 according to the flowchart of FIG. 9, and the cursor owner variable is updated at step 914 to reflect its current owner. At step 915, the mouse move interrupt routine is terminated and execution returns to the normal application code.
On the other hand, if it is determined at step 910 that the cursor variable is being used, then the cursor image is not moved during this event sequence, but rather a "mouse move pending" variable is set at step 916. This variable indicates that a cursor move ideally should have been performed during the mouse event sequence but was prevented by the locked cursor owner semaphore.
At step 918, the mouse move event sequence terminates and execution returns to the normal application code at which time the process that had the semaphore lock on the cursor owner variable is allowed to complete. USER waits for the semaphore to be released at step 920. Once USER has determined that the semaphore on the cursor owner variable has been released, the cursor image is moved and the cursor owner variable is updated at steps 922 and 924. These steps are substantially the same as steps 912 and 914, described above.
Following each cursor move in FIG. 10, USER must inform the currently active application that a cursor move has occurred. This is accomplished by a "Raw Input Thread" (RIT), which is caused to "wake up" shortly after the termination of each mouse move interrupt routine (steps 915 or 918 in FIG. 10). The RIT sends a message to the active application informing it that the cursor has moved and providing the new location.
Just prior to the RIT's sending the mouse move message to the application, however, any pending mouse moves (as indicated by the mouse move pending variable) are "flushed" (i.e., performed). This step prevents a backlog of pending mouse moves from building up, which might otherwise occur when cursor animation is being used and the end-user has crossed monitor boundaries with the mouse several times in rapid succession. Just as with cursor movement, cursor animation is managed through its own dedicated service routine which is invoked on a periodic basis. Having to frequently service both types of interrupt routines tends to overburden the system and would result in an accumulation of unprocessed mouse moves if they were not flushed at fixed location, for example, during execution of the RIT, as described above.
As noted above, Windows� NT performs the cursor management functions with APCs to a dedicated input handing thread, which may run concurrently with other processes, rather through interrupt service routines, which suspend all other processes. As a result, Windows� NT uses a strict semaphore approach for updating the cursor owner variable without presenting the threat of freezing the operating system.
In order to maintain a robust multiple monitor desktop paradigm, USER also must manage the display of objects other than the cursor. For example, window maximization is a situation that is handled differently by USER depending on whether a single monitor or multiple monitors are being used. In a single monitor environment, an end-user may "maximize" a window by clicking the cursor 25 on a predetermined location on the window, for example, the upper right hand corner. In response, USER enlarges the window so that it occupies the entirety of the monitor space.
If the single monitor maximization solution were applied in a multiple monitor environment, it would cause the maximized window to be as large as the entire virtual desktop 45. An end-user most likely would regard that arrangement as unhelpful and difficult to view. In addition, some applications would perform erratically, or even fail, if a window was maximized to be as large as a virtual desktop that spanned multiple monitors. To avoid such problems USER determines which one monitor space "owns" the window and maximizes the window only in that monitor space. A monitor space is determined to own a window if a majority of the window's real estate appears in that monitor. In FIG. 11(a), window 90 straddles the two monitor spaces 41 and 43 such that the portion 92 in monitor space 41 has a larger area than the portion 94 in monitor space 43. Consequently, as shown in FIG. 11(b), when the end-user maximizes window 90 by clicking cursor 25 in the upper right hand corner, window 90 will maximize to occupy monitor space 41.
If a window is to be maximized while it is in a minimized state (e.g., in a Windows� 95 system, represented by an icon in an "icon tray"—a rectangular region positioned along one of the borders of the monitor space), the above comparison of respective areas of the icon possessed by each monitor space is not feasible and would produce undesirable results.
In that case, USER uses the last non-minimized location and size of the window in determining which monitor space owns the application window.
In practice, a maximized window is enlarged to be slightly bigger than the monitor space so that the window's edges are beyond the monitor's boundaries and thus invisible to the end-user. This increases the available screen real estate. USER-handles window borders in a different manner in a multiple monitor environment, however, because the single monitor technique would cause a maximized window's border to appear in the adjacent monitor space. As shown in FIG. 11(b), the border 96 of maximized window 90 spills over into, and is visible in, monitor space 43. An end-user would likely regard this phenomenon as confusing and undesirable.
To prevent this occurrence, USER employs the concept of "regional windows" in which one portion of a window is specified to be visible and the remainder of the window is specified to be transparent, both visually (i.e., the background image shows through) and logically (e.g., a mouse click in a window's transparent region will have no effect on the window). In the multiple monitors environment of FIG. 11(c), window 90 is made temporarily regional upon its maximization, with its visible portion corresponding to the inner portion of the window 90 that is coterminous with monitor space 41 and its transparent region corresponding to edges 96, 97, 98 and 99. As a result, the edge 96 that spills over into monitor space 43 upon maximization of window 90 is invisible to the end-user.
FIGS. 12(a) and 12(b) illustrate another situation in which USER employs a solution in a multiple monitor environment that is different from the corresponding single monitor solution. In this example, a dialog box "Notify!" has been generated by an application in response to an external event—for example, by an electronic messaging application upon receipt of a new e-mail message. Typically, a dialog box conveys potentially important information to the end-user and thus should be readily visible and readable. In a single monitor environment the USER code will attempt to position a dialog box either (i) to have a common center point with the window of the application that generated the dialog box (if the application window is not minimized); (ii) to have a common center point with the desktop (if the application is minimized or if the dialog box was generated by the operating system rather than by an application); (iii) to have its center point where the cursor is currently positioned, if that feature ("DS_CENTERMOUSE") has been designated by the application; or (iv) at hard-coded device coordinates relative to the top left corner of the window that corresponds to the application that generated the dialog box (or if no such window exists, relative to the top left corner of the desktop).
In the multiple monitor environment of FIGS. 12(a) and 12(b), however, using the single monitor solution frequently would result in the display of a dialog box such that it spans monitor boundaries and spills over either into another monitor space or into a null region. This would make the dialog box difficult to read and understand and is thus undesirable. The USER code avoids this result by ensuring that a dialog box (or any other display region as desired) appears entirely in a single monitor space—namely, in the monitor space that is determined to "own" the application window 80 that generated the dialog box. In FIG. 12(a), assume that under the single monitor solution, USER would have placed the Notify! dialog box at position 72 such that one portion of the dialog box is displayed in monitor space 41, another portion is displayed in null region 47, and another portion is displayed in monitor space 43. To avoid the poor readability that placement using the single monitor solution would cause, USER instead places the dialog box at position 70—entirely within the one monitor space that owns the dialog box's parent application window 80, "Mail for Windows Placement of the dialog box at position 70 allows it to be easily viewed and read by the end-user. Monitor space 41 was determined by USER to own window 80 because it contained a larger portion of window 80 than did monitor space 43. The portion 78 of window 80 that is in null region 47 is ignored by USER for purposes of determining which monitor space owns the application window.
If the DS_CENTERMOUSE feature is being used while in a multiple monitor environment, the dialog box is displayed within the monitor space that owns the cursor. As shown in FIG. 12(b), the dialog box is centered around cursor 25.
If the application window that generated the dialog box is not owned by any monitor space (e.g., the window is in a non-visible region of the desktop or the dialog box was not generated by an application but rather by the operating system), the dialog box is displayed in the center of the monitor space that owns the currently active window. If no window is active, or in any other situation not covered above, the dialog box is displayed in the center of the monitor space corresponding to the "primary display." The primary display is arbitrarily chosen by the operating system at boot-time from among the various monitors that are plugged into the computer system.
If the position of the dialog box is specified by hard-coded device coordinates relative to its parent application window, USER attempts to place the dialog box at the specified position. If the dialog box would cross a monitor boundary, USER clips the dialog box to appear entirely in the monitor space that owns the parent application window. If hard-coded device coordinates are specified but no parent application window exists, USER places the dialog box at the specified coordinates relative to the origin of the monitor that is chosen according to the above criteria (i.e., the monitor that owns the currently active window or the primary monitor).
The USER code has several other features that enhance the robustness of the desktop paradigm from the perspective of an end-user operating in a multiple monitor environment. In the Windows� operating system, an end-user may have several applications running concurrently even though only a single application can be active at a given time. The end-user may alternate between applications, for example, by simultaneously pressing the ALT key and the TAB key. This key combination brings up a "switching" window that lets the end-user switch to (i.e., activate) a different application. When the end-user enters this key combination while in a multiple monitor environment, USER centers the switching window in the monitor space that owns the window of the currently active application. The monitor space so chosen is likely the one on which the end-user's eyes are focused.
Pop-up menus and drop-down lists are handled in a manner similar to dialog boxes in that USER prevents them from spanning monitors. If the pop-up menu that is generated is a "context menu" (generated by a click of the mouse's right button), the pop-up menu is displayed entirely in the monitor space that owns the point at which the cursor was positioned when the click occurred. If the pop-up menu corresponds to a "menu item" (potential choice in menu bar), which is a rectangular display region, the pop-up menu is displayed in the monitor space that owns the menu item. A drop-down list is displayed entirely in the monitor space that owns the display region (e.g., a sunken combo box) that generated the drop-down list.
An end-user may generate a screen dump (e.g., a printed, hard copy of the screen) of the present display by pressing the "PrtScn" key. When the end-user presses the PrtScn key while in a multiple monitor environment, only the monitor space that owns the cursor is dumped to the printer. This choice is based on the assumption that the end-user does not want the entire virtual desktop to be printed. Moreover, it is unlikely that a typical computer system would have sufficient memory capacity to capture an entire desktop that spanned two or more monitors. Lastly, capturing the entire desktop from multiple monitors would produce unattractive results if the overall desktop was non-rectangular or if the various monitors possessed different color characteristics.
In a typical situation, the display of a dialog box or menu or the like is often temporary, with the background image reappearing as soon as the end-user undertakes an action that closes the dialog box or menu. USER takes advantage of the temporary nature of these display regions by caching away the binary data defining the background region that is temporarily obscured by the display region. When the display region closes, it is a simple and quick matter for the GDI to restore the background image by copying the cached binary data to the appropriate locations in the frame buffer. This feature is referred to as "save bits;" In a multiple monitors environment, USER does not cache away all of the background image binary data for a display region that spans monitor boundaries. Rather, USER stores away only the binary data corresponding to the portion of the display region that appears in the monitor space that owns the display region. This is way, USER does not have to deal with the time-consuming complexity of handling potential differences between the various monitors such as color depths and the like.
In Windows�, the icon tray is ordinarily visible to the end-user along one of the monitors edges unless the end-user has manually removed it from the screen. Some applications (e.g., Microsoft� Powerpoint�) automatically remove the icon tray from the monitor space (i.e., the application goes "full screen") so they have more screen real estate to work with. In a multiple monitor environment, USER displays the icon tray only on one monitor at a time (the primary display as a default or any other display that the end-user so designates). Accordingly, when an application goes full screen when multiple monitors are being used, USER will remove the tray from its monitor space only if the application wants to occupy that same monitor space. If the tray is on a different monitor than the one on which the application has gone full screen, the display of the icon tray remains unaffected.
As shown in FIG. 12(b), a window 80 may be positioned such that a portion of the titlebar (the black strip along the top of the window) is within null region 47 and thus invisible to the end-user. If window 80 was positioned such that titlebar was completely within the null region 471 the end-user would thereafter be unable to reposition the window because to do so requires the end-user to be able to position the cursor over the titlebar. Accordingly, when operating in a multiple monitor environment, USER prevents an end-user from moving a window such that its titlebar is entirely outside any monitor space. Whenever an end-user repositions a window, USER checks each monitor space to see if it contains at least a portion of that window's titlebar. If no monitor space contains any portion of the titlebar, USER automatically repositions the window so that a portion of the titlebar is visible in the monitor space that owns the window.
In order to display an image on a monitor, Windows� must read from memory binary data that defines the image and process it with its graphics engine. This involves numerous calculations and is time-consuming. When an image that is already displayed on a monitor is to be moved to a new position on the monitor, however, that image does not need to be "repainted" (i.e., run through the graphics engine) but rather the pixel data in the frame buffer corresponding to that image simply may be moved from one screen location to another by means of a BitBlt operation, thus saving valuable machine cycles for other processing functions.
In a multiple monitors environment, the various monitors being used may have different color characteristics such as color depth (e.g., 8-bit color versus 16-bit color) or color format (e.g., 5-5-5 16-bit color versus 5-6-5 16-bit color). As a result, binary data that were processed by the graphics engine for display on one monitor, may not be suited for display on a monitor having different characteristics. To do so could produce unattractive results. In a multiple monitors environment accordingly, USER will treat window moves and resizings that span monitor boundaries differently from windows that remain wholly contained in a single monitor space.
In the example shown in FIG. 13(a), the end-user has moved the "Michigan" window from position 101 to position 103 such that the window remains entirely within monitor space 41. Consequently, USER can process this window move using the single monitor solution: a BitBlt operation is performed to move the binary data defining the window from a location in the frame buffer corresponding to position 101 to a location corresponding to position 103. If the window had instead been resized, a modified BitBlt occurs in which points are mapped to new space, still without a full repaint.
In FIG. 13(b), in contrast, the end-user has moved the Michigan window from position 101 to position 105 such that the window spans the bindary between monitor spaces 41 and 43. Accordingly, if the two monitors have different color characteristics, USER will effect a BitBlt only for the portion 107 of the window that remains in monitor space 41. The portion 109 of the window that is now in monitor space 43 is repainted. This ensures that the two portions of the window will be displayed using pixel data that is tailored to the capabilities of the respective monitors on which the portions appear.
The process by which the above-described trans-monitor window moves are accomplished is described in connection with the flowchart of FIG. 14. During boot-time, the operating system determines whether or not the various monitors being used have the same color characteristics, and an operating system variable is set to reflect the outcome of that determination. When an end-user performs a window (or any display region) move while in a multiple monitor environment, at step 110 USER inspects the operating system variable that specifies whether all of the monitors in the environment have the same color characteristics. If they do, then at step 112 all portions of the window may be displayed at its new position using a BitBlt operation without regard to monitor on which the various window portions appear.
On the other hand, if all of the monitors in the environment do not have the same color characteristics, then at step 114 it is determined whether the window was moved to a position that causes it to span the boundary between its original monitor and any other monitor. If the window at its new position does not span window boundaries, then the single monitor solution may be used and the window is displayed at its new position using a BitBlt operation.
If the window at its new position causes it to spill over into a new monitor, then at step 116 USER determines which Portion A remains in the original monitor space and which Portion B now appears in the new monitor space.
At step 118, Portion A is displayed on the original monitor using a BitBlt operation and at step 1220 Portion B is displayed on the new monitor by repainting that portion from scratch. In this manner, USER ensures that portions of windows will be displayed using the proper color characteristics for the respective monitors on which they appear.
Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|25 Aug 1989
|21 Apr 1992
|Sun Microsystems, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for detecting cursors
|8 Jun 1992
|8 Jun 1993
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Remote procedure calls in heterogeneous systems
|4 Feb 1992
|21 Sep 1993
|Digital Equipment Corporation
|RPC based computer system using transparent callback and associated method
|4 Oct 1991
|1 Feb 1994
|Beyond, Inc.
|Event-driven rule-based messaging system
|30 Dec 1992
|19 Sep 1995
|Dominator Radiology, Inc.
|Automated system and a method for organizing, presenting, and manipulating medical images
|6 Sep 1994
|31 Oct 1995
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method and apparatus for graphic accessing of multiple software applications
|1 Aug 1994
|8 Oct 1996
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method and apparatus for implementing a virtual desktop through window positioning
|30 Jan 1996
|12 Aug 1997
|Microsoft Corporation
|Distance control for displaying a cursor
|18 Apr 1997
|21 Apr 1998
|Fujitsu Limited
|Virtual screen display system
|17 Oct 1996
|10 Nov 1998
|Etma, Inc.
|Desktop manager for graphical user interface based system with enhanced desktop
|7 Jun 1995
|24 Nov 1998
|Cirrus Logic, Inc.
|Dual displays having independent resolutions and refresh rates
|"A Mac of a Different Color", MacWorld, Apr. 1987, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 132-133.
|"HydraVision Press Release", Feb. 5, 1996, Appian Graphics, at Internet site: appiantech.com.
|"Macintosh Computers Offer More Flexible Monitor Support", The Macintosh Advantage, Apple Computer, Sep. 27, 1996, at Internet site: product.info.ap . . . dvantages/monitor.html.
|"Multiple Monitor Display Boards", Appian Graphics, at Internet site: appiantech.com.
|"Mutliple Monitor Applications", Sep. 27, 1996, Appian Graphics, at Internet site: appaintech.com.
|"Using Two Monitors", Sep. 27, 1996.
|Apple Computer, The Macintosh Advantage, Macintosh computers offer more flexible monitor support, Sep. 1996.*
|Borrell, Jerry, "The Graphic Mac", MacWorld, Nov. 1986, vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 100-105.
|FairNet, (Mac)System 7.5: Advanced, at Internet site; firstname.lastname@example.com.
|Frenkel, Gary, "cc:Mail View Keeps an Eye on Your Messaging System", Network Computing, Jun. 1, 1995, CMP Publications, Inc., 1995.
|Heid, Jim, "Approaching the Mac II", MacWorld, Jun. 1987, vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 130-133.
|Heid, Jim, "Working Smart", MacWorld, Oct. 1995, pp. 145-146.
|Inside Macintosh, Apple Computers, Inc., published 1985.
|Inside Macintosh, vol. V, Apple Computer, Inc., 1988.
|Kramer, Matt, "Baranof'MailCheck 2.6 Delivers Improved Tools", PC Week, Sep. 11, 1995, Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, 1995.
|Poor, Alfred, "Double Vision: Appian's Impulse Graphics Card Gives Your Monitor a View-or Two", PC Magazine, May 14, 1996, Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, 1996.
|Shirley, John and Rosenberry, Ward, "Microsoft RPC Programming Guide", O'Reilly & Associates, 1995.
|Summary of "Multiple Monitor Support on Macintosh Computers."
|Ushijima, David, Chasing Rainbows, MacWorld, Jul. 1987, vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 109-115.
|Webster, Bruce F., "Just How Compatible is Compatible?", MacWorld, Nov. 1987, vol. 4, No. 11, pp. 108-114.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|10 Oct 2002
|1 Mar 2005
|Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha
|Apparatus, method and program for causing a plurality of display units to display images
|8 Nov 2002
|1 Nov 2005
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Synchronized visualization of partial scenes
|5 Jun 2002
|16 May 2006
|Apparatus and method for direct manipulation of electronic information
|15 Mar 1999
|2 Jan 2007
|Ati International Srl
|Method and apparatus for rendering an image in a video graphics adapter
|27 Jun 2003
|13 Feb 2007
|Microsoft Corporation
|Intelligent windows bumping method and system
|11 May 2004
|26 Jun 2007
|Cynthia Joanne Gage
|Multiple document viewing apparatus and user interface
|10 Jun 2004
|28 Aug 2007
|Sony Corporation
|Information displaying method, information displaying device, and computer program
|26 Sep 2003
|25 Dec 2007
|The General Electric Company
|Methods and apparatus for displaying images on mixed monitor displays
|18 Oct 2004
|8 Apr 2008
|Ati Technologies Inc.
|Method for displaying single monitor applications on multiple monitors driven by a personal computer
|27 Jan 2003
|15 Jul 2008
|Fujitsu Limited
|Method of and device for controlling display of window, and computer product
|22 Oct 2007
|16 Dec 2008
|The General Electric Company
|Method and apparatus for displaying images on mixed monitor displays
|17 Dec 2001
|6 Jan 2009
|Xerox Corporation
|System utilizing mixed resolution displays
|17 Dec 2001
|9 Jun 2009
|Xerox Corporation
|Methods of using mixed resolution displays
|2 Mar 1998
|30 Jun 2009
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Method and apparatus for configuring multiple displays associated with a computing system
|17 Dec 2001
|8 Dec 2009
|Xerox Corporation
|Mixed resolution displays
|19 May 2006
|22 Dec 2009
|Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corporation
|Multiple application and multiple monitor user interface image format selection system for medical and other applications
|24 May 2005
|19 Oct 2010
|Ati Technologies Inc.
|Master/slave graphics adapter arrangement
|24 May 2005
|27 Dec 2011
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Multi-monitor support for MDI applications
|30 Apr 2009
|27 Nov 2012
|Microsoft Corporation
|Configuring an adaptive input device with selected graphical images
|26 Sep 2011
|18 Dec 2012
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for displaying multiple concurrent games using dynamic focal points
|9 Oct 2007
|18 Jun 2013
|Honeywell International, Inc.
|Display management in a multi-window display
|14 May 2007
|25 Jun 2013
|S.F. Ip Properties 56 Llc
|Multiple document viewing apparatus and user interface
|20 Sep 2007
|20 Aug 2013
|Robert Pedersen, II
|Apparatus, system, and method for presenting images in a multiple display environment
|30 May 2007
|8 Oct 2013
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Device having multiple graphics subsystems and reduced power consumption mode, software and methods
|15 Nov 2012
|7 Jan 2014
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for displaying multiple concurrent games using dynamic focal points
|12 Mar 2009
|7 Jan 2014
|Panasonic Corporation
|Information device and window display method
|27 Oct 2008
|27 May 2014
|Htc Corporation
|Electronic device capable of transferring object between two display units and controlling method thereof
|10 Oct 2003
|24 Jun 2014
|Concurrent Computer Corporation
|Method, apparatus, and system for preparing images for integration and combining images into an integrated image
|3 Sep 2009
|12 Aug 2014
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-fold mobile device with configurable interface
|17 Jun 2008
|12 Aug 2014
|Apple Inc.
|Providing a coherent user interface across multiple output devices
|27 Sep 2011
|26 Aug 2014
|User interaction support across cross-environment applications
|3 Sep 2009
|16 Sep 2014
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel device with configurable interface
|20 Dec 2006
|7 Oct 2014
|Apple Inc.
|Method and system for automatically resizing and repositioning windows in response to changes in display
|3 Sep 2009
|14 Oct 2014
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel device with configurable interface
|17 Jun 2009
|14 Oct 2014
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Method and apparatus for configuring multiple displays associated with a computing system
|3 Sep 2009
|14 Oct 2014
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Mobile device with an inclinometer
|3 Sep 2009
|14 Oct 2014
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel electronic device
|31 May 2012
|21 Oct 2014
|Orientation arbitration
|19 Apr 2010
|21 Oct 2014
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Device having multiple graphics subsystems and reduced power consumption mode, software and methods
|15 Apr 2008
|4 Nov 2014
|Bally Gaming, Inc.
|Gaming machine having interchangeable display content
|24 Aug 2011
|25 Nov 2014
|Multi-operating system
|19 Aug 2013
|30 Dec 2014
|Bally Gaming, Inc.
|Gaming machine having interchangeable display content
|15 Jan 2010
|6 Jan 2015
|Lg Electronics Inc.
|Method for displaying windows
|19 Dec 2013
|13 Jan 2015
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for displaying multiple concurrent games using dynamic focal points
|3 Sep 2009
|13 Jan 2015
|Patrik N. Lundqvist
|Multi-panel electronic device
|27 Sep 2011
|13 Jan 2015
|User interaction across cross-environment applications through an extended graphics context
|3 Sep 2009
|3 Feb 2015
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Method for indicating location and direction of a graphical user interface element
|27 Sep 2011
|24 Feb 2015
|Extended graphics context with divided compositing
|17 Feb 2012
|24 Feb 2015
|Dynamic cross-environment application configuration/orientation in an active user environment
|18 Jun 2010
|3 Mar 2015
|Hiperwall, Inc.
|Systems, methods, and devices for manipulation of images on tiled displays
|26 Sep 2014
|31 Mar 2015
|Orientation arbitration
|3 Sep 2009
|21 Apr 2015
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel electronic device
|24 Aug 2011
|5 May 2015
|Auto-waking of a suspended OS in a dockable system
|5 Oct 2012
|5 May 2015
|Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
|Devices, systems, and methods for moving electronic windows between displays
|27 Sep 2011
|2 Jun 2015
|Instant remote rendering
|27 Sep 2011
|2 Jun 2015
|Cross-environment user interface mirroring using remote rendering
|17 Nov 2010
|9 Jun 2015
|User interface with stacked application management
|27 Sep 2011
|16 Jun 2015
|Application mirroring using multiple graphics contexts
|31 Oct 2013
|23 Jun 2015
|Cross-environment communication using application space API
|30 Sep 2011
|30 Jun 2015
|Cross-environment event notification
|27 Sep 2011
|7 Jul 2015
|Extended graphics context with common compositing
|24 Aug 2011
|4 Aug 2015
|Cross-environment communication framework
|27 Sep 2012
|11 Aug 2015
|Separation of screen usage for complex language input
|27 Sep 2012
|8 Sep 2015
|Dual display cursive touch input
|27 Sep 2012
|8 Sep 2015
|Dual display pinyin touch input
|21 Sep 2012
|6 Oct 2015
|Portrait dual display and landscape dual display
|24 Aug 2011
|6 Oct 2015
|Auto-configuration of a docked system in a multi-OS environment
|3 Oct 2011
|13 Oct 2015
|Cross-environment application compatibility for single mobile computing device
|28 Sep 2011
|5 Jan 2016
|Window stack modification in response to orientation change
|31 Aug 2011
|15 Mar 2016
|Window stack models for multi-screen displays
|18 Dec 2014
|15 Mar 2016
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for displaying multiple concurrent games using dynamic focal points
|8 Mar 2013
|26 Apr 2016
|Sony Corporation
|Display, client computer device and method for displaying a moving object
|17 Nov 2010
|2 Aug 2016
|User interface with independent drawer control
|9 Mar 2016
|21 Mar 2017
|Gaming system, gaming device and method for displaying multiple concurrent games using dynamic focal points
|2 Mar 2015
|28 Mar 2017
|Hiperwall, Inc.
|Systems, methods, and devices for manipulation of images on tiled displays
|31 Mar 2011
|18 Jul 2017
|Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
|Augmenting user interface elements based on timing information
|3 Sep 2014
|8 Aug 2017
|User interface with screen spanning icon morphing
|17 Dec 2001
|14 Nov 2002
|Xerox Corporation
|System utilizing mixed resolution displays
|17 Dec 2001
|14 Nov 2002
|Xerox Corporation
|Methods of using mixed resolution displays
|17 Dec 2001
|14 Nov 2002
|Xerox Corporation
|Mixed resolution displays
|8 Nov 2002
|10 Jul 2003
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Synchronized visualization of partial scenes
|27 Jan 2003
|31 Jul 2003
|Fujitsu Limited
|Method of and device for controlling display of window, and computer product
|10 Oct 2002
|25 Sep 2003
|Jun Someya
|Apparatus, method and program for causing a plurality of display units to display images
|5 Jun 2002
|11 Dec 2003
|Campbell Christopher S.
|Apparatus and method for direct manipulation of electronic information
|27 Jun 2003
|8 Apr 2004
|Microsoft Corporation
|Intelligent windows bumping method and system
|17 Oct 2002
|22 Apr 2004
|Microsoft Corporation
|Method and system for displaying images on multiple monitors
|18 Oct 2004
|3 Mar 2005
|Martyn Tom C.
|Method for displaying single monitor applications on multiple monitors driven by a personal computer
|10 Jun 2004
|17 Mar 2005
|Sony Corporation
|Information displaying method, information displaying device, and computer program
|26 Sep 2003
|31 Mar 2005
|Ge Medical Systems Information Technologies, Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for displaying images on mixed monitor displays
|10 Oct 2003
|14 Apr 2005
|Michael Chen
|Method, apparatus, and system for preparing images for integration and combining images into an integrated image
|1 Mar 2005
|6 Oct 2005
|Toshiyuki Morita
|Image display system
|11 May 2004
|17 Nov 2005
|Gage Cynthia J
|Multiple document viewing apparatus and user interface
|24 May 2005
|24 Nov 2005
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Multi-monitor support for MDI applications
|29 Sep 2004
|30 Mar 2006
|Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
|Computer assisted presentation authoring for multimedia venues
|24 May 2005
|30 Nov 2006
|Ati Technologies Inc.
|Master/slave graphics adapter arrangement
|19 May 2006
|1 Feb 2007
|Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corporation
|Multiple Application and Multiple Monitor User Interface Image Format Selection System for Medical and Other Applications
|8 Sep 2005
|8 Mar 2007
|Bhakta Dharmesh N
|Method and apparatus to selectively display portions of a shared desktop in a collaborative environment
|20 Dec 2006
|3 May 2007
|Apple Computer, Inc.
|Method and system for automatically resizing and repositioning windows in response to changes in display
|24 Apr 2006
|26 Jul 2007
|Tangtake Technology Co., Ltd.
|Method for presenting objects of the windows operating environment on multiple display devices
|14 May 2007
|11 Oct 2007
|Gage Cynthia J
|Multiple document viewing apparatus and user interface
|21 Nov 2006
|24 Jan 2008
|Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
|Apparatus for driving a display device and method therefor
|22 Oct 2007
|14 Feb 2008
|The General Electric Company
|Method and apparatus for displaying images on mixed monitor displays
|30 Nov 2007
|19 Jun 2008
|Jeffrey Cheng
|Video rendering across a high speed peripheral interconnect bus
|20 Sep 2007
|19 Jun 2008
|Abel Davis
|Apparatus, system, and method for presenting images in a multiple display environment
|30 May 2007
|28 Aug 2008
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Device having multiple graphics subsystems and reduced power consumption mode, software and methods
|9 Oct 2007
|9 Apr 2009
|Honeywell International, Inc.
|Display management in a multi-window display
|27 Oct 2008
|25 Jun 2009
|Ming-Yu Chen
|Electronic device capable of transferring object between two display units and controlling method thereof
|15 Apr 2008
|9 Jul 2009
|Bally Gaming, Inc.
|Gaming machine having interchangeable display content
|12 Mar 2009
|17 Sep 2009
|Panasonic Corporation
|Information device and window display method
|17 Jun 2008
|17 Dec 2009
|Swingler Michael A
|Providing a coherent user interface across multiple output devices
|17 Jun 2009
|31 Dec 2009
|Gordon Fraser Grigor
|Method and Apparatus for Configuring Multiple Displays Associated with a Computing System
|5 Aug 2008
|11 Feb 2010
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Transparent Windows
|3 Sep 2009
|11 Mar 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Mobile device with an inclinometer
|3 Sep 2009
|18 Mar 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel electronic device
|3 Sep 2009
|18 Mar 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Method for indicating location and direction of a graphical user interface element
|11 Sep 2009
|25 Mar 2010
|Action Star Enterprise Co., Ltd.
|Method for transferring a file through a km device between associated computers
|3 Sep 2009
|1 Apr 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel device with configurable interface
|3 Sep 2009
|8 Apr 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel device with configurable interface
|3 Sep 2009
|8 Apr 2010
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel electronic device
|18 Nov 2008
|20 May 2010
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Object positioning in a graphical user interface
|31 Dec 2008
|1 Jul 2010
|Lyons Kenton M
|Peer-to-peer dynamically appendable logical displays
|30 Apr 2009
|4 Nov 2010
|Microsoft Corporation
|Configuring an Adaptive Input Device with Selected Graphical Images
|19 Apr 2010
|18 Nov 2010
|Ati Technologies Ulc
|Device having multiple graphics subsystems and reduced power consumption mode, software and methods
|18 Jun 2010
|23 Dec 2010
|Hiperwall, Inc.
|Systems, methods, and devices for manipulation of images on tiled displays
|15 Jan 2010
|28 Apr 2011
|Lg Electronics Inc.
|Method for displaying windows
|3 Sep 2009
|26 May 2011
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Multi-panel electronic device
|10 Dec 2009
|16 Jun 2011
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Display navigation system, method and computer program product
|23 Dec 2009
|23 Jun 2011
|Nokia Corporation
|Method and Apparatus for Determining an Operation Associsated with a Continuous Stroke Input
|14 Dec 2010
|21 Jul 2011
|Smart Technologies Ulc
|Method for handling and transferring data in an interactive input system, and interactive input system executing the method
|31 Aug 2011
|5 Apr 2012
|Imerj LLC
|Launching applications into revealed desktop
|30 Dec 2010
|5 Jul 2012
|Motorola-Mobility, Inc.
|Electronic gate filter
|9 Aug 2012
|29 Nov 2012
|Advanced Intellectual Property Group, Llc
|System for and method of generating and navigating within a workspace of a computer application
|27 Jun 2011
|27 Dec 2012
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System for switching displays based on the viewing direction of a user
|6 Jun 2012
|14 Mar 2013
|Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.
|Electronic device and method for displaying user interface
|27 Sep 2012
|28 Mar 2013
|Dual screen property detail display
|8 Mar 2013
|19 Sep 2013
|Sony Europe Limited
|Display, client computer device and method for displaying a moving object
|31 Mar 2011
|16 Jan 2014
|April Slayden Mitchell
|Augmenting user interface elements
|5 Oct 2012
|10 Apr 2014
|Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
|Devices, systems, and methods for moving electronic windows between displays
|23 May 2013
|27 Nov 2014
|User interface elements for multiple displays
|11 Oct 2013
|26 Mar 2015
|Cisco Technology, Inc.
|Arrangement of content on a large format display
|4 Dec 2014
|9 Jun 2016
|Henge Docks Llc
|Method for Logically Positioning Multiple Display Screens
|10 May 2005
|18 Nov 2009
|Document processing equipment and method
|24 May 2004
|7 Dec 2005
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Multi-monitor support for MDI Applications
|10 May 2005
|29 Mar 2007
|Cynthia J Gage
|Multiple document viewing apparatus and user interface
|31 Aug 2005
|9 Mar 2006
|Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V.
|Displaying view ports within a large desktop area
|31 Aug 2005
|11 May 2006
|Koninkl Philips Electronics Nv
|Displaying view ports within a large desktop area
|U.S. Classification
|715/761, 345/562, 715/764, 345/1.1, 715/778, 345/1.3
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|10 Jan 2000
Owner name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:BUTLER, LAURA J.;SMITH, ADAM;REEL/FRAME:010513/0804
Effective date: 19961204
|9 Nov 2004
|Certificate of correction
|13 Nov 2006
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
|29 Oct 2010
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
|24 Nov 2014
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 12
|9 Dec 2014
Owner name: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC, WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:MICROSOFT CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:034541/0001
Effective date: 20141014


text:
By Ashley Gill, Opinion Editor
The $100 graduation fee that all graduating seniors must pay, participating in the ceremony or not, was discussed in the March 13 issue of The Mooring Mast. The article, written by reporter Genny Boots, examined where the money goes and why it is important for students to pay it.
Students are given no warning of the $100 cost to apply to graduate from Pacific Lutheran University. They find out when they apply to graduate online and are required to pay it in order to complete the application. If students decline the fee, the application is canceled. This is especially troublesome if students are not prepared for this extra cost and have to save up or even take away from their budgets for food and rent.
"I'm fortunate to be a working student," senior Haley Ljunggren said. "But it definitely was an inconvenience and I had zero extra cash for anything other than bills until my next paycheck."
There was a lot of interest regarding where the money actually goes to considering we already pay so much in student fees as it is.
During an interview between writer Genny Boots and Senior Advisor to the President Kris Plaehn, the fee was explained.
"It provides some of the funding for things like printing the diplomas, having the diploma cover holders. It also provides things like paying for the Tacoma Dome, paying for those events, paying for the parking lots," Plaehn said. "It goes to pay for those specific components of commencement."
Initially, this is a reasonable explanation for the high graduation fee. However, I have participated in two graduation ceremonies at the Tacoma Dome and none of which required extra fees to support it. My local high school graduation took place at the Tacoma Dome, and while we had to pay for our cap and gowns, there was not an extra cost to graduate or to fund the few hours at the Tacoma Dome, parking or any other potential costs.
In fact, when I graduated from Pierce Community College in Puyallup, we not only graduated at the Tacoma Dome, but also received our brand new cap, gown, tassel and a very nice diploma cover for free. The costs were technically already paid for through our tuition costs, even though that quarter's tuition was not any higher than any other quarters that I had paid for.
My history of graduation ceremonies fueled my curiosity and disappointment with PLU. After the news article that was published in the last printed issue of The Mast, I was angry and I felt like we were not getting the complete truth. Saying the fee covered the cost of our diploma holders and the Tacoma Dome felt like an easy and believable thing to say for those who are not local to this area and have never participated in a ceremony at the Tacoma Dome before.
There is one aspect that could explain the contradictory information from the Senior Advisor to the President, which is the fact that PLU is a private institution without any federal funding. Even if public colleges and high schools received government money to cover the cost of the Tacoma Dome and other graduation costs, that reasoning should be explained to the student body.
Students should be warned about the high graduation fee well in advance and students who do not plan to participate in the ceremony should only have to pay a small fee to cover the cost of their diploma. ◼

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The majors are always about making history, and the four players who can make the most significant impact on the record book are Jordan Spieth, Rory McIlroy, Zach Johnson, and Phil Mickelson. Spieth – If he wins his W-W-4t-W year in the majors would, IMO, be the best in the Modern Era (1958-now). Woods won […]
Time to Make Some History at the PGA!
August 13th, 2015 · No Comments
Tags: 2015 Majors
Mickelson's last shot
June 11th, 2014 · No Comments
Here is your preview for the 2014 U.S. Open: Phil Mickelson. Seriously, is there any other story that comes even close to Phil's bid to win the Open, and to capture the Career Grand Slam? Okay, this is Johnny Miller's final U.S. Open (we think) because Fox will take over broadcasting it next year. And […]
Tags: The Game · The Majors
Let youth be served at the Masters
April 12th, 2014 · No Comments
Last weekend Lexi Thompson became the second youngest player to ever win a women's major, capturing the Kraft-Nabisco at the ripe old age of 19 years and 55 days. Thompson's win came on the heels of a third place showing at the 2013 Evian, the LPGA Tour's fifth major. This weekend, PGA Tour winner Jordan […]
Tags: The Majors
The Masters: who are you rooting for – and against?
April 11th, 2014 · No Comments
Like any fan, I suppose that you have those players who you root for – and possibly against! I know that I do and, as each round is completed, my list of potential heroes and villains becomes clearer still. My cliffs notes version for who I root for, and against, is as follows: For – […]
Tags: The Majors
Nothing but Long Shots at the Masters
April 8th, 2014 · No Comments
When Tiger Woods is playing, he is always the favorite, and usually at ridiculously low odds, such as in a range from 3/1 to 5/1. But, as the whole golfing world knows, Woods is at home recuperating from surgery on his back last week. In his absence, we have nothing but longer shots (over 10/1), […]
Tags: The Majors
Woods and others seeking to make history at Merion
June 12th, 2013 · No Comments
Merion Golf Club is stepped in history, it being the site of the final leg of Bobby Jones' Grand Slam, Ben Hogan's comeback win in the 1951 U.S. Open, and Lee Trevino's playoff victory over Jack Nicklaus in the 1971 U.S. Open, among others. It is therefore fitting that a number of players will be […]
Tags: PGA Tour · The Majors · Tiger vs. Jack
Adam Scott wins* Masters with the chicken wing stance
April 15th, 2013 · 3 Comments
Masters champion Adam Scott looks like an athlete with that slim waste and those rock hard biceps that rival Tiger Woods' at his muscle shirted best. And he's got that gorgeous golf swing that has long been the envy of his peers, that is better than Rory McIlroy's much heralded action, and that enabled him […]
Tags: The Game · The Majors
Can Woods still win the majors?
March 11th, 2013 · 6 Comments
Following his command performance in winning at Doral this weekend, it would be tempting to say that Tiger Woods is officially back. Woods has won 3 of his last 15 starts last year on the PGA Tour. He has won 2 of 4 starts in 2013 on the PGA Tour. He's won 5 of his […]
Tags: PGA Tour · The Majors · Tiger vs. Jack
Capelle On Golf Celebrates its 5th Anniversary
February 19th, 2013 · 1 Comment
Today marks the fifth anniversary of my first post at Capelle On Golf. Wow, has that gone by fast! So much has taken place in the last half decade. Tiger Woods won the 2008 U.S. Open on a bum leg. Paddy won two while he was gone, giving him three majors. Phil and Ernie each […]
Tags: The Game · The Majors · Tiger vs. Jack
Snedeker's stock is soaring
February 12th, 2013 · 2 Comments
Brandt Snedeker's stock is soaring. He won $10 million for capturing last season's FedExCup and nearly $15 mil in all. This season he's won over $2.8 million, and his early season resume includes a third, two seconds, and a W at last weekend's Pebble Beach National Pro-Am. In short, in the last five months Snedeker […]
Tags: PGA Tour


text:
Fr Edward Houghton RIP
From the Vicar General of Westminster Diocese:
It is with a profound sense of shock and sadness that we announce that Fr Ed Houghton was fatally injured in a road accident in North Yorkshire yesterday, Friday 21 August. He was forty years of age and had been a priest for just over one year. May he rest in peace. Our thoughts and prayers are with Fr Ed's immediate family - his sisters and brother, at this time. We remember also the parish communities at Chiswick where he was Assistant Priest, and the Cathedral where he served his year as a Deacon.
Fr Ed was born in Preston and prior to studying for the priesthood worked as an English and Religious Education teacher at St Charles Sixth Form College in Ladbroke Grove. He had been a resident at Newman House when he was a student. Our prayers are with his family and all who mourn him. May he rest in peace.


text:
This species occurs in the western Karoo from Matjiesfontein to near Calvinia and is closely related to E. loricata and E. multifolia. (Peter Bruyns in "Plants of the Greater Cape Floristic Region", published in 2013, even considers it a synonym of E. loricata).
The plants form rounded cushions to about 15 cm tall and to 30 cm or more in diameter, with many branches, which usually completely hide the main stem.
The 2-5 cm long white spines, which are in fact modified peduncles, are very obvious in the dry season; in winter and spring they are partly hidden by the up to 4 cm long leaves.


text:
May 11, 2011
Patta and longtime collaborator Kangol once again engage in a special headwear project for Spring/Summer 2011, introducing the "Summer of Love" collection. This endeavor utilizes a staple in the range for decades and delivers a set of Kangol's famed bell shaped Bermuda Casual hats, the original classic sported from the streets to the beach.
The Patta x Kangol Bermuda Casual hats are knitted in Kangol's proprietary bouclé yarn, treated with special processes before they are blocked. This gives the hat a soft and rich hand-feel for extra wearing comfort. The hats will be available in 3 colors: black, red and beige, all with with contrasting top buttons and embroidered Kangol and Patta logo's. Hit the jump for more detailed images.
I would like to know if the Patta X Summer of love pack of hats from 2011 are still being sold.


text:
4516 Florin Road
Sacramento, CA 95823
Sacramento, CA 95823
Website: www.mylebeautycollegeinc.com
Location: Far West AK CA HI NV OR WA
Location: Far West AK CA HI NV OR WA
Get a snapshot of My Le's Beauty College with this general overview, including student enrollment and graduation rates, average test scores, student demographics, and more.
Mission StatementOur prime objective is to offer training that prepares the successful student to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to pass the State Board Exams. Our secondary objective is to maximize the development and personal growth of each student as a total person, to help each student discover his/her potential and hopefully function as cosmetology entrepreneurs and instructors of the future.
School Characteristics
105 Students
(105- Undergraduate Enrollment)
Length of Study: Private for-profit, less-than 2-year
Religious Affiliation: Not Applicable
Test Scores & GPAAverage GPA: No
School ProfileTotal Enrollment: 105
UnderGraduate Enrollment: 105
Retention Rate: 93%
School AccreditationNational: Yes
Regional: No
Federal: Yes
Male / Female Enrollment
Total Enrollment
Source: School data comes from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2015. Data may vary depending on school and academic year.


text:
Prices exclude honeymoon of course.
- Low-key wedding at the courthouse. $150Vote A
- Express wedding in Las Vegas. $1000 or $200 if already there on vacationVote B
- Private wedding with a handful guests. $5000Vote C
- Intimate wedding with less than a hundred guests. $10'000Vote D
- Traditional wedding with hundreds of guests. $30'000Vote E
Most Helpful Guy
I went with C. If I ever did get married in just some field under a tree with the bare minimum people just so we had someone to bear witness to it. I thought marriage was supposed to be between just two people not between two people and their friends of friends and 100 other people...00|00|0
Most Helpful Girl
I voted b but meant a00|00|0
- Show AllShow Less
Well if you have a destination wedding you usually have a reception when you get home but you aren't in the dress and I they tend to be in my opinion more like an engagement party and less formal.
Instead of renting a huge venue you can have it catered at your house or rent a room at a restaurant and you aren't inviting everyone you know. WAY less stress, your saving your friends the duty of being a bridesmaid (somehow brides forget you aren't there to serve them for the 18 months leading up to the wedding). BUT you serve up nice food and booze so you still get wedding gifts and everyone walks away happier. Except maybe your parents...
Oic! Thanks for your explanations ^^
It does sound less stressful than a traditional wedding.


text:
Windfall Reading at Eugene Public Library
All events free. More information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.
October 2016 – Writing & Book Events at Eugene Public Library
All events free. More information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.
Writer Seth Kantner – Sunday, October 2, 2 p.m. , Downtown Eugene Public Library, 10th & Olive / Seth Kantner was born in a sod igloo in the Brooks Range of northern Alaska and has spent five decades living a subsistence life above the Arctic Circle. He will read from his award-winning and critically acclaimed works, discuss the Native lifestyle in which he was raised, and talk about the monumental upheaval that both climate and culture change have brought to the region. His presentation will be illustrated with images of the Arctic: the land, ice, animals, and people of his home. Featured will be passages from Kantner's novel "Ordinary Wolves," his memoir "Shopping For Porcupine," and his newest non-fiction book, "Swallowed by the Great Land." Seth Kantner is a commercial fisherman, writer, and wildlife photographer. He was born and raised in northern Alaska and his art reflects his love for this land and the animals who live on it, and his belief in the importance of wildness left wild. Books will be available for purchase and signing courtesy of the UO Duck Store. Free. Information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.
Pioneer Girl: Laura Ingalls Wilder's Annotated Autobiography / A talk by editor Pamela Smith Hill / Saturday, October 15, 2 p.m. , Downtown Eugene Public Library / Pamela Smith Hill, editor of the bestselling annotated autobiography "Pioneer Girl" by Laura Ingalls Wilder, will speak at the Downtown Eugene Public Library on Saturday, October 15, 2:00 p.m. Books will be available for purchase and signing courtesy of the UO Duck Store. In addition to the annotated "Pioneer Girl," Pamela Smith Hill is the award-winning author of the biography "Laura Ingalls Wilder: A Writer's Life" and three young adult novels. She grew up in the Missouri Ozarks, forty miles from Wilder's Rocky Ridge Farm, and launched her professional writing career in South Dakota. She has taught creative and professional writing at universities in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. She lives in Portland, Oregon. Free. Information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.
Windfall Reading: Ritter and Tennant / Tuesday, October 18, 6 p.m. , Downtown Eugene Public Library / This month's Windfall Reading features Young Adult novelist William Ritter and poet Colette Tennant. William Ritter is the author of the bestselling "Jackaby" series of Young Adult novels. In addition to writing, he teaches Mythology and Creative Writing to high school students. He appears as part of Lane Literary Guild's "More Voices" project, made possible in part by a small grant from Lane Arts Council with support from City of Eugene Cultural Services. / Colette Tennant is the author of two poetry collections, "Eden and After" and "Commotion of Wings." Her work is widely published in journals and her poem "Smaller" was nominated for a 2014 Pushcart Prize. Tennant has served as the Vice President of the Oregon State Poetry Association and teaches at Corban University in Salem. / The Windfall Reading Series is sponsored by Eugene Public Library, Lane Literary Guild, Friends of Eugene Public Library, and Eugene Public Library Foundation. Refreshments served at intermission. Free. Information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.
Echoes of the Revolution: Ireland's 1916 Rising After 100 Years / Wednesday, October 19, 6 p.m. , Downtown Eugene Public Library / Join the University of Oregon's Mark Quigley for a talk about the complex legacies of Ireland's 1916 Easter Rising, including W.B. Yeats' poem memorializing the event. In this centennial year, events are being held in Ireland and around the world to reflect on the many different ways the Easter Rising has been remembered and understood. Mark Quigley is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Oregon and an expert in twentieth-century Irish literary and cultural history. He is the author of "Empire's Wake: Postcolonial Irish Writing and the Politics of Modern Literary Form" and is currently writing a book on Ireland and the First World War. Free. Information: 541-682-5450 or www.eugene-or.gov/library.


text: I just bought a new pro staff 95 from TW europe and it seems to have a problem as of now: there is a rattling sound, some kind of rough, low frequency vibration that does not seem to come from the handle. It happens when i hit the ball and I can recreate it by hitting my knee with the string bed. If I shake the racquet nothing happens. I'm positive it's not the handle as I tried to remove the butt cap or hold it firmly and there's still the same noise, which does not come from the handle but from an upper part of the racquet. I don't want to cut the strings right now as it is a fresh full gut string job. Any suggestions? Should I return it straight away? I also have a second problem but this seems due to my incompetence. I wanted to replace the grip (the pro staff comes with a hybrid) with a volkl leather grip. I took the stock grip off but when i started wrapping the volkl it was too stiff so I basically made a big wrinkle around the buttcap, making the grip to big and irregular. I had to give up obviously and put the wilson back on. Any suggestions here? Do volkl leather grips commonly have this problem? What brand can you suggest that isn't so stiff and hard to pull?


text:
Easy steps to setting up Intercom on any platform.
Customize Intercom to be about your users and to match your brand.
Real advice from the Intercom support team on delivering faster, more personal support.
Send in-app messages and emails to acquire, onboard and retain users.
Create and share content to help people better understand your product and get answers faster
Chat to and qualify high quality leads, and convert them at scale
How to do better product research using Intercom.
See who your customers are, what they do, and have conversations with them.
Learn Intercom best practices from the people who built it
A regularly curated list of the most commonly asked questions by Intercom customers
Some Intercom features are available on multiple Intercom products. We explain how these key features work.
Here for the first time? See how Intercom can help, from support to product feedback, sales and marketing.
Do more with Intercom by connecting with products like Stripe, Salesforce, Facebook, Zapier and many more.
Learn how to get started building on Intercom, whether you're building an app or a custom integration.
How to use Intercom in place of other products, like Zendesk or Drift.
How our products are priced, updating your privacy policy to include Intercom, and our own terms and privacy policies.