This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article deals with Windows-like interfaces only; as a Mac user, I can't quite understand the point. Either it needs to be made clear that this is only for Windows-like interfaces or expanded to include similar definitions for other OSes. 85.176.99.19410:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any attempt to harmonize the different document interface styles? Like a way to abstract the concept and allow the window manager to display it as a MDI, SDI, tabbed interface, or whatever, depending on the user's preferences? — Omegatron23:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can pretty much do that with MDI already. If you want the advantages of MDI, just open multiple documents in the same instance of the application. If you think SDI has some advantages, you can always open multiple instances of the application and only have one document open on each, and it works like SDI.
Of course, you can have multiple instances of the application with multiple documents on each. For example, you can have all your C source code files open in one instance and all related HTML document files open in another instance.
"Tabbed interface" is not another document interface. It is just a row of buttons that you can use to switch between windows (and these buttons are often shaped to look like tabs). At least on VEDIT, you can switch the tab bar on or off with single mouse click without any effect on the window arrangement. And you can have document windows maximized, cascaded or (on VEDIT) use special full size windows (that resize if you resize the main window).
Actually, some programs allow you to choose, word does (or did atleast). W r t emulating SDI by opening multiple instances of an MDI app that is something the program must allow, and some do not allow for multiple processes of it to be opened (ms project, I think). Even if it can be done, if the app is not coded for it, it follows that resource consumption is typically larger and performance will suffer overall. (Getting more iron). So emulating SDI is not always not a feasible solution.
This article does a decent job of describing the differences between SDI (Single Document Interface) and MDI (Multiple Document Interface). Another interesting article would be one that discusses the origins and evolution of these. Another time, perhaps. The point I would like to make here is the misuse of IDE. IDE is and acronym for "Integrated Development Environment" and is a term used primarily with applications designed for developing other applications using one or more programming language. Microsoft's Visual Studio is an example. All the applications listed as examples of those using this IDE style are, in fact, IDE applications. So, while it is true applications like Visual Studio took the basic MDI feature and added to it, any application could have done the same, not just IDE applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William J Wyatt (talk • contribs) 18:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There is no such thing as IDE interface. Those IDE applications mentioned use MDI. The only difference is that newer applications use newer features of OS. In this case, the new feature is dockable window (which means that a window can be changed into a sidepanel). It has nothing to do with document interface, since those dockable windows do not even contain documents. So in theory it would be possible to use dockable windows with SDI application, too.
"Possibly faster and more memory efficient, since the application is shared, and only the document changes. the speed of switching between the internal windows is usually faster than having the OS switch between external windows."
I don't understand this, particularly "the application is shared." Sure the parent window is shared but multiple parent windows can be run by the same process. Also, on typical Windows applications, all windows are run by the OS (user32.dll). What make "internal windows" "usually faster?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.168.59 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the previous image (Gimp27-mdi.jpg) because it fails to illustrate the salient feature of MDI at all, the parent window is fullscreen, and the only child windows are all palettes rather than real windows (plus the screenshot's resolution is humongous, making interface details in the thumbnail illegible.) An ideal image would have the parent window somewhat smaller than the screen resolution, several partly overlapping child windows, at least one grandchild window inside one of them, and a child window extending partly beyond the edge of the parent window to show scrollbars. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the parent window is full-screen with no scrollbars, and none of the child windows extend beyond the parent window's border. A screenshot more like this would be ideal. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot Microsoft Access, that works till today with MDI, as an Application Generator Software for databases. You can also add an image showing what exacly is MDI, in one of the softwares. Galzigler (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Multiple document interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
