You do know that Commodore's idea (93) to use checkmarks and bullets in the menu like that predates Windows 95 - so this is actually an original Amiga concept.
Who said anything about Windows 95? Anyways OS 3.1 was released post 1993 without "radio buttons" in the menus.
(and personally I never saw the point of radio buttons, we have cycle menus (and cycle to menu) for that)
As for windows larger than screen I can only take it that you want to break every program out there that assumes this can happen. Like console and probably a lot of other programs. So while in you infinite wisdom you may think it should just be done, there are actually well thought out reasons why it would be a really bad idea. And in practice not that many people will even find it useful anyway.
I suppose that is why it is working just fine in OS4?
Seriously - when I first complained about this, Thomas said it was due to the possibility to somehow "move" windows into a position where no gadgets would be available to move it back or resize - there was ZERO explaination to how this could possibly happen, but arguing against dogma is pointless. When pointing out that OS4 manages just fine and resize windows larger than screen without any trouble, the "clarification" was that OS4 has the option to resize windows from all directions - well, now OS3 has the same, and yet here we are. And now there is a new excuse "break every program out there" - excuse me, but wtf what? Why don't those programs break on OS4 then?
Well 3.1 was a rushed job in the dying days of Commodore. So they didn't have time to do much of anything. But read the devcon notes from 93 and you will see the idea clearly described. I mentioned win95 as that is the first windows version that has this, so commodore clearly was first.
As for windows larger than screen I too didn't understand that reason about moving into a position where gadget would be unreachable, and resizable from all edges doesn't make a difference as i see it. But the reason that programs might break is certainly true for console, which allocates a buffer based on the screen assuming this is the largest buffer it hast to be prepared for. This can obviously be changed , but if console assumes this, then other programs may expect it too. Programs written for os4 are probably expected to be prepared for this - i don't know - i just know console will fail.
Now we have introduced some legacy compatibility options in 3.2 and limiting window size to screen could certainly be made a new compatibility option so in general windows could be made larger. Then we would "only" have to change intuition to handle this. The point is however that it is not a small thing, and none of us see any real value in it. I understand you do, but I have never seen any user using this on windows, so why would they on the amiga. It would just be a waste of time implementing and testing it. I would much rather spend our time on something that brings more value to users.
