PDA

View Full Version : Full Screen Windows




Krazy Bill
Aug 13, 2012, 08:53 AM
So I'm running a bunch of Full Screen Apps in Snow Leopard... mostly games but others as well.

They behave just like any other application/window. The menu bar dutifully "hides" unless I move a mouse arrow to the top of the screen - just like FS apps in Lion/Mountain Lion. When I use Snow Leopard's Expose however, these FS windows mingle happily with all the other windows I have in that Space (desktop) be they Full Screen or not. Plus, with dual monitors, I can have a full screen window in each one.

My question is...

Why did Apple suddenly decree that full screen windows will henceforth be so special they can no longer slum around on the same desktop as those windows that aren't running in full screen? What am I missing?

In Snow Leopard, I group my "windows" and apps by job, category, whatever... and coral them in their own unique desktop (space). It's how I 'think'. It's how I organize my work. I believe this is how "most" people organize things. This is one of my major annoyances with Lion/ML and why I'm still on Snow Leopard.

Like I said... I'm missing something.



Blipp
Aug 13, 2012, 09:51 AM
Full-screen "mode" is different from just maximizing the screen space of an app. You can still make your apps full screen just like before and have as many open on the same desktop as you'd like. If you click the "full-screen mode" button, however, that's what transitions it to a dedicated desktop for just that application. Full-screen mode has been fantastic so long as you don't use multiple displays.

heisenberg123
Aug 13, 2012, 10:02 AM
Full-screen "mode" is different from just maximizing the screen space of an app. You can still make your apps full screen just like before and has as many open on the same desktop as you'd like. If you click the "full-screen mode" button, however, that's what transitions it to a dedicated desktop for just that application. Full-screen mode has been fantastic so long as you don't use multiple displays.

agreed full screen mode now is much easier for single monitor users


OP you can try RightZoom (http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/30591/right-zoom/) it will fill the screen with a simple click of the green button rather than having to stretch it manually, thats the best fix ive found for getting as full screen as you can without losing the desktop your on

WSR
Aug 13, 2012, 12:24 PM
I'm with the OP on this one. I prefer Full-Screen mode in SL.

I can see how L/ML's Full-Screen mode might be easier for single monitor set-ups, but for multiple monitor set-ups it messes things up. One of my favorite things about SL, after Spaces/Expose, is the ability to watch a video in Full-Screen on 1 monitor while continuing to work on the 2nd monitor. Something you can't do in L/ML.

In the end, we should have the choice between:
1. Classic Full-Screen, Spaces and Expose (as in SL)
2. Mission Control and Full-Screen mode in a new Space (as in L/ML)

I wish Apple would give us this choice.

According to a poll on this site at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1389861, though just over a half of respondents are switching to ML, over a third are staying with SL. A third may be a minority, but it's still a significant part on the population.

baryon
Aug 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
I agree - Apple's new Full Screen implementation (since Lion) simply doesn't work for me: I hate how the full screen windows are treated as separate and different from everything else: They don't work with Exposť (you are sent to your first desktop for some reason when you activate Mission Control while in a Full Screen app), they don't allow you to see the desktop at all, they insist on hiding the menu bar, and they always go to the right of all of your desktops (so an app can shift a dozen of desktops to the right when you enter full screen), which is extremely confusing and makes no sense at all to me.

I understand that a full screen app will hide what's behind it, so it wants to be in its own "desktop", but I'd rather use Exposť to see all the windows underneath it and be able to do a "Show Desktop", and also have your full screen app stay where the hell it is and not shift to the right side. I see Apple's logic, but it has far more disadvantages than advantages.

Let's say I'm watching a 40 second long QuickTime video, and I want to watch it in full screen. First, you have a long animation to switch into and out of full screen, second your QuickTime shifts many many desktops to the right and then back, making it impossible to know where you are in your lineup of desktops. For 40 seconds of video, this is not worth the hassle. So now, watching things in full screen doesn't feel right unless the video is long enough (like a full movie), whereas before going in and out of full screen was instantaneous and hassle-free, without any confusing shifts in app location whatsoever.

Good thing VLC allows you to disable the native full screen...

dyn
Aug 13, 2012, 04:30 PM
I'm with the OP on this one. I prefer Full-Screen mode in SL.

There is no fullscreen mode in OS X versions older than OS X Lion. Fullscreen mode has been introduced in OS X Lion. In older versions and newer versions there still is the possibility to maximize the window to the physical display which is what you are referring to as "fullscreen mode" or "classic fullscreen". There is no need to use the fullscreen mode in Lion/Mountain Lion if you don't want to. However, it can cause some problems with apps that had their own fullscreen implementation in OS X versions older than Lion (VMware Fusion for example). See below:


I can see how L/ML's Full-Screen mode might be easier for single monitor set-ups, but for multiple monitor set-ups it messes things up. One of my favorite things about SL, after Spaces/Expose, is the ability to watch a video in Full-Screen on 1 monitor while continuing to work on the 2nd monitor. Something you can't do in L/ML.

Yep. The fullscreen mode in Lion is really sucky with multimonitors. The one in Mountain Lion seems to fix that a little bit but it still sucks. You can fullscreen the app and use the other monitors for windows within this app such as toolboxes. Not really what most people are after (use display 1 for app A in fullscreen, use display 2 for other apps). In most cases this doesn't matter since you can still maximize the window like a lot of people used to do when there was no fullscreen mode at all. It causes problems with applications that had their own fullscreen implementation and now turn to the default fullscreen mode of the OS when you run Lion or Mountain Lion.

VMware Fusion is a good example of that. Fusion 4 came out and the release notes said it supported Lion's fullscreen mode. In fact it didn't, it simply used the old way of doing things. Users were not happy with this and demanded that they implement the Lion fullscreen version so it runs in its own space. VMware did in the next minor release. That change made users with multimonitor setups unhappy because Apple's fullscreen mode isn't very multimonitor compatible. They got a window on 1 display and everything else was that shiny linen background. VMware once again changed it. It now uses some detection mechanism. If you have 1 display it will use the fullscreen mode in OS X Lion/Mountain Lion. If you have more than 1 monitor it will use the old VMware Fusions own fullscreen mode implementation.
Most users are now happy but there is one tiny group left. They want the old fullscreen when using 1 display as well. They don't want the vm in its own space, they want to set up their own spaces and they have a very good reason to do so. You can not assign hotkeys to fullscreen apps. You need to switch to them by gesture or by using Mission Control. However, you can assign hotkeys to spaces (since Lion known as desktops). It might be easier for VMware to simply add a selection box where people can select which kind of fullscreen mode they want themselves. It seems to be what most people want and it solves everybody's problem.


I wish Apple would give us this choice.

App devs themselves can gives us this choice as shown above. There is also a good example of this: iTerm2. You can set which kind of fullscreen mode you want in the settings, it's a simple checkbox. However, it would make things an awful lot easier if Apple would do something about this and create something that would allow people to run something in fullscreen on display 1 and something else on the other display(s).

Icy1007
Aug 13, 2012, 07:49 PM
Full screen mode is a godsend for apps I have open all the time (iTunes, Mail, Calandar, etc)

Gets them out of the way. They deserve their own space.

----------

To fix this, Apple would need to add the ability to show one space on one monitor and a separate space on the other monitor.

As it is right now, you can only have one space visible at one time. If you have two monitors, it just makes one space cover both monitors. That's why you can't use the second screen when an app is in fullscreen mode.

Krazy Bill
Aug 13, 2012, 09:23 PM
Full screen mode is a godsend for apps I have open all the time (iTunes, Mail, Calandar, etc)

They deserve their own space.

Why do they deserve their own exclusive space to the point of actually writing this into the Mission Control code? Why shouldn't I be able to decide where they go or how many of them you want on a single desktop?

If you want your iTunes, Mail, Calendar, etc... each to have their own desktop then do just that. Or you can put all of them on a single desktop like others might prefer. As you switch to each one it becomes full screen. No magic. Everybody wins.

Again, I don't understand the relationship between a Full Screen App and the desktop that holds it. One has nothing to do with the other. (Just trying to figure what Apple's point was when they baked these parameters into the code.)

heisenberg123
Aug 13, 2012, 09:31 PM
Why do they deserve their own exclusive space to the point of actually writing this into the Mission Control code? Why shouldn't I be able to decide where they go or how many of them you want on a single desktop?

If you want your iTunes, Mail, Calendar, etc... each to have their own desktop then do just that. Or you can put all of them on a single desktop like others might prefer. As you switch to each one it becomes full screen. No magic. Everybody wins.

Again, I don't understand the relationship between a Full Screen App and the desktop that holds it. One has nothing to do with the other. (Just trying to figure what Apple's point was when they baked these parameters into the code.)

i really dont see the difference in post lion full screen or just using right zoom to fill the screen with the app who cares about hiding the menu bar?

Krazy Bill
Aug 13, 2012, 09:33 PM
Full-screen "mode" is different from just maximizing the screen space of an app.No. It's exactly that. A Full screen app means no menubar, tool bar, status bar. It does indeed maximize the display for that app.

You can still make your apps full screen just like before and have as many open on the same desktop as you'd like.
I can? Like before what? How?

If you click the "full-screen mode" button, however, that's what transitions it to a dedicated desktop for just that application.You're telling me how full screen mode works. I know that. :) My question is why does each full screen app need it's own desktop?

Full-screen mode has been fantastic so long as you don't use multiple displays.The ability to hide the menubar/status bar and tool bars is nothing new and certainly wasn't invented by Apple. What's new is how Apple's full screen apps interact with Mission Control.


i really dont see the difference in post lion full screen or just using right zoom to fill the screen with the app who cares about hiding the menu bar?Well, on a 13" display getting every spare pixel is kind of nice. :) And yes, when I was on Lion I didn't use Full Screen mode and simply threw apps on any desktop I wanted. They organized quite nicely... almost like snow leopard except for the dual monitor crap.

But you're missing the point. Using Full screen "windows" and "apps" should have nothing to do with restricting them to a single desktop but somehow Apple thinks it does and I want to know what I'm missing.

Icy1007
Aug 14, 2012, 01:21 AM
My question is why does each full screen app need it's own desktop?

Because Apple deems it so.

Blipp
Aug 14, 2012, 08:26 AM
Why do they deserve their own exclusive space to the point of actually writing this into the Mission Control code? Why shouldn't I be able to decide where they go or how many of them you want on a single desktop?

If you want your iTunes, Mail, Calendar, etc... each to have their own desktop then do just that. Or you can put all of them on a single desktop like others might prefer. As you switch to each one it becomes full screen. No magic. Everybody wins.

Again, I don't understand the relationship between a Full Screen App and the desktop that holds it. One has nothing to do with the other. (Just trying to figure what Apple's point was when they baked these parameters into the code.)

They have everything to do with each other. How can multiple full screen applications occupy the same space? By the very definition they leave no room for any other open application. So if you had them occupying the same desktop you'd still have to be shuffling between their layers to bring the desired app into focus. How is that any different from shuffling between desktops? Is there a particular reason you're looking to minimize the number of your desktops? I see that you'd like the option of whether an app creates a new desktop or not but I don't see what you'd accomplish by having all of your full screen apps stacked on a single desktop.

Krazy Bill
Aug 14, 2012, 05:01 PM
They have everything to do with each other. How can multiple full screen applications occupy the same space?

Even though you could only use one at a time, they would each occupy the same "grouping" (desktop). Have you ever used the Spaces app in previous versions of OSX?

By the very definition they leave no room for any other open application. So if you had them occupying the same desktop you'd still have to be shuffling between their layers to bring the desired app into focus.And that's ok. But I wouldn't have to "shuffle" between layers. Selecting them via Expose' works nicely (That's what it's for).

Is there a particular reason you're looking to minimize the number of your desktops?.... but I don't see what you'd accomplish by having all of your full screen apps stacked on a single desktop.

From my original post:

In Snow Leopard, I group my "windows" and apps by job, category, whatever... and coral them in their own unique desktop (space). It's how I 'think'. It's how I organize my work. I believe this is how "most" people organize things.

Again, (and I'm not trying to be condescending) but you haven't used the Spaces app in previous versions of OSX. Mission Control could work fine if:

1.) Full screen apps could share the same desktop so one could group their workflow in a manner that makes sense to the user (and not Apple's desire to turn my mac into an iPad). If one still want's an iPad Simulator on their mac, just put each FS app in a freaking desktop by themselves and swipe your merry arse off.

2.) I could drag my apps/windows from desktop to desktop without first having to activate each desktop individually.

3.) I could use the keyboard to select a window in Expose'.

Snow Leopard does all of these things.

Icy1007
Aug 14, 2012, 07:07 PM
Just don't use full-screen mode if you hate it so much. It's not that difficult.

Your argument is just nitpicking. Everything you're talking about can be accomplished efficiently with Mission Control and Full-Screen apps.

Seamaster
Aug 15, 2012, 03:47 AM
I full screen everything and three-finger-swipe between apps. It's a boon on my MacBook Air. In effect, it gives me a 15" experience on a 13" notebook, and has made transitioning from a 20" iMac much more tolerable. It's my favourite Lion/Mountain Lion feature.

Krazy Bill
Aug 15, 2012, 08:05 AM
Just don't use full-screen mode if you hate it so much. It's not that difficult.

Hate?

(sigh)

I'm really just trying to see if I'm missing something regarding the intentional behavior of FS mode implemented by Apple. By the replies, clearly I'm not.

If anything, most of the "answers" here have only reinforced my belief that macheads follow Apple with their emotions and not their heads. Nothing new I suppose.

heisenberg123
Aug 15, 2012, 08:31 AM
Hate?

(sigh)

I'm really just trying to see if I'm missing something regarding the intentional behavior of FS mode implemented by Apple. By the replies, clearly I'm not.

If anything, most of the "answers" here have only reinforced my belief that macheads follow Apple with their emotions and not their heads. Nothing new I suppose.

you should know better than anyone apple is making their Macs more consumer products than professional ones, only a professional would have any desire to be as organized as you.

i know the old school mac users are mad us dummies can figure out how to use one now too but that looks like the way the world is going.

Krazy Bill
Aug 15, 2012, 09:05 AM
you should know better than anyone apple is making their Macs more consumer products than professional ones, only a professional would have any desire to be as organized as you.

i know the old school mac users are mad us dummies can figure out how to use one now too but that looks like the way the world is going.

Other than old school mac users being mad at you... best reply yet. :D

Yes. OSX is a general consumer OS now. That doesn't make users dummies - just blind lemmings. :)

I'll stick around until 10.9 to see what features Apple might restore to pacify us old-timers. They put back the option to ungroup windows in Expose and also that faux "save as" in versions. I find it interesting that Apple yielded on those.

Blipp
Aug 15, 2012, 09:08 AM
Even though you could only use one at a time, they would each occupy the same "grouping" (desktop). Have you ever used the Spaces app in previous versions of OSX?

And that's ok. But I wouldn't have to "shuffle" between layers. Selecting them via Expose' works nicely (That's what it's for).



From my original post:

In Snow Leopard, I group my "windows" and apps by job, category, whatever... and coral them in their own unique desktop (space). It's how I 'think'. It's how I organize my work. I believe this is how "most" people organize things.

Again, (and I'm not trying to be condescending) but you haven't used the Spaces app in previous versions of OSX. Mission Control could work fine if:

1.) Full screen apps could share the same desktop so one could group their workflow in a manner that makes sense to the user (and not Apple's desire to turn my mac into an iPad). If one still want's an iPad Simulator on their mac, just put each FS app in a freaking desktop by themselves and swipe your merry arse off.

2.) I could drag my apps/windows from desktop to desktop without first having to activate each desktop individually.

3.) I could use the keyboard to select a window in Expose'.

Snow Leopard does all of these things.

You are absolutely wrong that I've never used Spaces. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest on who uses OSX in a more "professional" function day to day, that's just absurd in a topic like this. Mission Control was a disaster in Lion without question. They're bringing it back to where it was and the future is promising. Ok, so you like to organize your apps into groups, got it. How are you unable to accomplish this by organizing your desktops in the same manor? They won't be layered over top of each other but they will be grouped together to your preference.

Again, all of this is assuming you're insisting on use the "full screen" button rather than just dragging the app window the full dimensions of the display. You are only forced to create a unique desktop for an app if you select the full screen button. You can layer your apps just like you are in SL on as many desktops as you desire. They removed removed the ability to organize your desktops on a grid which I do find annoying having to cycle through them all linearly. That has nothing to do with whether an app is full screen or not, however. Just don't click the damn button and you can keep doing what you're doing. Of all of the complaints I've seen about Mission Control this is one of the most insignificant.

If you have truly dug in your heels and are convinced that Full Screen breaks your workflow beyond repair than fine, we're not going to be able to convince you. However this doesn't make the feature a failure just because it brings nothing to the table for you. It works fine for my workflow at home and I use it every day; it does not work for my requirements in the office so I use it more rarely, simple as that. I don't see where you get off calling people who enjoy the feature "Mac heads" because it doesn't work for you.

Krazy Bill
Aug 15, 2012, 09:26 AM
How are you unable to accomplish this by organizing your desktops in the same manor? They won't be layered over top of each other but they will be grouped together to your preference.

How does one consider 12 desktops side-by-side as being "grouped"?

You are only forced to create a unique desktop for an app if you select the full screen button.

Finally you get it. Nice to have you back with the tour Sparky. :)

It works fine for my workflow at home and I use it every day; it does not work for my requirements in the office so I use it more rarely, simple as that.And this is ok with you? Really?

Thanks. :) You're done. Move along now please.

Blipp
Aug 15, 2012, 11:15 AM
How does one consider 12 desktops side-by-side as being "grouped"?

Do I need to paste the dictionary definition of a group? They're organized just the same as if they were stacked just side-by-side instead of on top of one another. If that doesn't work for you then don't click to full-screen them.


Finally you get it. Nice to have you back with the tour Sparky. :)


I left the very first response to this topic where I outlined this exact point... I never left the tour. Full Screen button > new desktop; Scale the window to fill display > no new desktop. There is no requirement that an app be run in full screen mode thus no requirement that they occupy their own individual desktop. If you have apps you absolutely require to be stacked rather than occupying their own desktop than you just don't click the button. Nothing is broken then, nothing to complain about. It's a feature that doesn't work for you, move on man.


And this is ok with you? Really?

Thanks. :) You're done. Move along now please.

I don't see why I should pick up my pitchfork because I'd rather not use full screen apps at work. I have a bunch of windows open at the same time and I like to be able to see them all. Why would I be upset that the full screen function doesn't work for me when my expressed desire is to not have a single app taking up my entire display? It's a total non-factor.

heisenberg123
Aug 15, 2012, 11:20 AM
Do I need to paste the dictionary definition of a group? They're organized just the same as if they were stacked just side-by-side instead of on top of one another. If that doesn't work for you then don't click to full-screen them.



I left the very first response to this topic where I outlined this exact point... I never left the tour. Full Screen button > new desktop; Scale the window to fill display > no new desktop. There is no requirement that an app be run in full screen mode thus no requirement that they occupy their own individual desktop. If you have apps you absolutely require to be stacked rather than occupying their own desktop than you just don't click the button. Nothing is broken then, nothing to complain about. It's a feature that doesn't work for you, move on man.



I don't see why I should pick up my pitchfork because I'd rather not use full screen apps at work. I have a bunch of windows open at the same time and I like to be able to see them all. Why would I be upset that the full screen function doesn't work for me when my expressed desire is to not have a single app taking up my entire display? It's a total non-factor.

agreed but someone cant resist clicking a button if a button is available to click :p