Mac OS X and Virtual Desktop Functionality?

[MacRumors]

Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=234) that Apple will be building in Virtual Desktop support into Mac OS X in 2004.

Appleinsider points to an Exposé hack that shrinks all windows into a small window as evidence of ongoing work on this feature.

"Virtual Desktops" is a feature that was popularized in Unix windows managers, allowing users to invoke any number of virtual screens for improved window management. CodeTek currently offers a trialware application called VirtualDesktop (http://www.codetek.com/php/virtual.php) which implements this functionality on Mac OS X.

Another curious Mac OS X Exposé hack is described here (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20031010141631859) -- the Expose´"blob"

[Toppa G's]

Seems like a fun little thing to keep me entertained for a few minutes. A big blue button for Expose.

[orb]

This is wonderful. Until expose, I couldn't work without a virtual desktop manager. I've been experimenting with running without one. I'm mostly successful, but the screens are just way too cluttered.

The combination of expose AND virtual desktops would be incredible. Right now the codetek virtual desktop doesn't work very well with expose. I'd love to see an update, or better yet an offical apple virtual desktop solution that works well with expose...

Side note: Being able to cube spin to a virtual desktop would be very cool.

[dho]

Very cool

I hope thy surprise us with unexpected additions to the tradition virtual desktop idea.

They already have the cube for fast user switching...

[rjstanford]

One of the frequent complaints my Mac users (esp powerBook users) is that the screen resolution is too low at 100dpi. Others complain that anything higher is too hard to read. With Expose, Apple has already demonstrated functional scaling of a window. Why not take this one step further and imagine a display where you can zoom in, or out, of a large, virtual display - smoothly? Multiple desktop size, single desktop convenience, plus the freedom to go wild on high-dpi monitors since users can always zoom-in or zoom-out to get the widget size that they want. Now that would be cool.

-Richard

[dho]

Originally posted by orb
....
Side note: Being able to cube spin to a virtual desktop would be very cool.

The could make the desktops themselves part of expose,

usage:

1. hide all widnows for current desktop
2. select item
3. show all desktops expose style and click the desired one
4. find the desired window using the current expose setup

That would be really cool

[pyrotoaster]

Not just does this sound great, but it sounds possible.

I've got over ten Safari windows (with who knows how many pages in tabs) open on my iMac right now. It'd be great if I could have just one desktop to handle all those windows.

[C14ru5]

I thought the purpose of Exposé was to remove the need for multiple desktops, and that virtual desktops were a perfect substitute for the lack of extra monitors (or computers, for that matter). To me, it seems like Apple is pulling both ends of the same rope here.

I love virtual desktops like in KDE and I love Exposé, but I still can't see the benefit of using both on the same computer AT THE SAME TIME. Nevertheless, the more options the better I guess...

[mrsebastian]

seems to me that's what expose should be able to do right now. expose is pretty cool, but i tend use the dock and hide comands to scroll through apps. using the extra buttons on my mouse for expose, it is very convenient however for quickly getting around multiple documents open in one app.

[ddtlm]

SWEET ACTION I love virtual desktops.

[jxyama]

built-in virtual desktop would be very welcome. i'm sure it will be implemented so that you can use expose alone, virtual desktop alone or both or none.

it would be nice to see apple do it because while codetek version is very well done, it's also a bit buggy, i think. they've issued tons and tons of updates (re: patches) for their app since summer.

[sethypoo]

How do vurtual desktops work?

[jxyama]

Originally posted by sethypoo
How do vurtual desktops work?

go to versiontracker and try out CodeTek virtual desktop. it's free if all you want is two desktops.

basically, when you run it, you can increase the number of desktops you have. you only see one desktop at a time on the screen, but you have other desktops that are hidden but functional.

if you have two desktops, left and right, say, you can slide your mouse to your right while in the left desktop and when it hits the edge, instead of stopping there, you can make the mouse slide into the right virtual desktop. so you effectively double your workspace. whatever you don't need at the moment, you can drag into the virtual desktop in the background. this will reduce clutter on your current desktop but still keep the app running and windows instantly accessible.

just imagine that the screen you are looking at is smaller than the "desktop" and not everything can show up on the screen at once...

just try it, it's easy and very powerful.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by jxyama
go to versiontracker and try out CodeTek virtual desktop. it's free if all you want is two desktops.

basically, when you run it, you can increase the number of desktops you have. you can only see one desktop at any given time on the screen, of course, but you can reduce the clutter by grouping certain windows/apps to vertain desktops, for example. as an example, you can have four desktops, work, web, email and office, say. on each desktop, you put work related windows, safari/IE/other browser windows, Mail and hotmail and MS Office related windows, respectively.

now, let's say you are in the work desktop. all the windows you see are work related. if you now want to check out the web, you switch your desktop to "web" instead of, say, pulling up safari from the dock. the work related windows disappear because they are attached to the "work" desktop and instead, web related windows will show up... etc.

just try it, it's pretty nice.

Sweet, thank you. Woudl this work by creating multiple user accounts in Mac OS X? Or would permissions get all screwed up?

[ddtlm]

I've got 8 virtual desktops on two 1600x1200 monitors at work (on a Linux box). I pretty much never close anything, so all the work I ever do is ready to go with a few clicks.

[Dippo]

I use Virtual Desktops all the time in Linux. It works great espicially when I am programming. Then I can have be coding on one desktop, surfing the web on another, compiling on another, and editing images on a fourth. I wouldn't know what to do without it.

There is a program for windows that creates virtual desktops but it just doesn't work all that well and it eats system resources.

[shadowfax]

i don't understand the causality of their logic in this article. this looks like just a neat way of showing that you have pulled all windows off the desktop. i don't see any real suggestion that this implies we will see virtual desktops. if anything, i would say that exposé is a solution to virtual desktops.

[Steamboatwillie]

Originally posted by C14ru5
I thought the purpose of Exposé was to remove the need for multiple desktops, and that virtual desktops were a perfect substitute for the lack of extra monitors (or computers, for that matter). To me, it seems like Apple is pulling both ends of the same rope here.

I love virtual desktops like in KDE and I love Exposé, but I still can't see the benefit of using both on the same computer AT THE SAME TIME. Nevertheless, the more options the better I guess...

One of my programming mentors always said to me when I tried, in vein, to convince him that "My way" was better; "When there are two or more good ideas implement them all and let the user decide"

Choice is never wrong :)

[SilentPanda]

Is it just me or does the expose blob look a lot like the banner graphic above Steve Jobs' blog (http://www.justonemorething.com)?

[baby duck monge]

Originally posted by C14ru5
I thought the purpose of Exposé was to remove the need for multiple desktops, and that virtual desktops were a perfect substitute for the lack of extra monitors (or computers, for that matter). To me, it seems like Apple is pulling both ends of the same rope here.

I love virtual desktops like in KDE and I love Exposé, but I still can't see the benefit of using both on the same computer AT THE SAME TIME. Nevertheless, the more options the better I guess...

i, for one, am a huge fan of virtual desktops (i used DesktopManager for my virtual desktop needs), and find myself wanting to use them still. expose is nice, but it does not allow for everything multiple desktops does.

with expose, you could keep every window open at the same time and then switch from one to another by viewing all the windows in shrunken view. but what happens when you have 15+ windows open at once? things are either too cluttered or too hard to read. if you could spread this out over multiple desktops, that would cut down on a lot of clutter.

expose also allows you to view just the windows for one program. this is nice, but what if i am trying to work between multiple programs? i could always shrink all the windows, but then you are back to the previous problem. by being able to put, say, all video-related programs on one "monitor," expose would then allow for a better experience with those programs.

mutliple desktops are also great for those things you want to be able to see easily, but might not want taking up space all the time (like buddy lists).

one thing that i think expose nails right on, though (and one of the things i used virtual desktops the most for), is its ability to clear the screen to let you get to the desktop with ease. this is incredibly useful when dealing with downloads to the desktop and with external HDs (though this is not as big of a deal anymore since it it much easier to get to all mounted volumes in panther).

so yeah, i think that is my longest post ever on MR and my reasons that one might want both expose and multiple desktops (also, that you could choose which to use if you wanted one or the other). i'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the first ones i came up with.

[arn]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't understand the causality of their logic in this article. this looks like just a neat way of showing that you have pulled all windows off the desktop. i don't see any real suggestion that this implies we will see virtual desktops. if anything, i would say that exposé is a solution to virtual desktops.

Here's your causality:

"However, sources confirm the further development of the virtual desktop feature, which should appear in a major upgrade to the Mac OS X in 2004, sources said." - from the article.

arn

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by arn
Here's your causality:

"However, sources confirm the further development of the virtual desktop feature, which should appear in a major upgrade to the Mac OS X in 2004, sources said." - from the article.

arn well, there's that, heh. but such a statement may simply be misinformation or just inaccurate. or it could be like marklar--probably worked on, but never to be released.

[jaykk]

Ready to shell out another $129 next year. Looks like apple is going to come up with major upgrade every year now onwards. Not that its a bad thing..

[MacSlut]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=234) that Apple will be building in Virtual Desktop support into Mac OS X by 2004.

Appleinsider points to an Exposé hack that shrinks all windows into a small window as evidence of ongoing work on this feature.


I'm not too sure how related the blob is to virtual desktops. I see similarity in solving a problem, but not that it's a coding work in progress (it may be, I just wouldn't assume the connection).

Furthermore, I really don't see Virtual Desktops coming "by 2004". That would mean releasing this in the next 2 months.

I would think Apple would want users to digest all the new features of Panther for a while before introducing new OS specific features, or even save new OS specific features for 10.4.

I hope I'm wrong because I'd love to have VDs before 2004...uh, Virtual Desktops, that's what I meant.

[ClimbingTheLog]

I'm using fast user switching for virtual desktops. Permissions can be a bit of a problem, but rarely if the work is clearly segmented, which for work/home stuff, it's perfect. Don't forget to use filevalut to crypt your home stuff at work. Don't need to worry about the data if you leave.

[nologo]

There is some evidence of this feature hidden in Expose already.

download "xupport 2.0b2" off macupdate, and you'll see there is a "desktop box" option under settings > expose, as well as the "blob" feature (which i think is far less userful).

With this, hitting "f11" will hide all open windows into a small box. This box can be dragged anywhere on the screen, and can be restored back by hitting "f11" again.

One can also open up new windows while the former desktop is still "boxed"

This -borders- on virtual desktops, but is limited in functionality.

Here's a screenshot:

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by nologo
There is some evidence of this feature hidden in Expose already.

download "xupport 2.0b2" off macupdate, and you'll see there is a "desktop box" option under settings > expose, as well as the "blob" feature (which i think is far less userful).

With this, hitting "f11" will hide all open windows into a small box. This box can be dragged anywhere on the screen, and can be restored back by hitting "f11" again.

One can also open up new windows while the former desktop is still "boxed"

This -borders- on virtual desktops, but is limited in functionality.

Here's a screenshot: ......that's what we've been talking about this whole time.

[MM2270]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
Don't forget to use filevalut to crypt your home stuff at work. Don't need to worry about the data if you leave.

For the love of GOD man, don't use FileVault right now! Haven't you heard about the potential data loss problem some users are having when using this feature?? Read up on them if you haven't. There are articles right here on MR about it.

Now, granted, the probs only happen when you allow FileVault to compress unsued space on the Home directory, but it appears this technology is not perfected yet, so I personally am staying away from it until a fix is in place, or until Apple improves the way it works.
Call me crazy, but I'm a little concerned about locking down my whole Home directory with encryption that can't even be broken by a SuperComputer for like a BILLION years or something! :confused:

[JimmyJamesuk]

If this is true it is good news, and seems to indicate that Apple are willing to take on board good ideas from other types of unix.

However I really believe that OS X need virtual consoles, so that if your gui dies, you can get into a text based terminal and kill/restart the offending processes. It can't be that hard to do, I think pretty much every unix has it.

I had hoped that fast user switching was based on this technology, but alas I dont think it is. I know you can ssh into OS X and kill/restart that way, but that is too clumsy and relies on having other another box around and ssh running on the mac. I really think this would turn an already great os into, for me, a perfect os

[cb911]

oh sweet!! :D i've got to try this out when i get home to my Mac...

this would be so good if you could minimise more than one virtual desktop like that.

i also loved Minimise In Place, that thing for Jaguar. does anyone know if there's anything like that for Panther? having that combined with virtual desktops Expose style would be the best. :D


Originally posted by rjstanford
One of the frequent complaints my Mac users (esp powerBook users) is that the screen resolution is too low at 100dpi. Others complain that anything higher is too hard to read. With Expose, Apple has already demonstrated functional scaling of a window. Why not take this one step further and imagine a display where you can zoom in, or out, of a large, virtual display - smoothly? Multiple desktop size, single desktop convenience, plus the freedom to go wild on high-dpi monitors since users can always zoom-in or zoom-out to get the widget size that they want. Now that would be cool.

-Richard

i'm not exactly sure what you mean about zoom-in, zoom-out to get the widget size you want, but you do realise that you can zoom in and out on your screen right now? or at least you could on 10.2. i'm not infront of my Mac right now so i don't know the key combination to activate it...

[mainstreetmark]

He means my idea I already sent off to Apple.

Using my 17" powerbook, I, amazingly, have about the same amount of desktop space (resolution-wise) than my Dell 8100, even though the physical size of the screen is larger.

As, a result, everything feels too big for me, and I wanted a "Reverse Zoom", that would, for example, cram a 2000px-wide desktop in my 1400x900 LCD. In effect, everything would be a bit smaller. You'd get more desktop space at the expense of, perhaps, some clarity.

[Eric_Z]

Mmmm... virtual desktops...

That's it I'm getting a Mac!

*Looks at prices*
*Looks at savings*

But then again, mayby not. :(

[WM.]

Originally posted by rjstanford
One of the frequent complaints my Mac users (esp powerBook users) is that the screen resolution is too low at 100dpi. Others complain that anything higher is too hard to read. With Expose, Apple has already demonstrated functional scaling of a window. Why not take this one step further and imagine a display where you can zoom in, or out, of a large, virtual display - smoothly? Multiple desktop size, single desktop convenience, plus the freedom to go wild on high-dpi monitors since users can always zoom-in or zoom-out to get the widget size that they want. Now that would be cool.
The problem is that, right now, almost all the widgets are bitmaps. The stoplight widgets, for example, are just bitmap images that are stored somewhere in the depths of OS X. Same goes for things like menu extra icons, and scroll and resize widgets. (Obviously the scroll widget can change height, but I doubt it can get wider.)

I'm not sure about things like buttons, radio buttons, checkboxes, etc., but I have to think there'd be a LOT of work to do before we see a resolution-independent GUI on OS X. Plus it would slow everything way down, because you'd have to re-render all the widgets all the time. Maybe there's some caching that could help with this, but that would make it less flexible, seems to me.

FWIW
WM

[WM.]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
Is it just me or does the expose blob look a lot like the banner graphic above Steve Jobs' blog (http://www.justonemorething.com)?
I hope that was sarcasm, but there's a distinct lack of smilies, so:

You are aware that that's not actually Steve Jobs' blog, right? It's just satire (and not great satire at that).

Just in case...

WM

[ryan]

Fast User Switching
+ Expose
--------------------------------------------------------
= A pretty good substitution for virtual desktops

[daveL]

Originally posted by Eric_Z
Mmmm... virtual desktops...

That's it I'm getting a Mac!

*Looks at prices*
*Looks at savings*

But then again, mayby not. :(
So why are you on these forums? You've obviously made your choice. You're a VHS person in a Betamax world (here). Not everything in this life is about absolute dollars. I sure hope you don't/didn't choose your spouse using the same criteria. You do, in fact, get what you pay for.

I'm not flaming you, it's just my opinion.

[Roller]

Originally posted by MacSlut
Furthermore, I really don't see Virtual Desktops coming "by 2004". That would mean releasing this in the next 2 months.

The article and quote say "in 2004," not "by 2004." This would be in keeping with major yearly updates. I agree that Virtual Desktop support would be great, though!

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by cb911
i also loved Minimise In Place, that thing for Jaguar. does anyone know if there's anything like that for Panther?

WindowShade X 3.1 (http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx/) ;)

[Toppa G's]

Maybe the bank account is just low...it happens...future purchases may be in order. No need to assume that any "choice" has been made. I don't have enough cash to buy now; doesn't mean I'm not interested.
Originally posted by daveL
So why are you on these forums? You've obviously made your choice. You're a VHS person in a Betamax world (here). Not everything in this life is about absolute dollars.

[daveL]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel
WindowShade X 3.1 (http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/wsx/) ;)
Works great!

[MacSlut]

Originally posted by Roller
The article and quote say "in 2004," not "by 2004." This would be in keeping with major yearly updates. I agree that Virtual Desktop support would be great, though!

Well ok, it says that *now*, which makes much more sense.

[Westside guy]

Expose is nice, but I still find myself wanting real virtual desktops/workspaces. Perhaps it's just a holdover from my not-so-distant past using GIMP on a Linux box, but I'd love to be able to put all my X11 apps on one desktop, have Photoshop on a second one, and my browser + mail on a third!

Maybe once I'm more used to Expose this'll change, but right now it seems to slow me down when I'm trying to get work done.

Codetek's desktops do work - but they feel like a kludge when you compare them to, say, Enlightenment's pager on a Linux box.

[moki]

Originally posted by shadowfax
well, there's that, heh. but such a statement may simply be misinformation or just inaccurate. or it could be like marklar--probably worked on, but never to be released.

That's certainly possible, yes. However, there are some other interesting tidbits to consider.

You have a program running on your machine that you may not be aware of, called SystemUIServer. Among its duties are to handle the "menulings" that appear on the right side of the menu bar.

A change Apple made in Jaguar was to allow only a known list of "menulings" -- the SystemUIServer checks a "menuling" against this named list, and unless it's on the list, it isn't loaded.

How is this significant? Well, if you check out the SystemUIServer binary with the strings command under Panther, one of the Apple-sanctioned "menulings" is called "WorkspaceMenu"

It could be nothing, or it could be yet another piece of the virtual desktop idea that isn't quite finished yet.

[moki]

Originally posted by Westside guy
Expose is nice, but I still find myself wanting real virtual desktops/workspaces. Perhaps it's just a holdover from my not-so-distant past using GIMP on a Linux box, but I'd love to be able to put all my X11 apps on one desktop, have Photoshop on a second one, and my browser + mail on a third!

Solution:

1) Launch X11, Photoshop, your web browser, and your email client.

2) When you want your "X11 desktop" with all of your X11 windows, click on the X11 icon in the dock

3) When you want your "Photoshop desktop" with all of your Photoshop windows, click on the Photoshop icon in the Dock

4) And so on and so forth...

If all you do with virtual desktops is keep all of the windows from one application on it, then OS X already gives you what you want.

[cb911]

Originally posted by WM.
I hope that was sarcasm, but there's a distinct lack of smilies, so:

You are aware that that's not actually Steve Jobs' blog, right? It's just satire (and not great satire at that).

Just in case...

WM

i was wondering about that. i thought Steve Jobs wouldn't have a blog. that would be kind of working against his own non-disclosure agreement. ;)

Dale Sorel, thanks for that link. i'm looking for the seperate MIP thing though. for Jag there was a small installer that would put the MIP functionality back into Jag. i found this (http://web.pdx.edu/~bhartig/projectmip.php) for the old MIP. that page says something about Panther, Expose and 'dumb MIP'. does anyone know what that is? is there a seperate version of MIP for Panther?

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by cb911
i was wondering about that. i thought Steve Jobs wouldn't have a blog. that would be kind of working against his own non-disclosure agreement. ;)

Dale Sorel, thanks for that link. i'm looking for the seperate MIP thing though. for Jag there was a small installer that would put the MIP functionality back into Jag. i found this (http://web.pdx.edu/~bhartig/projectmip.php) for the old MIP. that page says something about Panther, Expose and 'dumb MIP'. does anyone know what that is? is there a seperate version of MIP for Panther?

Thanks so much, seriously i didn't even re read my page about mip i ment to say dump not dumb MIP, thanks again. :)

just checking referrals to the site and saw your post :)

[Eric_Z]

Originally posted by daveL
So why are you on these forums? You've obviously made your choice. You're a VHS person in a Betamax world (here). Not everything in this life is about absolute dollars. I sure hope you don't/didn't choose your spouse using the same criteria. You do, in fact, get what you pay for.

I'm not flaming you, it's just my opinion.

Let's see where to begin.

So why are you on theese forums?

Computer hardware and software intererests me in general and Macs are one of the platforms that I have a soft spot for.

You've obviously made your choice.

To buy a Mac when I get enough money? Most defenetly. But please tell me this, why on earth is not people who are generally interested in computers allowed to browse Mac forums? You might find this chocking but it could actually lead to a decition for a purcase in some point in the future. Kind of like me.

You are a VHS person in a Betamax world?

*groan* Beleve it or not but Macs and OSX are not the best choise in all circumstances, I have however made the decition to buy a Mac when I get enough money to. As I have made the judgement that it's the best choise for me as an everyday computer and worktool. This does not however mean thatt I'll give up liking or being interested in other OSs, for hobby reasons mind you.

Not everything in this life is about absolute dollars.

Correct, if my feelings where all that counted, I'd be using AmigaOS as my main OS. However for the OS that I wan't to use as my main OS, logic starts to get involved and dualbooting between AOS and Linux just does not cut it for me. Noor does staying with this Dell and Dualbooting between WindowsXp and Linux.

I sure hope you don't/didn't choose your spouse using the same criteria. You do, in fact, get what you pay for.

Are you paying your wife to be with you?!? :p ;)

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by moki
If all you do with virtual desktops is keep all of the windows from one application on it, then OS X already gives you what you want.

If I'm not horribly mistaken (not using my Mac at the mo..) clicking on a running application's icon in the Dock will only bring the active window to the front, not all the application's windows? If so, it's not really as good as a virtual desktop solution.

Mike.

[paulc]

Let's not forget that this concept has been around for quite a while. There even was a shareware virtual desktop as far back as the OS 7 days (might have been OS 8).

Some of you got it right on the money when you said something like this will be included in the next 130 buck update next fall. Funny how so many Mac users are falling into the trap of justifying a yearly tithe to Cupertino to continue using their OS.

[cb911]

i just wanted to double check something before i do the Expose virtual desktop thing...

from AppleInsider
In the terminal application evoke the following command string:

defaults write com.apple.dock wvous-olddesktop -bool false; killall Dock

To revert Expose´back to default functionality, simple re-evoke the command by passing 'true' to the boolean variable.

so i use the command defaults write com.apple.dock wvous-olddesktop -bool false; killall Dock to activate the virtual desktop thing, then defaults write com.apple.dock wvous-olddesktop -bool true; killall Dock to de-activate it?

i just want to be sure how to turn it off...

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by WM.
The problem is that, right now, almost all the widgets are bitmaps. The stoplight widgets, for example, are just bitmap images that are stored somewhere in the depths of OS X. Same goes for things like menu extra icons, and scroll and resize widgets. (Obviously the scroll widget can change height, but I doubt it can get wider.) Think about the way that Expose handles it, having the card do the scaling. Admittedly, some of the current bitmaps should be converted to vector graphics for ideal clarity, but that's why I pointed to Expose as a great proof of concept. Scaling works, live, today.

-Richard

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by MM2270
Now, granted, the probs only happen when you allow FileVault to compress unsued space on the Home directory, but it appears this technology is not perfected yet, so I personally am staying away from it until a fix is in place, or until Apple improves the way it works.

Yeah, I can hit cancel until 10.3.1 comes out.

Call me crazy, but I'm a little concerned about locking down my whole Home directory with encryption that can't even be broken by a SuperComputer for like a BILLION years or something!

Umm, that's the point. Sometimes it's better to risk losing your data than it is to risk having your data exposed. Stolen laptops come to mind.

[moki]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
If I'm not horribly mistaken (not using my Mac at the mo..) clicking on a running application's icon in the Dock will only bring the active window to the front, not all the application's windows? If so, it's not really as good as a virtual desktop solution.

You're mistaken -- clicking on the Dock icon brings to the front ALL windows from that application. Thus if the way you use virtual desktops is to put one app in each virtual desktop, OS X already gives you what you want.

[mainstreetmark]

Originally posted by moki
You're mistaken -- clicking on the Dock icon brings to the front ALL windows from that application. Thus if the way you use virtual desktops is to put one app in each virtual desktop, OS X already gives you what you want.

It certainly does appear to do that now. It didn't in Jag that I can remember - I was always scrounging around for my dreamweaver windows, which I always have like 5 or 10 open

[moki]

Originally posted by mainstreetmark
It certainly does appear to do that now. It didn't in Jag that I can remember - I was always scrounging around for my dreamweaver windows, which I always have like 5 or 10 open

It's worked this way since the public beta, at least in terms of clicking on the Dock.

Ah well, just another way to use your Mac right? :)

[mainstreetmark]

Originally posted by moki
It's worked this way since the public beta, at least in terms of clicking on the Dock.

Ah well, just another way to use your Mac right? :)

Public Beta for Panthy or Jag? I really only used Jaguar for about 3 weeks, which is just long enough to no longer miss having a list of all your windows down in the task bar (XP)

[moki]

Originally posted by mainstreetmark
Public Beta for Panthy or Jag? I really only used Jaguar for about 3 weeks, which is just long enough to no longer miss having a list of all your windows down in the task bar (XP)

Public beta of MacOS X -- ie, over 2 years ago.

As for the list of all windows, yes, it's true, MacOS X works differently than Windows XP, and it'll take a bit of time getting used to how it works, but I think both OS's have valid solutions to window management.

I'm sure Windows will have something like Exposé soon.

[mainstreetmark]

maybe I'm thinking about when you click on an application's window, the rest of that app's windows don't come to the foreground with it. OS9 worked that way.

Who knows, I'm now used to it (clearly so, since I can't remember how it used to be)

[daveL]

Originally posted by Eric_Z

Are you paying your wife to be with you?!? :p ;)
In one way or another :)

[WM.]

Originally posted by rjstanford
Think about the way that Expose handles it, having the card do the scaling. Admittedly, some of the current bitmaps should be converted to vector graphics for ideal clarity, but that's why I pointed to Expose as a great proof of concept. Scaling works, live, today.
Right, but it only works well if you're making things smaller--and even then it's best if you only change sizes from the max by a factor of 2. Making things bigger is a no-go unless you're willing to put up with jaggies.

Like you say: we need vector widgets. Thing is, it seems to me like that would slow things down--especially for those of us who use older, non-QE hardware. Perhaps you could set a resolution that you'll be using the most often and the OS would rasterize and cache the widgets for you, so that they'd effectively be bitmaps, but with resolution independence. But then you'd have to re-render every time you wanted to change your resolution and/or effective size...

WM

[cb911]

help!! how do i turn off the virtual desktop thing?

i tried 'defaults write com.apple.dock wvous-olddesktop -bool true; killall Dock' and i thought that would do it.

AppleInsider says to turn it off "simply re-evoke the command by passing 'true' to the boolean variable."

so how do i turn it off? help.:confused:


edit> sorry. i just got it. when i first cut and pasted the command to turn it on it automatically ran the command. i just had to press return to run the command to turn it off. :)

[nichrome]

Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
One of my programming mentors always said to me when I tried, in vein, to convince him that "My way" was better; "When there are two or more good ideas implement them all and let the user decide"

Choice is never wrong :)
I'm not surprised your programming mentor told you that. It's a typical programmerism. And it's also utterly false.

From a usability standpoint, choice is most of the time wrong.

If you need to make the user choose which way they want to accomplish task X before they can actually accomplish task X, your implementation sucks, period.

If you need to make the user choose a method of accomplishing task X instead of giving them the optimal method of accomplishing task X out of the box in the first place, your implementation sucks, period.

Also, when a user is given a choice between two methods of accomplishing a single task, they will most likely spend more time and effort trying to figure out which way is the best way than actually doing the task at hand.