Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

oldschool

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2003
1,029
0
How does this sound:

How about for "show all windows", the format is changed whereby the windows would be grouped by application.

So the screen would be split into segments like if you had four applications with windows open, then the screen would be split in quarters, with each quarter having all the windows of that application in it.

This could be an option in addition to the already present "show all windows" option, as my idea would obviously have the limitation of showing smaller window sizes.
 

iChan

macrumors 6502a
Jan 12, 2003
859
155
Dublin, Ireland.
oldschool said:
How does this sound:

How about for "show all windows", the format is changed whereby the windows would be grouped by application.

So the screen would be split into segments like if you had four applications with windows open, then the screen would be split in quarters, with each quarter having all the windows of that application in it.

This could be an option in addition to the already present "show all windows" option, as my idea would obviously have the limitation of showing smaller window sizes.

this sounds very similar to the "show all application windows" exposé feature.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
fBaran said:
I think it's called F10.

i think what the orig. post meant is to have all the windows (from all apps) get shrunk (like F9 now) but the images of windows would cluster together by applications.

say you have 2 terminals, 3 safari and 2 word windows open. instead of 7 windows being shrunk to random locations, it would shrink 2 terminals close together, 3 safari windows close together and so forth...
 

oldschool

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2003
1,029
0
jxyama said:
i think what the orig. post meant is to have all the windows (from all apps) get shrunk (like F9 now) but the images of windows would cluster together by applications.

say you have 2 terminals, 3 safari and 2 word windows open. instead of 7 windows being shrunk to random locations, it would shrink 2 terminals close together, 3 safari windows close together and so forth...


Exactly.
 

mms

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2003
784
0
CA
Although it might be useful to some people, I think I wouldn't use it. I never use F10 either, anyways. F9 and F11 are enough for me. If I ever needed to do that, I'd just Cmd-Tab to the needed application and use F10, anyways.
 

neut

macrumors 68000
Nov 27, 2001
1,843
0
here (for now)
mms said:
Although it might be useful to some people, I think I wouldn't use it. I never use F10 either, anyways. F9 and F11 are enough for me. If I ever needed to do that, I'd just Cmd-Tab to the needed application and use F10, anyways.

isn't that kind of backwards? why not use 10 instead of 9 and accomplish both at once? unless of course you need to see "only" the working application (assuming you get confused when all windows shrink). i use them all on hot corners. exposé is too much fun. so is cocoa gestures... i wonder if someone were to hack exposé so you could control it with cocoa gestures they could add this functionality to it; or not.


peace.
 

smllpx

macrumors member
Feb 25, 2004
44
0
If we are changing Expose, may I suggest virtual desktops? Please be like Irix, becuase it has been the best I have ever used.
 

kylos

macrumors 6502a
Nov 8, 2002
948
4
MI
I think this would be a nifty feature to add to exposé. Make it a checkbox in exposé prefs for those who don't want it since it would likely make the windows smaller.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.