I hate the new desktops [spaces]

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Lion (10.7)' started by dethmaShine, Apr 13, 2011.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #1
    This isn't a spontaneous reaction to a new feature. I have had the opportunity to exploit mission control in the best possible way as I have been experimenting Lion for more than a month.

    That said, mission control is great but the old spaces NEED to come back.

    WHY?

    1. Sense of direction: I usually handle spaces by alt+arrow keys. I also use cmd+number-keys to directly jump to them. But most of the time, one doesn't remember the screen number. There's always a sense of direction associated while moving to and fro; and to other spaces. There is no sense of direction for these new desktops in Lion.

    2. Urgency to move: in a 3*3 grid, if you need to jump from space1 to space9, you would use alt+← array key. To move from space2 to space8, you would use alt+↓ twice and you're done. With Lion, you need to do that more than twice, plus the fact that there's no sense of direction, you would need to look at the content of the screen to adjust your desktop. So as soon as the number of desktops go above 4, things start to get bad and there's no comeback.

    3. Only way to navigate: With random (last used) desktop adjustment, it gets worse. So the best way to use desktops in Lion is to remember the work spaces with numbers. cmd+5 , cmd+9, etc.

    I wanted spaces to look more like HyperSpaces.
    • With a particular name for each space.
    • Moving to a particular space would flash the name (& space number) of that space.
    • For desktops, the name appears on the screen constantly (toggled through system preferences)

    [These features might be in development and might show in future releases]

    All I can say is that, with the new version of desktops in Lion, a serious amount of productivity is lost. With that comes, frustration and anger.

    The spaces in SL looks great. If they can somehow use a 2D arrangement with Mission Control, it'd be great.

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Goldfrapp

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    #2
    Seriously, how hard is it to press F3 and find your desired space visually?
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #3
    Tomorrow if quick look goes away, are you going to argue:

    'How hard is it to open a file and see what's in there?'

    ?
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    GoKyu

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #4
    Sounds pretty lame already - as I said in another post, Spaces is my primary means of getting around in OS X...I used to use the cmd+arrow keys when it first came out, but now I have my mouse's scroll wheel button set to F8, to pull out to the full 3x3 grid, and I just click the space I need.

    A friend of mine is a developer too, and is gonna let me have a look at it in a few days. If it's really as bad as you say though, I may need to get Hyperspaces...
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #5
    I don't know if its the same with other developers too.

    I use a magic mouse; so there's either the left or the right button.
    I could have used the expose button but that's really too much work.

    It doesn't seem fast anymore. It implies more work to the user.

    Also, hyperspaces worked with SL. I wish they release a version that supports 2D spaces on Lion with Mission Control in action.

    It might suit you but this version of spaces doesn't suffice me at all.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    mrblack927

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #6
    Efficiency is all about using as few keystrokes as possible and avoiding the mouse unless absolutely necessary.

    Going from "cmd+down" to get to space 4 to "F3, find the space you're looking for (whose position can change on its own) then clicking on it" is a big step backwards for productivity.

    A lot of us who have been using spaces prominently in 10.5 and 10.6 set up windows in certain spaces for a reason and don't need a visual reminder of where things are. My IDE is always in space 3, my FTP client is always in space 4. When I want to use a space, I want to just go there. I don't want to look at my spaces before hand. That's redundant and a waste of time.
     
  7. Goldfrapp, Apr 13, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2011

    macrumors 68040

    Goldfrapp

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    #7
    Ok, I've re-read your post and now I do see from where you're coming.

    Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution for you.

    I guess I don't do as intensive work on my Mac as you do. That explains why I'm not bothered by Mission Control's usability/efficiency.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #8
    I agree with the original post 100%.

    You can't find your spaces visually as the icons are too small to see if you have 9 spaces, for example. In Snow Leopard, the spaces overview was full screen and made use of all of the screen space available thanks to the grid layout, thus each space was big enough to see every window inside. Plus you could do an Exposé while in overview mode, and then you would see ALL of your open windows at once. Mission Control can't even show all of your open windows at once, you need to go from space to space to see a big enough preview of the contents of each space. The small icons at the top are ridiculously small to see anything.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #9
    I haven't used Lion, but this one is worrying me as well. I navigate around Spaces in the same way, and losing the 2D array is very disappointing.

    The same reason it's often faster to Cmd + Tab to my desired program than use Expose.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    mrblack927

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #10
    If it's any consolation, I'm sure some developer will release an app that restores (or emulates) the 2-dimensional array of spaces in Lion once it comes out. Sure it won't be native, and it probably wont be as smooth as an OS-level feature, but it'll probably be a good compromise since we'll all be forced to upgrade to lion eventually (with hardware upgrades and whatnot).
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #11
    I was thinking about the same this morning.

    As you said a native implementation of 2D spaces would be much smoother than a 3rd party integration.

    Lets see where it goes with the GM.

    I am doubtful anything will be changed as apple has already touted this as one of the ground breaking features in OS X 10.7.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #12
    What I hate with Mission Control is that it doesn't let you see the contents of all your spaces at once. It forces you to click through every tiny icon at the top to see what's inside. How is that better than zooming out of Spaces in Snow Leopard and hitting Exposé to see every window in their proper Space?

    I think Apple could still change this if they wanted to, they could at least give an option (which they won't, I know) to have Spaces in 2D. But then how would they display in Mission Control? Maybe they would be 1 pixel in size, which they already almost are anyway. You could swipe through spaces with 4 fingers in all four directions.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #13
    Not only that, if you need to transfer a window from a non-current space to any other space, you can't.

    I wish they do. I really wish that; cause this just doesn't work for me. And to be honest, even if people complain about that, Apple is not going 2D. Option? Highly unlikely but they are not going 2D.

    I got this. Just thought about it. It may suck though.

    2D Level Implementation to Real Mission Control

    1. Go to Spaces mode by hitting a spaces shortcut (if any) or a spaces corner.

    2. This should open Mission Control which should be enabled by default in Lion.

    3. With 5 fingers - pinch or 4 fingers scroll/slide downwards => Through Core Animation, Mission Control fades out to the old 2D spaces matrix.
    [This may even look cool with a window shdades/shutter down effect]

    Scroll/slide 4 fingers up: 2D spaces matrix fades to real mission control.
    [windows shades up effect]

    4. The last used desktop format should be used by default.

    Simple?
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    mrblack927

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #14
    I think that's one of the reasons why they aren't doing it. They want to save 4-finger up/down for expose and their precious mission control. By keeping spaces in a line they only have to reserve left and right for navigation.

    Also, the "2D" version only works when there are an even, (well, gridable) number of spaces. You can't arrange 5 spaces into any sort of grid for example. With 10.5 and 10.6 this was simple since the number of spaces was static. In 10.7, it changes all the time. New full screen apps get their own space, dashboard has a space, etc.

    Unfortunately, it seems the only way Apple could go back to a 2D grid is if they suddenly abandoned a lot of the new direction they are taking with lion, or un-integrate it with the rest of the things they're doing.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    iCheddar

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    South Dakota
    #15
    The only thing that bothers me about Lion is that the spaces seem to reorder themselves depending on how often you access them.

    The way I've got it setup, I run whatever I'm doing in Space 1, Mail in 2, and iCal in 3. I always move using CMD+Number, I just know that 3 is iCal, and 2 is mail, but with Mission Control, it reorders them, which is frustrating. It'll literally say Desktop 1, Desktop 3, Desktop 2 in Mission Control.
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Into the lungs of Hell
    #16
    Well you are write. One way is then to distribute these spaces into pages as in iOS.

    There are specific number of spaces that are not allowed. i.e. 5, 7, 10, 11 (?),

    If you look at my comment, I explain the working of 2D spaces with Mission Control. Now spaces with those specific numbers won't work there. So in that case, we need to arrange them in groups for eg.

    For 5 - 4+1 (4 on one page, 1 on the second)
    For 7 - 6 + 1. (6 on one page, 1 on the second, 2 pages)
    And so on...

    This might sound complex, but if its done in the right way with proper explanation, for eg. arrows, etc, It might work.

    I think Apple can make this work; I just don't they would; but Mission Control seems to be a poor though and implementation in terms of complexity and usability.
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #17
    Okay, let's look at it this way:

    • Apple really wants full screen apps in their own space, which makes sense as the full screen window would be in front of everything anyway.
    • For that reason, you have to be able to create and remove spaces dynamically.
    • Adding and removing spaces dynamically in a grid wouldn't be very elegant, as there is no obvious place to put the new space. Should it be above, below, or next to the current one?
    • For the above reasons, we have to have linear spaces.
    • Moreover, if you create and remove spaces dynamically, you will necessarilly break the order of the spaces, which means that full screen apps will mess up the order in which you like to have your spaces.
    • For that reason, you might as well make their order completely random (well, not exactly random but based on usage, which you won't ever really agree with, so we might as well call it random).

    Therefore, if you're using full screen apps, and you want to have them in their own separate space, then there is no other solution than the current linear, random order solution.

    However, what if you think that full screen apps are less useful than an organized, neat and effective way of laying out your apps in a fixed grid? After all, Spaces applies to ALL your windows, whereas the full screen feature only applies to A: the apps that support it and B: the apps you actually use in full screen mode.

    The question is: Is the implementation of Full Screen worth the crippling of Spaces? I think not. I would be fine with having a full screen app staying on the space it was on, and hiding the stuff behind it. You can always do an Exposé and see what's behind it. If it would bother me, I would move it to a blank space and THEN make it full screen. The choice is up to me, I get the best of both.

    What I don't like is Apple going like "WOW we have this awesome idea of putting Full Screen Apps in their own new space, isn't that cool?" and they would rather implement that even if it requires removing their two best features that actually make OS X, to me, better than Windows: Spaces and Exposé. Okay, they're not removing these features, but they're making them much less useful.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    mrblack927

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #18
    Well said Bayron. I'm also getting tired of Apple touting that they managed to "integrate" spaces, expose, and everything else. In my opinion it only counts if you don't remove features in the process.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #19
    Can I dynamically create a new Space without visiting Sys Prefs? And I don't mean with a full screen app; I mean a new desktop. If so, that might make losing 2D worth it for me.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #20
    Nope, not currently.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #21
    Clearly, some kind dev should request this for me.
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #22
    Good point! If full screen apps can dynamically have their own space, it probably means that Apple doesn't want more spaces than required. If so, why not allow us to drag a window into a new space somehow? What if I could - with some gesture, keystroke, or button - place the current window into a brand new space on the right of the current one? Wouldn't that be intuitive, rather than always working with a fixed amount of spaces?

    If spaces rearrange themselves as needed, why don't they appear/disappear as needed?
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #23
    I think this has been fixed with the latest software update. I can't get the spaces to jump out of order after the update, but that is only a small part of some people's dislike.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    iCheddar

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    South Dakota
    #24
    The other thing that needs to happen with full screen apps acting as spaces is the ability to call up these full screen apps with a keyboard command, just like with spaces.

    Because 10.7 botches spaces, I've taken to just running iCal and Mail full screen, but any time I want to switch to one of them, I either have to swipe to invoke Mission Control, or swipe several times to get to the app I want. I get that with full screen apps dynamically rearranging themselves, the old CMD+Number idea won't work, but there is no reason I shouldn't be able to CMD+Arrow to move between apps.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    mrblack927

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #25
    Unfortunately it's still there.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page