Duplicate Menu Bar on Multiple Monitors, Possible?

[268144]

I use two displays now, and this was a little annoying at first but i got used to it. on many applications i dont need to use the Menubar a lot, so i keep them on my secondary display. While running applications that need the menubar like Photoshop, on my primary display.

i would be nice if OSX could have more menubars on different displays. So on my primary display could have one with just the clock in the top right. but on another display have say, iStat type menubar items in the menubar. This is what i used to do in Ubuntu, would be nice to see something similar in OS X.


As for a Dock on another screen i use an application called DragThing, you can't minimize apps to it, or add stacks that fan/grid out but its a useful app.

 

[Greg Weston]

The OS X fixed menu may be the most efficient all the inefficient schemes, but it's not efficient.

This implies that you believe you're aware of something more efficient. What is it?

As the desktop size increases, the distance to a fixed menu location becomes greater. The inefficiency scales with desktop size.

This is 100% true. But that fact does not mean that in a relative sense this scheme has become less efficient than any alternative which has been found in a research environment, let alone in a shipping product.

 

[Greg Weston]

Oh yes, this is certainly efficient.

Yes, it is. As demonstrated with 100% consistency by every rigorous study on the subject.

Global context menus are severely deficient compared to the Mac's desktop-rooted menu bar, although there are some experimental variants that make their penalty tolerably small. Window-hosted menus should be taken out and shot with the people who invented them.

 

[Greg Weston]

Drop-down menu's are slowly becomming obsolete and being replaced with context sensitive menus that can be invoked with a right-click and by button bars for frequently used tasks that reside on the window to which they're relevant.

Very slowly. We're not really close the their positions having swapped yet.

...so do what they should have done and make the menu choices available as a context menu with DejaMenu as linked above... you can't get a better solution than that (at least in terms of distance your mouse needs to travel).

But you *can* get a better solution than that if you take all factors into account instead of just one. In 2009, context menus are about preference and comfort (which are not things to dismiss lightly, and I do not do so). But they are not about (real) efficiency.

 

[DaveF]

This implies that you believe you're aware of something more efficient. What is it?

No need to infer from my words. I was completely explicit: Being "most efficient" of all inefficient options doesn't mean it isn't also inefficient, per se.

Also explicit: I don't know what's better. But I have confidence that brilliant minds like those that created the Palm PDA or the iPhone or the original Mac UI will conjure up something eventually to make sense of multiple monitors.

It's not that OS X or Windows tools are find intolerable or horrible. But none feel like they were intended for this purpose. OS fixes the main menu so that it is increasingly far physically and visually from the user's focus. Windows keeps menus nearby, which I find helpful at times, but loses Fitts Law efficiency by not being on the edge.

Simply replicating the OS X menu across all monitors, as the OP asked about, would seem to immediately improve the Mac's multi-monitor ease of use. But surely there's more sophisticated tools yet to be created?

 

[Consultant]

Oh yes, this is certainly efficient.

Explain why windows programs are all full of crytpic buttons taht you need to mouse over to see what they are? Explain why MS hides most of the menu items in MS programs? Is it because people use menus in windows? Actually, since menu can be anywhere on the screen, instead of being in the most efficient palce which is the edge, there is no difference in going to the menu or look for buttons.

OSX menu is on the edge. That means it's easy for the mouse to get there, as you cannot overshoot the desktop edge.

 

[kasakka]

There's another difference in the Macintosh Way that people are ignoring: each app has many independent windows. For example, in the stats package that I use, I have a data explorer window, a command window, a graphics window, a plot window, and two dataset windows, all open on the screen at the same time. In Windows, all these windows are forced to be inside one application window. In Mac OS, they are independent, and could be moved to separate screens. The plot window, in particular, is just a display, and the mouse doesn't affect it (usually). I don't go up to the menubar for very much when I'm using this package, and I don't think I would mind having to go across a couple of screens occasionally. Someday I must get a couple more screens and try it.

You can have multiple separate windows on Win programs as well, it's just that in most cases it's not desirable in that system. A typical thing for this would be for example multiple Windows Explorer (the file browser) windows. Of course this is not the same as moving single panels around though that can be done as well. Adobe programs allow you to move panels outside the main window so they work just like they would on OSX.

It has its own drawbacks too. For example Adobe had to add the gray background as an option to the OSX version of CS4 because having your nice colorful background peek between your image and panels while you're working on getting colors correct on a photo in Photoshop can be highly distracting.

In Windows the biggest problem of the menu system is the lack of consistency. The preferences panel can be found in several places, often under Edit or Tools and the naming differs from program to program. The grouping of options isn't distinctive enough either.

I like the way for example Google Chrome has simplified the menus to just two buttons with relevant options rather than the whopping ******** found in Firefox for example.

Consultant, MS hides some of the less common options in Office to make it easier to access the most common ones. The problem is that when you go to the menus, you usually actually need the less common options so turning off the hiding makes the menus easier to use. It's a stupid feature and MS has noticed it too, it's no longer in newer versions of Office.

As screen sizes get bigger the top edge is no longer a good place for a menu. I use a 30" screen and on programs that are less than full height it would be awkward to always move the mouse to the top edge.

 

[BMWFan]

OSX menu is on the edge. That means it's easy for the mouse to get there, as you cannot overshoot the desktop edge.

eh looks like you've never used a multi monitor setup. if for example you're using 3 monitors with the middle one as primary and want to access menu bar, you can overshoot to the left or the right monitor. As for MS, just because they've done it doesn't mean it's the best thing either. You'll notice the popularity of third party add-ons that bring the standard menus back into office for example.

Fitt's Law is a single factor, there might be other laws in place that bring in a net gain in utility even though there is a loss of efficiency of fitt's law.

 

[Greg Weston]

Simply replicating the OS X menu across all monitors, as the OP asked about, would seem to immediately improve the Mac's multi-monitor ease of use. But surely there's more sophisticated tools yet to be created?

The problem is that "simply" doing that isn't actually simple. It ignores the fact that monitors don't have to be arranged in a horizontal row. They can be, but they can also be arranged vertically. Or in a grid. Or in an offset grid. And they can be rearranged by the user at any time. The result is that the top left corner of a "monitor" doesn't really have a predictable location relative to the desktop.

The secondary problem is that part of the way Fitt's Law gets leveraged on the Mac specifically makes use of the fact that the menu bar is rooted in the upper-left corner of the desktop. Not merely at the top. So even if you just replicate the menu bar across two monitors of exactly the same resolution lined up (logically) side by side, the menu bar on the right screen is less optimal than the one on the left screen. Even if the user's primary focus is on the right screen.

 

[Greg Weston]

Consultant, MS hides some of the less common options in Office to make it easier to access the most common ones. The problem is that when you go to the menus, you usually actually need the less common options so turning off the hiding makes the menus easier to use. It's a stupid feature and MS has noticed it too, it's no longer in newer versions of Office.

True. On the other hand, the new version of Office (on Windows) breaks the keyboard shortcuts that Office users have turned into muscle memory over the last decade. And also largely destroyed the concept of even their terrible menu bar in favor of tabbed panels of buttons and that big not-obvious-it's-a-button button in the upper left. They already had the worst menuing system on the planet and not only took it down a notch, but also compromised the primary alternative.

As screen sizes get bigger the top edge is no longer a good place for a menu. I use a 30" screen and on programs that are less than full height it would be awkward to always move the mouse to the top edge.

Then you've got the acceleration set inappropriately on your mouse. And I'll certainly grant that Apple could do a better job giving the user the means to adjust the acceleration curve. But in general, on today's large and multi-monitor desktops, the desktop-rooted menu bar still beats pervasive popup menus and window-hosted menus.

 

[stuckwithme247]

Does anyone know of a program that will make a copy of the menubar? I tried DejaMenu, not what I'm looking for.

 

[Dub-Dub]

Menu Bar

Anyone that thinks the Mac menu bar system is even remotely efficient has never uses the windows system. With the PC I'd have 3 or 4 apps going at any time on multiple screens and the menu bar is right there at the top of the app. Even mousing up to the top of the monitor is a waste of time when you've got your apps stacked.
Stop being sheep and try use something over time before you blindly defend an obvious shortcoming.

 

[klaxamazoo]

http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79


I use Second Bar. It works well for me.

 

[rhett7660]

Anyone that thinks the Mac menu bar system is even remotely efficient has never uses the windows system. With the PC I'd have 3 or 4 apps going at any time on multiple screens and the menu bar is right there at the top of the app. Even mousing up to the top of the monitor is a waste of time when you've got your apps stacked.
Stop being sheep and try use something over time before you blindly defend an obvious shortcoming.

How is this being sheep? I for one don't use a lot of the drop down menu etc... Short cut keys for what it is worth. But really? A short coming? Maybe to you but not to others........

 

[r0k]

Anyone that thinks the Mac menu bar system is even remotely efficient has never uses the windows system. With the PC I'd have 3 or 4 apps going at any time on multiple screens and the menu bar is right there at the top of the app. Even mousing up to the top of the monitor is a waste of time when you've got your apps stacked.
Stop being sheep and try use something over time before you blindly defend an obvious shortcoming.

I use windows at the office and a mac at home. I hate having a menu on every window. It is cluttered and frankly absurd. There are times I get annoyed at having to look at the "other monitor" when I have an app up on my second monitor, but it's mostly a habit from using windows all day at work. For me, less clutter is better. Liking something that works better for me does not make me a sheep. Liking menus on every window doesn't make you a M$ sheep either. It's simply personal preference. Nothing more.

Apple has slipped to fifth place (pc shipments) in the US last quarter. Clearly Windows 7 is working. It is finally stemming the tide of users defecting to OS X. I've used 7 and while it's better than Vista and XP, I don't like it as much as I like OS X. Again, I don't think people who like 7 are sheep any more than I'm a sheep for liking OS X. We could burn through a lot of bandwidth with "my dog is better than your dog" style arguments but in the end, it's simply a choice. Nuff said.

 

[steezy1337]

http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79


I use Second Bar. It works well for me.

+1

although it has a habit of disappearing for no apparent reason for me at the moment.

 

[Greg Weston]

Anyone that thinks the Mac menu bar system is even remotely efficient has never uses the windows system.

You mean aside from having been a professional Windows programmer for over 15 years?

Really laughable. It's bad enough to claim without any evidence that the menuing system empirically known to be the most efficient in general use isn't actually efficient, but to hold up as a supposed superior option the *worst* menu structure extant in any operating system ....

Sheesh.

 

[whyrichard]

Secondbar:
http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79

haven't tried it yet as it is not the perfect solution, and i'm not sure if it works on a 3 monitor setup...

r.

 

[davidlv]

Is this possible?

I make heavy use of a multi-monitor setup and I find it difficult to make menu choices on one monitor for an application that is on another monitor...

Thanks,
Cliff.

I have not used this, but it does seem like having a 2nd menu bar is possible...

http://blog.boastr.net/

Or search for "second bar" on macupdate.com

 

[jreasons68]

Apple woke up to multi-monitor user requirements in 1987. The thing is, y'see, that the stopwatch doesn't support your claim. The Windows menu model is without fail the least efficient alternative in current use. The Mac's model - even with large and irregular desktop spaces - is most efficient. With a *truly* huge desktop the typical UNIX model of having the whole menu hierarchy as a context menu can barely surpass the Mac.

Having the application menu attached to the application in context seems more logical to me. It is interesting the DejaMenu is basically trying to mimic the Windows menu style as a workaround for what is a multi-monitor usability nightmare the Mac menu provides. Microsoft has been doing this right since Windows 98.

 

[Greg Weston]

Having the application menu attached to the application in context seems more logical to me.

No doubt. And yet "seems logical" really doesn't trump decades of research results that contradict that logic. What you're failing to take into account is that the improved context is more than overshadowed by the increased difficulty of actually hitting the target.

It is interesting the DejaMenu is basically trying to mimic the Windows menu style as a workaround for what is a multi-monitor usability nightmare the Mac menu provides. Microsoft has been doing this right since Windows 98.

You've got that backwards. Microsoft has been doing this *wrong* since Windows first came on the scene and has actually been going further off course since then, first by dynamically hiding individual items within menus and more recently by overhauling the entire command mechanism and breaking decades worth of users' motor memories.

There are three menuing systems in common use. The most effective and efficient is provably the one use by Mac OS. Coming in second are systems that use pervasive context menus. With some nice tweaks that haven't actually made it into any product system, these can be as good as 10% slower than the screen-rooted menu of the Mac. In practical use, they can end up as much as 75% slower. And yet they eclipse the efficiency of window-hosted menu bars so significantly that it's laughable.

 

[Cool711]

From a psychological and programming perspective (they're both my profession), I have to assert that while it may be technically more efficient, the frustration that accompanies this "efficiency" may offset the gains.

While missing the target may happen more frequently, the logical approach of having a mirrored bar that responds like the main bar but with applications on the corresponding monitor may be better because of the loss of time having to cognitively re-focus to a second monitor, look away, look back and then refocus.

So while the time taken and frequency of missing is reduced, the overall impact may be to lower productivity.

This seems like a valuable hypothesis that should be tested.

I know that I certainly feel this way, as it is one of my major caveats of using MMs on a mac.
After more than 2 years of doing it (it takes approximately 7 days to form a habit) it still frustrated the hell out of me, and my relief was only garnered by using SecondBar.

So, for all of it's efficiency, it's ridiculously frustrating.

Possible solution: Give people the choice.

i.e. A solution similar to SecondBar.

Why?
It just works.

 

[Greg Weston]

From a psychological and programming perspective (they're both my profession), I have to assert that while it may be technically more efficient, the frustration that accompanies this "efficiency" may offset the gains.

While missing the target may happen more frequently, the logical approach of having a mirrored bar that responds like the main bar but with applications on the corresponding monitor may be better because of the loss of time having to cognitively re-focus to a second monitor, look away, look back and then refocus.

So while the time taken and frequency of missing is reduced, the overall impact may be to lower productivity.

In which case there should be data supporting that.

But there isn't. The data collected over the last few decades consistently show an increase in productivity.

This seems like a valuable hypothesis that should be tested.

Done. Debunked. Repeatedly.

It's simultaneously fascinating and bizarre to me that after all this time there are still people who come to this subject thinking that somehow everyone else who's come before them has missed some obvious thing like the increased size of typical displays, or the impact of non-convex desktops, or the demands of refocused attention.

 

[Cool711]

Still, if it works for some people, I think it should be offered as an option.

 

[Darth.Titan]

Still, if it works for some people, I think it should be offered as an option.

Apple doesn't do "options".