Duplicate Menu Bar on Multiple Monitors, Possible?

[wlh99]

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.



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.

So where has it been proven? I use both macs and PC's extensively, and for a user that is used to both systems, I don't see any advantage one way or the other. I do get slowed down sometimes on the mac with multiple monitors, especially when the menu bar isn't active for the app I want, so I need to bring that app front first. But that is rare and minor.

If there really have been studies that show an edge menu is better than a window meun(which is very believable by itself), was then entire context of the operating system and monitor configuration tested as well? Was it considering lots of applications open on several montors, or only a single app on a single monitor?

Just asking for facts, because as I said I really don't think there is any difference other than users personal preference.

 

[Greg Weston]

So where has it been proven? I use both macs and PC's extensively, and for a user that is used to both systems, I don't see any advantage one way or the other. I do get slowed down sometimes on the mac with multiple monitors, especially when the menu bar isn't active for the app I want, so I need to bring that app front first. But that is rare and minor.

If there really have been studies that show an edge menu is better than a window meun(which is very believable by itself), was then entire context of the operating system and monitor configuration tested as well? Was it considering lots of applications open on several montors, or only a single app on a single monitor?

Just asking for facts, because as I said I really don't think there is any difference other than users personal preference.

Every variation you've listed, as well as every other obvious "well yeah, but what about *this* contrived scenario" has been tested over the last 30 years. Repeatedly. Generally by people who've gone into it actively hostile to the idea of the screen-rooted menu and positive that they're going to finally be the ones to prove that the Windows way is the right way.

You say you do "get slowed down sometimes on the Mac," but I put a question to you: Have you actually timed it?

There are two scenarios where the screen-rooted menu falls down:
1. The pointing device's acceleration curve is nearly flat.
2. The user forgets they're on a Mac and interacts with the menu bar as they would a window-hosted menu bar.

In either of those cases, the user is much better served by a menu hierarchy that pops up under the cursor on demand than they are by the window-rooted menu.

 

[Mad Mac]

Every variation you've listed, as well as every other obvious "well yeah, but what about *this* contrived scenario" has been tested over the last 30 years. Repeatedly. Generally by people who've gone into it actively hostile to the idea of the screen-rooted menu and positive that they're going to finally be the ones to prove that the Windows way is the right way.

Post links to source supporting your claim. I want to see what conditions were tested and how they came to their conclusion on said tests that the OS X way is better.

I've used multi-monitor Windows and OS X systems for years and find the Windows way superior.

 

[Greg Weston]

Post links to source supporting your claim. I want to see what conditions were tested and how they came to their conclusion on said tests that the OS X way is better.

I've stopped playing the "post links" game a long time ago. You'll either accuse me of cherry picking or you'll find some irrelevant detail that you'll insist invalidates the whole thing without actually providing any justification. So if you *actually* care about reality, go and look. You won't have to look hard; literally every rigorous study on the subject has produced the same results. And you won't be able to wiggle out of it by saying I gave you biased information.

I've used multi-monitor Windows and OS X systems for years and find the Windows way superior.

Great. If you've got a metric more objective than "because I prefer it" you are, no exaggeration, the first. You should publish. I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest; you would be turning decades of human interface research on its head. If as I suspect all you do mean is that you prefer it, that's fine. Go ahead and use it because you prefer it. It shouldn't matter to you that it's objectively, provably less effective and efficient because personal comfort is itself a significant factor in real use. Be satisfied with that, instead of feeling the need to justify it as somehow objectively "superior."

 

[Mad Mac]

I've stopped playing the "post links" game a long time ago. You'll either accuse me of cherry picking or you'll find some irrelevant detail that you'll insist invalidates the whole thing without actually providing any justification. So if you *actually* care about reality, go and look. You won't have to look hard; literally every rigorous study on the subject has produced the same results. And you won't be able to wiggle out of it by saying I gave you biased information.

Way to be defensive and paranoid. If you're going to make claims to tests as gospel, you should put up the links to support your claim. Pretty lame to make the claims and say "go find them yourself".

Great. If you've got a metric more objective than "because I prefer it" you are, no exaggeration, the first. You should publish. I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest; you would be turning decades of human interface research on its head. If as I suspect all you do mean is that you prefer it, that's fine. Go ahead and use it because you prefer it. It shouldn't matter to you that it's objectively, provably less effective and efficient because personal comfort is itself a significant factor in real use. Be satisfied with that, instead of feeling the need to justify it as somehow objectively "superior."

Decades of human interface study? Big deal. There are studies in everything (such as medicine) that are held as gospel for decades and get overturned.

And what makes you think I'm trying to justify anything? You have comprehension issues. I said *I* find the Windows way superior. That is *my* opinion. Last I checked, I'm not forcing that opinion on anyone.

You, on the other hand, are making claims that Apple's method is objectively superior. So prove it. Put up or shutup.

 

[Greg Weston]

Way to be defensive and paranoid. If you're going to make claims to tests as gospel, you should put up the links to support your claim. Pretty lame to make the claims and say "go find them yourself".

Nothing paranoid about it. This is the pattern that everyone that holds your stance follows. You will not be convinced by anything I say, so there's no point in me saying anything. If I try, you will do exactly as I described because people like you - and I mean every implication of that phrase - always do.

Decades of human interface study? Big deal. There are studies in everything (such as medicine) that are held as gospel for decades and get overturned.

Right. Vast amounts of rigorously obtained, reproducible metrics without a single reproducible counter-example are meaningless in the face of your untested belief in the nature of your own experience.

And what makes you think I'm trying to justify anything? You have comprehension issues. I said *I* find the Windows way superior. That is *my* opinion. Last I checked, I'm not forcing that opinion on anyone.

And you think I'm acting defensively?

No comprehension issue here. Perhaps I understand what you're saying (possibly as distinct from what you mean) better than you do. You said Windows' way was "superior." That means there's some measure by which you consider that idiom better. I simply asked for an explanation of that measure and sincerely encouraged you to enrich the field with your data if it was something objective.

What is it about the Windows idiom that's superior? It can't be that it's faster. It can't be that it's less prone to inducing user error. So what is it? Honest question. Are you able to provide an honest answer?

 

[Mad Mac]

Nothing paranoid about it. This is the pattern that everyone that holds your stance follows. You will not be convinced by anything I say, so there's no point in me saying anything.

So why are you even saying anything on this topic? If you and your tests can't convince anybody then what does that tell you?

If the tests are so air tight, why would you be worried about "everyone that holds my stance" poking holes in the studies?

I'm done here. Don't even bother replying unless you're going to post the links to these myriad of tests supporting your stance. If you make a claim and don't back it up you're simply trolling.

BTW, if having the menu bar in one place is so great then why don't then put all the commands up there? For instance, why don't they just move all of Safari's back, forward, home buttons, url bar, etc. on the menu bar if it's so much "faster and less prone to inducing user error". Because it would be ridiculous from a user standpoint.

 

[opeter]

Actually I too think, that it is better on multiple monitors, if the windows have the menus inside of them (like the Windows, Linux and other OS have).

 

[Greg Weston]

So why are you even saying anything on this topic? If you and your tests can't convince anybody then what does that tell you?

Me and "my" tests are sufficient for anyone who's being reasonable. When someone isn't convinced that tells me more about them than it does about every experiment that's been usefully published on the subject.

If the tests are so air tight, why would you be worried about "everyone that holds my stance" poking holes in the studies?

I never said I was worried about holes being poked. See, there's *you* with the comprehension issue again. "You'll either accuse me of cherry picking or you'll find some irrelevant detail that you'll insist invalidates the whole thing without actually providing any justification. So if you *actually* care about reality, go and look."

That's not me worried about holes. That's me having better things to do with my time than waste it on someone who will perform every mental gymnastic they can conceive of to avoid accepting that reality isn't in lock-step with their subjective preference. I've literally had people try to argue that the behavior of the command after it's invoked matters.

I'm done here. Don't even bother replying unless you're going to post the links to these myriad of tests supporting your stance. If you make a claim and don't back it up you're simply trolling.

But you don't have to back up yours? That's reasonable.

I can tell you don't even believe what you're saying yourself. If you cared about the truth, you'd look. If you really believed that what you'd find would support your position, you'd look just so you could show me up. But you haven't. So what does that tell me about you?

BTW, if having the menu bar in one place is so great then why don't then put all the commands up there? For instance, why don't they just move all of Safari's back, forward, home buttons, url bar, etc. on the menu bar if it's so much "faster and less prone to inducing user error". Because it would be ridiculous from a user standpoint.

If you look, you'll notice that all the things you listed that are actually commands *are* in the menu bar. A subset of the commands are *optionally* reproduced in the browser window because it's become part of the common idiom of the web browser for them to be there.

 

[MrSparkle84]

Wow... I created an account on this site just to reply to this post. Greg, please stop. Why are you constantly bashing Mad Mac and asking him to back up his thoughts on this topic with the results of test when it is clearly stated that this is his *opinion*? He's asking for something reasonable... links to the tests you claim are so conclusive just the mere thought that there might be something a little better is downright blasphemy. He wants to be open minded about this so he can consider multiple sources as information about this topic than just your constant "this is just how it is" stance.

As for me, I couldn't care less about the tests. *I* know what works for *me*, and the single menu bar on multiple monitors just doesn't. I don't need a panel of experts on this topic telling me that their tests prove otherwise. Actually, I'm starting to think that you don't even believe it yourself, Greg. In all these posts, you've only brought up these so far elusive tests as your only basis for arguments never once stating that in the real world that they actually work for you. I don't even believe that you actually use multiple monitors.

Here is a real-world example where a single menu bar just doesn't work. Try using ARD to remotely connect to a multi-monitor system. Now try to actually work. OK, so first problem.. everything is shruken to display on your screen. No problem, we'll switch to just view 1 of those displays. Uh-oh, the window that we want to work on is not on the primary display and we have no menu bar. OK, so we'll go back to the multiple display view of ARD so we can rearrange everything just so we can get that one window back to the "right" display and then we can actually do some work... until we have to work on a window on another display.

Please, Greg, tell me how that is efficient.

 

[plasticphyte]

To tell someone who is obviously frustrated by the inability of Mac OS X to mirror the menu bar across all displays that a single menu bar on the primary display is the most effecient is laughable, because what works for x percentile doesn't always work for y percentile (and vice versa), that doesn't make both camps wrong, it just means that it does or doesn't work for them.

If the one menu bar really was the best way for everyone, there wouldn't be workarounds/solutions like dejamenu or secondbar.

I can clearly see the merits of both sides in this case.

Why should I have to move the cursor from one display to another simply to bring up a menu option (that may or may not have a keyboard shortcut).
Regardless of why having one menubar is the best from a user interface point of view, for some the act of having to turn attention away from the screen they're working on to another is awkward enough to be ineffecient.

On the other hand, not having the UI mired down with menu bars is great, allowing complete freedom for the user to place windows where they need to be and having a consistent location for menus is a plus.

Personally, I'd like to see better programming - does the UI have to be that cluttered that menus have to be used to do tasks? Are keyboard shortcuts that obscure that people can't remember them? Is the UI that cluttered that people get lost in them?

I think a menu bar akin to a hidden dock that is accessible on any screen but only present in the active window, but with the same behaviour as the standard menubar, and one that offers a slight resistance, while still allowing movement to other monitors, while keeping the primary display menubar in place would work for me.

 

[Greg Weston]

Wow... I created an account on this site just to reply to this post. Greg, please stop. Why are you constantly bashing Mad Mac

I have done no bashing. I have responded politely and sincerely to the questions that were posed to me.

and asking him to back up his thoughts on this topic with the results of test when it is clearly stated that this is his *opinion*?

I asked out of sincere curiosity because his original statement didn't express a personal preference was was phrased in such a way as to indicate that he had a quantitative or qualitative measure by which to judge superiority. His implication that what he *meant* to say - as distinct from what he said - was personal preference came later.

He's asking for something reasonable... links to the tests you claim are so conclusive just the mere thought that there might be something a little better is downright blasphemy. He wants to be open minded about this so he can consider multiple sources as information about this topic than just your constant "this is just how it is" stance.

I explained my rationale for not providing those links. I've been part of this debate for decades. His posts exactly mimic the pattern I've come to recognize of someone who isn't going to be convinced by anything I say. So I leave it where I did. If someone is actually interested in the truth they'll look on their own to their own satisfaction.

I find it interesting that you're using the word blasphemy here. Even leaving aside the loaded, explicit religious connotations of that word, by the fact of using it you're clearly talking about something subjective. I'm talking about something objective.

As for me, I couldn't care less about the tests. *I* know what works for *me*, and the single menu bar on multiple monitors just doesn't. I don't need a panel of experts on this topic telling me that their tests prove otherwise. Actually, I'm starting to think that you don't even believe it yourself, Greg. In all these posts, you've only brought up these so far elusive tests as your only basis for arguments never once stating that in the real world that they actually work for you. I don't even believe that you actually use multiple monitors.

Your belief is irrelevant, unfounded and incorrect. I've been using multiple monitor setups for a long time, on multiple platforms.

The tests aren't "elusive." They're readily available to anyone who's interested enough to take 5 minutes to look.

I certainly acknowledged that there are scenarios under which the single, screen-rooted menu bar falls down. There are always edge cases, and it would be foolish of me to argue otherwise. On the other hand, most people *never* run into those scenarios and the people that do usually aren't in them. It's not a case for which it's sensible to optimize, and I could argue that your specific example is more a failing in ARD than in the Mac desktop idiom. And if someone indicates, as Mad Mac initially did, that they have a definable metric by which they can upend decades of consistent empirical data I'm honestly interested in hearing it. I'm not the one who became outright belligerent over the notion that my personal preferences might not be optimal.

 

[MrSparkle84]

Refusing to back up your quantitative position, on 2/16

But you don't have to back up yours? That's reasonable.

because someone doesn't cite other peoples' claims holding the same opinion, a position pointed out in a post from 2/14:

I said *I* find the Windows way superior. That is *my* opinion. Last I checked, I'm not forcing that opinion on anyone.

,

seemed a little hostile to me. Coulda just been because it was the morning.

Anyway, what you constantly seem to be referring to is Fitts's Law. And, yes, all the data shows that Macs have the best UI to deal with it. The law deals with proximity to an object and the dimensions of the object such as a button on screen. Shorter distances to the object and larger dimensions creates the least amount of time you would need to get to the object. Having the menu bar at the top of a one-monitor setup makes both the height and the width of the object infinite.

But with heights and width infinite, proximity means nothing in this model at it is always trumped by the infinite number. But moving on to more than one monitor, width is no longer infinite, but proximity still takes a huge backseat to the infinite height. Proximity can never win out when something is infinitely tall.

So, as an opinion, these studies should not be gauged solely by this metric, if that's the metric you are constantly eluding to, since proximity really doesn't matter in cases with targets of infinite widths. Also, the advantages can be diluted with a certain level of familiarity with "non optimized" UI's (in this case, the way Window's works).

I certainly acknowledged that there are scenarios under which the single, screen-rooted menu bar falls down. There are always edge cases, and it would be foolish of me to argue otherwise.

Thank you

 

[celtboy]

forum troll necros thread...

I've used multi-monitor Windows and OS X systems for years and find the Windows way superior.

While I laud the linguistic veracity with which this topic has been approached, I must rise in defense of Mad Mac.

In his quote, the conjugation "and" defines two distinct predicates, yet joins them with a common Subject noun ("I", himself). Therefore, his sentence reads:

"I have used multi-monitor Windows and OS X systems for years and (I) find the Windows way superior."

Based upon this understanding, I believe it easy to interpret Monsieur Weston's comments as pure troll and inimical.

/rant


Secondbar, by the by, is the most fantastic solution I've found thus far.

 

[fhall1]

+1 for Secondbar

 

[GZ Media]

Menu Bar Solution

Hello every one. I found the solution to this problem a few days ago...its called Second Bar. Its a simple app, as it shoud be, and it can be found here: http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79

This is my first post here. I hope I did OK.

 

[fhall1]

Hello every one. I found the solution to this problem a few days ago...its called Second Bar. Its a simple app, as it shoud be, and it can be found here: http://blog.boastr.net/?page_id=79

This is my first post here. I hope I did OK.

Nothing wrong except the post above yours and the one above that already mentioned SecondBar, so yours is kinda redundant

 

[yeknommonkey]

I say otherwise and have used multiple monitors routinely - on multiple platforms - over a span of nearly two decades. I'll turn it back at you: A fixed menu bar at any fixed, and rooted, location of any practical desktop today - including very large and non-convex spaces - is more efficient than the alternatives. To say otherwise suggests a person has never actually looked at the numbers coming out of every experiment on this subject but rather relies on their gut sense of how things "must" be.

or to assume you know best and that controlled tests suit everyone's working style for all situations is a bit silly.
flexibility is what most of us whingers are looking for, the option to do what suits us, rather than what suits Stevesie.

I have an ACD 30inch and a formac 21, attached to my mac. but i also have another ACD 30 attached to my PC which sits in the middle. basically for the majority of my mac apps i only want and need 1 screen, the 2nd monitor is safari / tv / email etc and my desk is only really big / comfortable enough to have good seating position for the two big screens i use for my proper work, so the 3rd (i.e. the 2nd mac monitor) sits off to the left, all 3 rotated around me on my scopp shaped desk cut out.

the 2nd mac monitor is perfectly positioned for keeping an eye on tv / mail etc and for the all purposes i want, BUT having to flick over to monitor 1 to use the menu bar is a real p.i.t.a. as its not so much the mouse, but my head / eyes that have to do the 'leg work'. the wacom swap monitor button is great, but it would definitely be better for me to have the option to clone the menu bar to other monitors as i see fit.

anyway, deja menu thingymabob here i come.....

 

[bonjonelson]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

I know it's a while since this thread was active, and I do appreciate the old addage about not feeding trolls, but I have to explain why Greg Weston is (mostly) wrong about menus, about why Apple have screwed up multi-monitor support, and why this little one issue spoils the whole Mac experience for me (as a relative newcomer to OS X).

First, I've been using GUI systems since the days of Windows 2, the Commodore Amiga, GEM, X-windows and Classic Mac OS. I've used them all, in anger, with their varying ideas about how menus should be displayed.

Greg claims that studies show that a fixed menu position is more productive than something that is in varied places. In some ways he's right - it can be a horrible mess on Windows (for example, if you have one app full screen, and another app overlapped on it, it can be depending on the positions confusing as to which menu is for what.)

Anything that reduces mouse movement generally makes the environment feel more comfortable, but it can be taken too far - I'm not a fan of context sensitive pop-up menus in general as it is far easier to navigate a mouse left and right than up and down. Don't believe me? try it.

Another advantage of having the menu at the top of the screen is that you can rely on the natural barrier where your pointer hits the top of the screen and you're mouse is already on the menu bar. On Windows, you're above the menu bar at this point - assuming your application is full screen, so you have to move the mouse back down again.

And of course that's assuming that the menus are even in a standard place. Microsoft created standards for how menus should be displayed, and then did things completely differently in their own apps (eg internet explorer).

So, why am I disagreeing with Greg then, when most of what I've said so far seems to vindicate his position?

Because he's wrong in on important way. You should NOT be forced to move from one physical monitor to another in order to get to a menu. The context between the menu and the application is broken, the arrange is clumsy, and it simply feels awkward and unnecessary. I would not be here writing this message if it was a minor issue.

Ah, but Greg says there have been many experiments that prove this is the best arrangement.

Well, assuming this is true, I very much doubt the experiments replicate the way that I (or many other people work).

There is a significant difference depending on three things - the proximity of the two monitors, whether the vertical resolutions match, and the number of applications you use at the same time.

If you have two similar monitors placed together (as I do on this PC right now), it's not a big problem to navigate from one to the other. I only have one task bar on my Windows set up, and I've never felt the need to complain to anyone that my task bar isn't replicated on the second monitor. But then a task bar isn't an application-specific menu. It does not lose any context by being broken away from an application as a menu would.

But I use a MacBook Pro. Other than this menu problem, I'm extremely happy with it. I have an external 19" monitor attached to it and use both screens. The distance you have to move your eyes to switch from one to the other to use a menu on the wrong monitor is non-trivial. It's irritating.

Another issue is vertical resolution mismatch. The resolution on my external monitor is different (because it's a 4:3 monitor) to my MacBook screen. That means, however much I fiddle around, moving the pointer from one to the other means you're never quite sure where it will end up vertically positioned on the other. That's not a huge problem unless you need to move your mouse from one monitor to the other very frequently. And on the Mac, with the way menus are set up, you do.

But the main difference is how you use applications. If you are using a single application (eg photoshop) on two monitors, you have one monitor for you menus and tools, your layer windows, and you use the other monitor for a large view of your canvas, then of course having the menu in one place on one monitor is going to be more productive.

But I don't work like that. And many people don't.

I generally have one application open on one screen, and another application on another. It may be a code editor on one and a web browser on the other. I'll swap and change apps, and I'll frequently have more than two apps with windows open at once, but 80% of the time, I have two apps being used, one on each screen.

And in that environment, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the menus of both applications to appear on one screen only.

So, Greg, You may find the system currently works the way you want it to. That's great! I wouldn't propose changing things in a way that would stop you working this way.

The solution is simple. very simple.

When you manage and arrange your monitors in the control panel, you can currently specify which monitor the menu appears (although in a typical Mac hidden 'you only know this if you're cool enough' way) by dragging the menu from one monitor to another.

Scrap that. For each monitor attached there should be a check box to enable/disable menu display on that particular screen.

So you have complete control over which screens mirror your menus. If you want to keep it the way it is now then fine! That's the default behaviour. But for those of us who hate the way it is, a simple check box can solve everything.

 

[spudwaffle]

+1 for SecondBar

This issue has been plaguing me for a while and so far SecondBar is the best solution I have found.
DejaMenu works well too, but (for me at least) it just doesn't seem too efficient.

 

[The-Man]

Yea...


I stumbled on this old thread and started reading to learn about if you could have multiple menu bars in mac os. Then I started reading the war that's been going on between multiple people and Greg Weston. So I had to join this forum because this is quite ridiculous.

First off Greg you've said there is all this data from test that have been conducted over decades that proves the theory that one menu bar is more efficient. People have asked for you to post these links...which you've said "I've stopped playing the post links game". Well some of us may want to see those results. I've looked for them and I can't find anything, not saying they don't exists just saying I can't find them. I realize that test have probably been conducting regarding this matter but it is hard to see how it can be more efficient. Seeing facts and figures makes things easier. Which you won't post.

I've worked a lot with both Mac and Windows. I prefer Mac in most ways to Windows. But for example when working on dual monitors with Illustrator and Photoshop it's much easier to work when the menu is at the top of the program. It's annoying having to go to the top left of my left monitor to get to the menu. I also realize what you said before is it doesn't have to be setup in a horizontal fashion. I've tried using other configurations after reading what you said and they all pose the same issues for me. My monitors are physically setup horizontally so I do the same with my configuration.

It's hard to believe, all this that you are saying. Once again I'm not saying you are wrong and the data isn't wrong but do you think that the majority of users who use multiple monitors fall into the same conditions that were using in conducting those tests? Also I understand from the programming stand point or whatever having two menu bars is hard or an "issue" but I believe this whole thread has gone beyond that.

I've learned to deal with the fact I don't have two menu bars and still I have issues. Maybe all these tests that have been conducted haven't taken in all the factors...maybe they have. All I know is I don't know and can't find anything that tells me about it.

Lastly I realize that some of the people that have bashed you do seem hostile and a bit close minded but at the same time you do too. Can we please have the links to these studies? I'd like to see them along with many other people here. To me it doesn't seem more efficient but that's the beauty of it. If I were presented with these studies and it is "more efficient" then at least I would know what I do isn't as efficient. I would just like to know.

 

[r00ky]

How is everyone enjoying secondbar? About to setup dual displays here shortly..

 

[kirk@kpj2.com]

SecondBar - dual monitor solution

SecondBar - from the same person that created the awesome BetterTouchTool - is a utility that puts the menu bar on both monitors in a dual monitor setup.

It seems to be stable, but does not work in every situation (like switching between development modes within Filemaker). Still, in most cases, it provides a significant improvement to having to mouse over to another monitor.

http://blog.boastr.net/

 

[stuckfly]

Another utility to add the menu bar to other displays

I've been using MenuEverywhere for over a month now.
http://www.binarybakery.com

It allows menubars on more than just two, and it has pop-up menu functions and many preferences that make it more flexible for various users. Like SecondBar, MenuEverywhere is under active development as a fairly new thing, certainly not bug-free or tested in every configuration.

In particular, I went ahead and paid for it (to support development) for my odd case (i.e., not one of the situations likely to have been tested by Greg's professional network of menu bar researchers). I have a 30-inch primary display for text-based work and a 21-inch tablet display for art. The primary is on my desk; the secondary is on my drafting table. They are not aligned column-wise or in a row; they are diagonally associated as a desktop yet perpendicular and spread out in planimetric office space. I not only have to shift focus from my virtual canvas to the primary display's menu bar to execute menu commands, I also have to get up, pivot, and sit in a different chair. Weird, I know; but, except for the menu bar problem, this is quite efficient for my workflow.

I am a veteran Windows and Mac technical user; I'm familiar with both interfaces since both their inceptions. They aggravate me equally! No UI or GUI is perfect yet. Studies and data are critical to improving the awkward ways we interact with our masters, whether Windows or Macs or Linux or whatever. Still, to bend to the will of our computers, we must also consider subjective values in design, that is, user's opinions; not merely decades of uncited tests.

Cited tests are more compelling in quelling useless argumentation. I had to chuckle when Greg said he refuses to waste his time posting links to his research sources, in the context of a diatribe that surely took him a lot longer than the five minutes he suggests that it would take anyone who cares to look up the information without the benefit of his aid. Five minutes, my butt!

Whatever. I also had to look up the term troll. If Greg is a troll of the Internet forum variety, he seems to be a sophisticated one who genuinely cares about the topic, if a tad over-competitively perhaps. Or I don't understand trolling. What intelligent person can spare the time for such a useless activity?

Anyway, he hasn't been seen here in awhile so maybe he took the advice to put up or shut up! Makes sense. Frankly, I wouldn't read the information if he were to post links to it, because I'm not a UI developer. What good would knowing do? And again, who has the time? I would still whine about not having the option that I and at least several others here so crave despite all manner of experiments! It's tempting to think my desire for a feature is evidence of a vacancy, but Greg is probably right: I'm delusional and lazy.

Besides, Apple probably has better things to do with their engineers, like enabling application window resizing from all sides and corners—or am I the only Mac user who hates the lower-right corner?

I'm done digressing. Plus, I got my daily writing quota in.

BEWARE: I should warn indefatigable readers that, as of this posting, MenuEverywhere has annoying quirks, especially regarding seemingly random port access, occasional CPU hogging, and irrational rudeness to Photoshop CS5 on the secondary monitor. But, give it a fair shot and email its lone developer. Also, pay for it if you like it. Ditto for the other two inefficient menu bar utilities mentioned previously in this thread.

 

[Bmproductions]

You can try secondbar. Try to Google it first. It's still in beta but it works pretty good for me