This may be elementary, but I was wondering how do I make the page that I am using in any application online or off take up the entire screen like windows? This is kind of annoying because I like to see as much of the page as possible. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How do you maximize a mac screen?
- Thread starter jayeskreezy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Most Mac apps doesn't have this option, it's one of the main differences in the GUIs of Windows and Mac OS X... most Mac apps just have the (+) button which does the same as Window -> Zoom from the menu bar. This zoomes the app window to a rather vague ideal window size, as deemed by the software engineers that programmed the app...
On the other hand, the Maximize feature is present in some apps, like Firefox where you find it in the menu under View -> Full Screen
On the other hand, the Maximize feature is present in some apps, like Firefox where you find it in the menu under View -> Full Screen
Macs are not designed to have any given app completely take over the screen. Macs are designed for multitasking, so you are able to use multiple apps at one time.jayeskreezy said:
Windows, by contrast, was originally design for single tasks. It's ability to take over the screen is there to keep people (like secretaries and people doing data entry) on task. Basically, Windows assumes you don't know how to do more than one thing at a time while the Mac OS has always tried to make sure you could get as much out of as many apps as possible.
Also it should be noted that the rooted application environment that Windows apps are restricted to is a left over from very early versions of Windows whose purpose was to provide a GUI Shell for apps that needed a GUI environment. Originally it wasn't an operating system (that was DOS), it was an application helper.
Seeing other applications while in the current application is often a shock to Windows users (both current and former).
The little green 'maximise' button is to expand the window to fit the content. If you like white space and want to fill the screen, drag the bottom right hand corner and resize the window to the size you want.
OSX's take on maximisation does take a little getting used to if you're coming from Windows but it does make sense if you think about it. Particularly if you're a multi tasker and use a high resolution screen.
OSX's take on maximisation does take a little getting used to if you're coming from Windows but it does make sense if you think about it. Particularly if you're a multi tasker and use a high resolution screen.
RacerX, don't you think you might taking this to an extreme?
Ultimately, I think it has more to do with personal preferences, familiarity and the task(s) at hand than it does with one OS being better than the other. Your comments seems to be mostly caused by "Windows hate". You're entitled to your opinions, but I don't think it's fair to say that Windows assumes its users are stupid and they cannot do more than one thing at a time.
I've always been able to easily use multiple applications within Windows. On average I usually run 4-6 apps at a time whether I am on Windows or OS X and I don't really think there is that big a difference in multitasking on either of them. I really like Expose in OS X, but I also really like the System Tray from Windows. I wish I could have both on both systems. I will say that OS X seems to do a much better job with paging and so you can have more apps open in OS X than you can with Windows before noticing slow down (assuming the same amount of RAM).RacerX said:
I think it's a bit extreme to say that Windows assumes its users cannot do more than one task at a time. Couldn't a counter-argument be made that OS X assumes that users are so forgetful that they wouldn't know an application was open unless they saw the window(s) for it open at all times? Both of those arguments are illogical.RacerX said:
It is not a shock at all. I am constantly using multiple applications within Windows. Sometimes I have an application maximized, sometimes I have several apps open, each taking just a portion of the screen real estate. It depends what my needs are at the time.RacerX said:
Ultimately, I think it has more to do with personal preferences, familiarity and the task(s) at hand than it does with one OS being better than the other. Your comments seems to be mostly caused by "Windows hate". You're entitled to your opinions, but I don't think it's fair to say that Windows assumes its users are stupid and they cannot do more than one thing at a time.
The OS X window system can seem odd at first, especially if you are familiar with Windows. I have found it best to give it a good effort to try to use the OS as designed, you will get used to it. Try using the green + button to let the window adjust to the recommended size. If you think you need more space, you can enlarge the window manually and almost all apps remember your customized windows size. Using the Dock and especially using Expose make multitasking on OS X rather easy. You could try manually maximizing most/all of your windows and then just use the Dock to switch between apps, as this is probably the closest to Windows you could get, but I think it would seem forced and unnatural for the OS.
I use Windows and OS X daily and after about 2-3 weeks I wasn't having any trouble at all. I use Expose and never really try to maximize windows on my Mac, I use a one-button mouse and all that jazz. On my PC I still maximize most application windows for browsing the net and doing email. If I am doing work involving multiple applications at the same time I use smaller windows. In Windows I rely on the System Tray a lot and really ilke it now that more applications are making use of it. I rarely have any problems shifting gears between the two operating systems. Every now and again I Alt-X/C/V on my PC or Control-X/C/V on my Mac when trying to cut and paste, but not as often as I would have thought - my brain somehow sorts it out well enough without a conscious effort.
I use Windows and OS X daily and after about 2-3 weeks I wasn't having any trouble at all. I use Expose and never really try to maximize windows on my Mac, I use a one-button mouse and all that jazz. On my PC I still maximize most application windows for browsing the net and doing email. If I am doing work involving multiple applications at the same time I use smaller windows. In Windows I rely on the System Tray a lot and really ilke it now that more applications are making use of it. I rarely have any problems shifting gears between the two operating systems. Every now and again I Alt-X/C/V on my PC or Control-X/C/V on my Mac when trying to cut and paste, but not as often as I would have thought - my brain somehow sorts it out well enough without a conscious effort.
I don't think that my like or dislike of Windows had anything to do with this issue in Windows.feakbeak said:
If it would make you happier, we could compare Windows with some other operating system other than Mac OS X so that the stark contrast is better seen.
How about SGI's IRIX?
Lets look at an application that exist in both IRIX and Windows... Photoshop.
In Windows, Photoshop is a rooted application. That is, there is a root application window in which the other windows are displayed. If you resize that root window, you lose the view of the other windows.
In IRIX, every window is it's own Window. I can see other applications running in the background while working on an image which is intended for placement in some other application's document.
The thing is, both the IRIX and Windows versions of Photoshop were ported at the same time. The reason Adobe made Photoshop a rooted app for Windows while leaving it a rootless app for IRIX (like the original Mac version) was a limitation of the Windows application environment.
I use quite a few operating systems (Mac OS X, Mac OS, Rhapsody, OPENSTEP and IRIX) and they all share one important feature... rootless applications.
Do you drag-n-drop in Windows?
I drag-n-drop elements between Mac OS X apps constantly. While working on a page layout in Create or web layout in GoLive, I'll often drag-n-drop images from Curator into those documents. I drag-n-drop selection of text from Mail to TextEdit or Create. I drag-n-drop documents from the desktop into documents in Create, TextEdit, Mail, etc. all the time.
Do you do that in Windows? Rooted applications that takeover the screen hide the desktop and other applications from the user.
You may think you are multitasking, but are you really getting the most from multitasking on Windows?
Throw services into the mix and you have a ton of application interoperability in Mac OS Xthat just isn't there on Windows.
But, if you like to stick to one task at a time, Windows is perfect.
Do you have a good argument for why, even after all these years, Windows still forces developers into a rooted application mode?
Plus you can close the last document window in most Mac apps and the application is still running ready for you to pick another application. Your argument about needing to see windows open is more fitting for the Windows environment than the Mac. Most Windows app quit if you close the last document window... assuming you have nothing else you that you would want to do with that app.
And it is not extreme... it is sad, but true.
I supported Windows from 1997 to 2002, and most of the Windows users I came across couldn't handle not having full screen mode.
In one case, I was able to get an office manager a 19" screen for her Windows NT 4 system. I set it up in the middle of the night for her, and it worked great!
The next day I got a call... there was something wrong with the new screen. I rushed down there to find that what was wrong was that her main application would no longer go full screen at the resolution the monitor was at. She couldn't work without it being full screen. I ended up setting the resolution to 800x600 it would be full screen for her. You could read the text on her monitor across the room.
I'm not being extreme at all. This is a real thing that Windows users go through (as seen by the starter of this very thread).
I never said stupid any more than I said I hate Windows.
If you would like to explore this further, I would appreciate you not attributing comments to me that I never made.
That should be considered good forum etiquette for all of us to follow... don't you think?
And just so you know that my IRIX example was accurate, I've attached a screen shot of Photoshop running with Illustrator on my SGI Indy.
Attachments
1. You should be using at least 1024x768 resolution, it's standard,
2. Almost all websites are optimized for 600x800, so the entire width of the website is less than the width of the display,
3. Why are people still obsessed with maximizing their windows, leaving inches of unused white space to the right edge, eating up valuable screen real estate.
If you're working with an image or folder or site where the contents are bigger than the window, just hit the green button to accommodate. But there's almost no reason for an app to be fullscreen, unless it's a game/video.
2. Almost all websites are optimized for 600x800, so the entire width of the website is less than the width of the display,
3. Why are people still obsessed with maximizing their windows, leaving inches of unused white space to the right edge, eating up valuable screen real estate.
If you're working with an image or folder or site where the contents are bigger than the window, just hit the green button to accommodate. But there's almost no reason for an app to be fullscreen, unless it's a game/video.
munkle said:
Well! Finally, I understand the intention of the maximize button. I use just about every aspect of the OS X UI to it's best advantage... but until today, this little button's usefulness has evaded me. Go figure.
Don't forget slideshow presentations, like the ones Keynote and PowerPoint make. Those are designed for full-screen mode too - only when presenting.paulwhannel said:
Also, if you have a high res screen, there's no need for apps to be fullsized.
I love being able to type a report, and have a full webpage open side by size.
I love being able to type a report, and have a full webpage open side by size.
Eh, I was like you once, a few years ago. When I was new to OS X, and to Macs as a whole, with my first Mac, a PowerBook G4 550 MHz. Yeah, I freaked at how windows don't go fullscreen, and bleated that Windows owns Macs because of that, and because the System Tray owns the Dock.
Fast forward to 2005, and 4 (yes that's f-o-u-r... long story ) Macs later, I now understand the philosophy behind OS X's way, and now shout "OS X pwns Windows!". You just gotta give it time and let the philosophy infiltrate your mind. Then you'll "get it", and wonder what's wrong with the remaining 90% of the marketshare?
Fast forward to 2005, and 4 (yes that's f-o-u-r... long story
) Macs later, I now understand the philosophy behind OS X's way, and now shout "OS X pwns Windows!". You just gotta give it time and let the philosophy infiltrate your mind. Then you'll "get it", and wonder what's wrong with the remaining 90% of the marketshare?
jimjiminyjim said:
It varies in usefulness from app to app, because the app determines how it gets implemented. But at least in some apps, it's cool as beans. Try it in Preview. When you change the zoom level in Preview, hitting the green button automatically adjusts the window width to match the page width. Very nice. That, alongside the (bigger) facts of how fast Preview loads in comparison to Acrobat, and the search drawer, keep me in love with that application.
To start I didn't quote you as saying Windows assumes it's users are stupid. I did imply that was your intended meaning because your post certainly seemed to have that tone.RacerX said:I never said stupid any more than I said I hate Windows.
If you would like to explore this further, I would appreciate you not attributing comments to me that I never made.
That should be considered good forum etiquette for all of us to follow... don't you think?
I can't see how this statement would denote anything positive about one's intelligence. However, I will admit that tone can be easily misunderstood in text, so I apologize - it may have just been a misunderstanding. However, I don't think I was using poor forum etiquette. I read your post as having a very negative view of multitasking with Windows. I have used both Windows and OS X and find multitasking on both rather easy. So, I was asking if you thought you were being a little extreme to imply that Windows assumes people can only do one task at a time.
Now, on with the discussion. I don't do a lot of dragging and dropping between applications. I would agree that OS X makes that a bit easier with it's window scheme. Still, it is just one click to go from maximize to normal window size within Windows. Plus, Windows does not force you to maximize windows, it is simply another option. Options are good in my opinion. You can easily use Windows with your apps not maximized and rearrange them however you like, just like on a Mac. Most Windows users utilize the maximize button, which to me, indicates it is a useful feature.
Your point about Windows not handling applications with multiple windows such as Photoshop is a valid one and I agree with you. It's not nice to force applications to be stuck to one main window. This can be improved to some extent. For example, Visual Studio .NET uses several additional panes for the Solution Explorer, compiler output, properties of objects, class explorer, etc. You can reorganize these panes or have them be tabbed within a pane. I think it works very well. Granted all of these panes and tabs are trapped within the main application window. So, you do not have as much flexibility as you would in the other OSes you mentioned.
I still think it just depends on the task(s) you are working on. When you are working with multimedia, dragging and dropping various elements into different applications, having many windows open and sharing screen real estate tends to work better. This is easier to setup in OS X. On the flip side, if you just want to foucs on writing a paper having Word maximized might help you stay focused. This is easier to do in Windows. Either situation can be accomodated in both Windows or OS X but each OS makes it easier to work a certain way. My point is that you can multitask well on both of these operating systems - it's just a little different. They both have their pros and cons.
Platform, since you asked...Platform said:Do you have a full web page next to a word/pages doc on a 17" iMac
Webpage on left, report on right (330 KB)
This is on my 17" iMac G4.
EDIT: I realized too late that I used the wrong application (TextEdit instead of Pages). After fooling around with the window sizes, I realized that Safari and Pages can't quite fit side-by-side on a 17 inch iMac.
You really can't do it with web pages. You could stretch the web pages out to fit the screen, but you don't gain anything from doing that because the entire web page fits into the default size.
This is a historical view rather than a negative view. Windows was originally designed to be a GUI shell for a single (1) application (that originally being Excel). Since Windows 1.0, Microsoft has been unwilling (or unable) to divorce itself from that initial design element. Odds are that backwards compatibility played a major part in that.feakbeak said:
Agreed. I pointed out the strengths of being able to shut out other applications in my original post, but was, at the same time, pointing out the philosophy behind the windowing used by Mac OS X (and many other operating systems).
On a side note, completely unrelated to Windows or Microsoft, one of the reasons that I do not like using StarOffice 5.1 on my Sun workstation is because it takes over the entire screen, all the application windows are rooted and it attempts enforce it's own GUI (in this case copying Windows) over the operating system's GUI (in the case of my system, Solaris 7, that would be CDE).
I'm just not a big fan of the rooted application environment, and this comes from (if you haven't guessed it) having to use Photoshop on a Windows NT 4 Workstation for three years. Windows NT 4 itself, as an operating system, was great (I own many versions of Windows from 1.0 to 2000 Professional, and NT 4.0 is my favorite). I was very happy with it's abilities (and this was at a time when most Windows users looked down on NT for some odd reason), but this one aspect made going home and working on my Macs a complete joy. After three years I handed in my resignation, my boss ask what I wanted to stay... I said a 30% increase in salary and a Mac to replace the Windows NT Workstation.
I ended up staying for another year. The NT system was converted into a RIP server.
That job was not only doing digital imaging and graphic design, I was also the IT person on staff. I would see people constantly opening windows (even ones for navigating in the operating system, and we are not talking about Windows Explorer) full screen. From my point of view, having a window with one or two icons take up the whole screen is just bizarre. This wasn't limited to one person, almost everyone there (and later, clients I had while doing Windows consulting) did this.
The best metaphor for the computer desktop is really the desktop of an actual desk. Having everything on your system (even the smallest of notes) go full screen is like making every PostIt note, memo, and sheet of paper ballooned up to 24"x48" sheets (or what ever covers your actual desk completely)... while keeping the content the same size it originally was. It is a major waste of space that could be used for other things.
Most people don't work on their desk that way, which is why I don't think it needs to be done for the computer desktop either.
Besides, if you want to get rid of seeing the other applications, there is always the "Hide Others" option. That is the computer equivalent of shoving everything on your desk into a drawer to concentrate on the task at hand.
On another historical note... at one point Apple was considering providing an application runtime environment for Windows to run Mac apps. This was originally called Yellow Box, and Apple pulled the plug on it about the same time as they did Rhapsody for PCs. Still, it was around long enough to have some developers write apps for it. Attached is what TIFFany 3 looked like running in Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. For more images of that environment, you can check out these pages on my website:The reason I point this out is; (1) I don't hate Windows (just Microsoft, but that is another story), and (2) that if Apple could get around the rooted application issue in Windows why couldn't Microsoft?
Attachments
Holy misinformation, Batman! Never used Final Cut? Or GarageBand?RacerX said:
This much is true.
As was this, 20 years ago.
This is completely wrong.
OS X is primarly a drag-and-drop interface, whereas Windows is more of a cut-and-paste interface. The ability (or lack thereof) to maximize a window sort of works to facilitate this.
For pre-NT versions of Windows, this is correct. For Windows NT, 2000, and XP, though, this is completely wrong.
Seeing such misinformation spread in a Mac forum is more of a shock to this long-time Windows user (since '85 or so) than any instance of having two applications open simultaneously.
Or the original iMovie. There are many people who consider Apple one of the worst offenders of bad GUI design for there apps.ChrisBrightwell said:
Doesn't change the my arguments. Maybe you could do a little better at pointing out actual misinformation next time.
Actually the Mac OS underwent a major restructuring with the addition of MultiFinder in System 4 (ca 1988) and integration of that multitasking functionality into the Finder in System 7 (ca 1991).
As a Windows user you most likely missed all that.
How can I be completely wrong if you are forced to qualify that statement this way. Even if you disagree, it sure doesn't look like you completely disagree.
Using a strong word like completely wasn't your best choice here.
Actually, and sadly (for a Windows user) you're completely wrong here. Windows NT is based on OS/2 co-developed by Microsoft and IBM. When Microsoft saw the potential in OS/2 they ended their association with IBM to start what was then known as OS/2 NT. With the popularity of Windows 3, it was decided to marry that interface with OS/2 NT which created Windows NT. The first version was Windows NT 3.1 which had the same GUI as Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. This was released in 1993 as I recall. Windows NT continued to have the same interface through 3.51 (note that I have both 3.1 and 3.51 in my collection, so this is based on actual experience and not hear-say). With the popularity of Windows 95 (a hybrid 16/32-bit environment) Microsoft again worked to wed that interface with Windows NT yielding Windows NT 4.0 (in 1996). Windows NT 4.0 wasn't widely used or developed for until Service Pack 3 (I personally find SP 6a quite functional). In all cases of Windows NT, application compatibility with Windows was of the highest importance.
It is hard to believe that such a long time Windows user like yourself would be so lightly informed... but then again, maybe it isn't so surprising. Most Windows users (like you most likely) never used any of the NT line before Windows XP. Within the Windows community the amount of misinformation about the NT line and what it was and what it could do was alarming (even to Microsoft itself, which was why they dropped the "NT" from Windows 2000 and XP).
Anyways, none of this is a secret. It is history (and not even that old yet). Granted it helped to be active within these areas as it was happening, but a little research never hurts.
As a Windows user you really should learn more about the history of your platform. Know where things come from and why they are the way they are give a great insight into how things work today.
Remember BoyWonder, you are never to old to learn more.
This is quite interesting to me, since I used to have Windows NT at work before I got upgraded to Windows 2000, then upgraded again to Windows XP. I had odd networking problems with Windows NT, such as being unable to map a subfolder of a share to a network drive (Windows NT apparently doesn't support this for some reason).RacerX said:
I'm actually a long-time Mac user, having used them from the System 5 days with my Apple IIgs at 4 years old. My experience with Windows pales in comparison.
When did this become another "Mac is so much better than Windows"/"No it's not!"-thread...?
The original poster, coming from Windows, had a very simple answer, which was basically answered by two of the three first posters, me included...
Why someone chose this as another Mac vs Win battleground, I have no idea, but I think both camps should take a breather and cool down... Let's not get another thread, with a perfectly good original question, wastelanded...
Hopefully we gonna see lots of switchers, asking these kinds of questions, and apart from further anti virus questions, I think we should greet these new Mac users welcome with a slightly less patronizing tone. And for the Windows advocats: You're on a Mac forum. Choose your words accordingly...
The original poster, coming from Windows, had a very simple answer, which was basically answered by two of the three first posters, me included...
Why someone chose this as another Mac vs Win battleground, I have no idea, but I think both camps should take a breather and cool down... Let's not get another thread, with a perfectly good original question, wastelanded...
Hopefully we gonna see lots of switchers, asking these kinds of questions, and apart from further anti virus questions
, I think we should greet these new Mac users welcome with a slightly less patronizing tone. And for the Windows advocats: You're on a Mac forum. Choose your words accordingly...
Mitthrawnuruodo said:When did this become another "Mac is so much better than Windows"/"No it's not!"-thread...?
The original poster, coming from Windows, had a very simple answer, which was basically answered by two of the three first posters, me included...
Why someone chose this as another Mac vs Win battleground, I have no idea, but I think both camps should take a breather and cool down... Let's not get another thread, with a perfectly good original question, wastelanded...
Hopefully we gonna see lots of switchers, asking these kinds of questions, and apart from further anti virus questions
simple one guy basicly when on a windows hate rampage (he trade to cover it in roses and what not but the more he posted the more it became clear that it mostly windows hate. Did not bother trying to answer the question just went bluntly more or less if the way apple does it is the best way and should be the way you should use. MS way is crap and should not be used.
Well it pretty clear that he just a windows hater and when it started going into attack mood it became crystal clear.
This is the most entertaining post in this thread.blur said:
Think what ever you are going to think, but if you reread the thread (specially your contribution) you'll see that others have used much stronger language against me than I ever did in my alleged windows hate rampage.
Well, that is an amazing read of what happened.
Funny, as it looks like I pointed out that there were two philosophies on this point, one way (which Apple uses, but so does SGI and NeXT as examples of others) based on a rootless application environment and another way (used by Microsoft and StarOffice as two examples) based on a rooted application environment. And I fall squarely in the camp of the rootless application environment (even when Apple makes rooted apps), and I see no reason to apologies for that. Nor do I see how that can be read as me being a windows hater. I just really don't like rooted applications and the philosophy that led to them.
The original poster was new to Macs, he deserved a clear explanation of why a feature he used while in Windows is not part of the Mac environment (but is part of the Windows environment).
No one here (specially not you
) has provided a legitimate argument that says that what I stated was wrong. Mainly because (even if I have a definite side on the rooted/rootless issue) the history of the choices made by these companies is well founded. All the companies and products I discussed had to make design choices that would have effected their implementations. In most cases (Apple and Microsoft) the reasoning behind those choices is not a secret.Sadly, the technical aspects of all this seems to have escaped you. I guess when you can't comprehend things you default to simplified labels like windows hater.
Well, at least your post made you look worse than it did me.
But it did give me another opportunity to restate my position, so thank you for your post... Please post again.
- Status