No, you're just being an ass for no apparent reason.
Quote:
What part of "but even Space only displays a single instance of the Dock and menubar " did you not understand? Why would Apple make an exception for people like you that want to use a second monitor to make it do something it's not intended to do? My advice, switch to Windows.
Well, for one thing, the incorrect grammar ("but even Space only.."). It's impossible to tell what you're trying to say there, except perhaps to suggest we should all be clairvoyant and have already known precisely what Apple planned to do. Space[s] on a single monitor only displays one dock and menu bar (and why wouldn't it? It's just one monitor!). What on earth does that have to do with multiple monitors, a topic which until now has not been directly addressed by Apple in press releases or any of the other publically available info on Leopard? We have all been left wondering what Spaces was "intended to do" with multiple monitors, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to expect that their claim that a program intended to provide multiple virtual desktops would "support" multiple monitors meant that multiple desktops would be visible on these multiple monitors. Only now do we find out that's not so, but there was absolutely nothing in the information Apple has provided regarding this feature in the last 14 months that would allow us to know this.
And Windows does not provide anything like this functionality, what are you talking about? Stop being an apologist.
Looks like Spaces may be subject to the same legal issues that this news story describes about Red Hat and Novell
Quote:
Linux vendors Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. are being sued for patent infringement by IP Innovation LLC and Technology Licensing Corp.
The plaintiffs claim they own U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412 for a "User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects" issued Dec. 10, 1991, as well as two other similar patents. It is believed to be the first patent infringement lawsuit involving Linux.
To be clear, this is off-topic. I do hear some confusion when some of my Ubuntu friends start mistaking features in a virtual machine manager for the features in Spaces (a virtual desktop manager) and saying it comes up short, when in fact these are different issues. What follows are off-topic fantasy thinking that should in no way be construed as shortcomings of Spaces.
I'd love to launch a set of applications in their own Virtual Machine on OS X. When setting up a Filemaker driven website, it'd be nice to have a VM with Filemaker, Safari, and a text editor and the reference documentation setup. Instead of launching and quitting all those each day, I just freeze the virtual machine and restart it the next (without the launching and window arranging). Let's say I have a bunch of these VM's: a Photoshop/Illustrator one, and an XCode & Interface Builder one, and a bunch of others. When I launch one it takes over the screen and I can mix things within the VM, but I won't ever see an XCode window in my Photoshop area. Some extra enforced isolation when I want it. And now that we have an interface for managing the machines, we can also tack on an interface for scheduling and resource allocation. Let's say I had a Photoshop filter going that will take 4.3 hours (and has already been going for 2.5). I start to compile something in Xcode in my other VM and see it'll take and hour and a half. Since these are whole environments, I'd like to be able to freeze Photoshop for a while exactly as it stands and give Xcode the CPU so that it takes only half that time as when it's competing with the Photoshop VM. Then I can let Photoshop go again and have the CPU to itself. I have no idea what sort of interface would work well for this, all I can think of is a big 3x3 grid like the Brady Bunch intro except with VMs instead of Brady heads. Maybe something more "remote control" like since you are switching between channels yet the channels keep going in your absence. I don't know. As nice as all this is, it's kind of limited because each of these VM's is so isolated. Sometimes that isolation is good, but it might be more useful being able to selectively break down that isolation. Moving clipboard data. Moving windows in and out of other VM areas. InterVM communication as if the processes were talking over a network. These would be cool, but they'd be an incredible engineering effort to intelligently break down the isolation securely and with a user interface that could be intuitively grasped by users.
Virtual machine management isn't what Spaces is all about. I'd like to see it one day as some future OS feature, but I'm plenty happy with what's already been engineered.
Ah, ok. Quite a bit more than I was asking for (which was basically just changes to the Spaces UI). I'd be surprised if they went for VMs considering their paranoia about anything that could allow OS X to be run on different hardware (someone would surely reverse-engineer it). I could see them enhancing Spaces though -- would it require real virtualization, for instance, to force all the apps in a Space to go into some kind of "suspended" mode (although this admittedly wouldn't be perfect as apps can span multiple Spaces..). There are a lot of interesting possibilities for improvement -- some way to make a space prioritized just like processes can be, password-protected spaces, etc.
Question. So lets say I have Adium open. And I have it assigned to desktop 4. What happens when I'm in Desktop 1 and I get an IM? Can you assign apps parts of apps to a desktop? Or am I going to miss the notification. The only possibility I can think of is setting up Growl to permanently leave a new message on all 4 desktops at the same time so I don't miss anything.
Growl sends system-wide notifications, so you'll definitely be notified when you get an IM. And Adium will be in the dock, so if you have it set to bounce when you receive a message, you'll get that too.
If Photoshop is assigned to Space 2, and you're in Space 1 when you double-click a Photoshop document, the Space switches to space 2 and shows your Document.
Does automatic Space-switching happen when an app in one Space opens a window for another app in a different Space? With VirtueDesktops I'm able to open multiple Safari windows from NNW on the Browser desktop without being automatically switched there, keeping the News desktop uncluttered.
I've always preferred to explicitly switch between virtual desktops instead of it happening automatically (sometimes unexpectedly).
Quote:
There's nothing to stop you from then moving the Photoshop document back to space 1 if you want to.
Moving windows to different virtual desktops is a basic VDM capability, although it doesn't always work correctly in VirtueDesktops.
Quote:
My guess is that in older Carbon apps that don't use standard toolbox routines to draw modal dialogs, this could be a problem. What if you were working with a document in a different space from the one the app was "assigned" and the app brings up a dialog ("Pay your shareware fee!") If it doesn't use sheets or standard toolbox calls, that dialog may be displaying in a different space and the window you're working with just appears to get unresponsive. I bet Cocoa apps and well-behaved Carbon apps will have no problem though.
I'd anticipate dialogs for the active (frontmost) application to open in whatever Space you're currently working in, not in a different Space the app may have been assigned to. What's less obvious is where uninitiated dialogs might appear when the app is inactive with visible windows in the current Space but assigned to a different Space. In some cases you'd like them to show up in the current Space; other times they may be better in the app-assigned Space.
I don't know how much control Spaces gives you over different foreground/background app, initiated/unitiated window scenarios.
Quote:
Unless you really have to, I'd leave the "assigning" feature as a very rare option.
Depends on the implementation. For me CodeTek VirtualDesktop Pro (an unfortunate abandonware victim) did a better job with that than VirtueDesktops.
Quote:
Numbers are the keyboard shortcuts for jumping straight to a particular space, but aren't shown otherwise. Names attached to spaces would be kind of useless since they wouldn't be shown and wouldn't otherwise do anything. Nice sentiment (like comments in code) but not very useful.
I think named Spaces could be quite useful, e.g. in the menubar list or (if supported) a brief bezel display when switching between Spaces (like other OS X VDM's optionally do).
Quote:
I strongly agree with the digs being childish (no matter which side started them); the past is the past.
They seem an unnecessary unprofessional distraction, though not atypical considering AI's oft-tabloid mentality.
Even if the Switcher reference is totally irrelevant, the Arthur Dent reference is fantastic and more than makes up for it. Way to know your back half of the trilogy (and/or tertiary, quandry, and quintessential phases).
I'm looking forwards to spaces, because multiple desktop are imo the most efficient way of swapping between a lot of open applications.
Multiple desktops? can make it easier to manage different contexts than excessive app/window hiding/showing/switching.
Quote:
All the third party solutions like VirtueDesktops are riddled with problems maintaining the z-order and focusing of windows as you swap out, and then back to a desktop.
Not sure I understand the z-order issue (got an example?) but window focusing has been a nuisance for me with VirtueDesktops, especially when Finder is involved.
? I'm not fond of the term "virtual desktop" because it often implies characteristics that aren't "virtually" supported, e.g. a unique menubar, Dock, and/or set of Desktop icons on OS X. Giving it a fresh "Space" name in Spaces leaves it open to be more accurately defined for what it really is, including not necessarily being tied to the traditional desktop metaphor (which Dashboard and certain full-screen modes already offer some escape from).
A quick example before I hit the sack; Say you are working in, oh say photoshop in OS X. When suddenly your boss sends you a reference in the email, a small free-ware game. He wants you to design the magazine cover (or whatever it is) like the user interface of the game. Instead of having to boot up into Parallels (can't multitask, it sucks up majority of CPU and RAM, at least not enough to multitask Photoshop and Paralllels) or switch over to boot camp (closing down your PSD and making you reboot... timely)... you can just flip over to your Windows Space, navigate to the folder and run your little game and get what you need.
Its just a thought. I think it sounded better in my head, but then again Its about 3 am and I'm reading through appleinsider archives... Then again, maybe you'll see this implemented in 10.5.5
Not sure I understand what's technically preventing you from already assigning a dedicated Space to Parallels and/or Fusion (having never used either). In general, why can't a Space have a unique personality that gives it the illusion of being independent from the traditional Desktop? Surely some people will leave certain apps running full-screen, each in their own Space that never (or rarely) exposes the underlying Desktop. And Conjure lets you create unique desktop-like layers, which works without Spaces though it could be interesting to see how it integrates with it.
The desktop metaphor really isn't as sacred as some people treat it and I think it's becoming increasingly easier to live without it if you want to. For better and worse, it still just happens to be one of the most stubbornly persistent of many possible virtual environments.
So if you have files on your desktop, do they show up in every space
Yep, if the Desktop layer is visible in the current Space.
Quote:
or can you move their icons to the space associated with that task?
Nope. Still need a third-party app like Conjure for that, which probably won't be the most elegant solution because of OS X restrictions that make certain things frustratingly difficult for developers. For instance, it's a hassle to completely eliminate the Dock or to use Path Finder as a complete Finder replacement.
So lets say I have Adium open. And I have it assigned to desktop 4. What happens when I'm in Desktop 1 and I get an IM? Can you assign apps parts of apps to a desktop?
I don't know how it works with Adium and Spaces, but ?
When iChat is assigned to a desktop in VirtueDesktops the Messages popup window appears on the current desktop, then jumps back to the assigned desktop when clicked and I manually switch there to interact with it. I often make that Messages window sticky after its first opened (either automatically or manually) so it floats on every desktop, and it'll remain sticky if closed and reopened in the same iChat and VirtueDesktops session. It's a bit awkward though I didn't find any better way of handling it after fussing with different configuration options.
In VirtueDesktops I assign apps to specific desktops mostly so I won't have to move their windows around immediately after launching. I wish there were some type of differentiation between "app not running" and "app already running" states to make that kind of configuration possible. And it's tricky to control where further windows will appear? and stay if they're moved.
Based on Apple's Spaces demo videos it looks like windows can be easily moved around, and hopefully remain in whatever Space they're in independently of any assigned Space settings. That would resolve the long-frustrating "window jumps back to assigned desktop" problem with VirtueDesktops, probably a worthwhile tradeoff for other features Spaces may lack.
So if you have files on your desktop, do they show up in every space, or can you move their icons to the space associated with that task?
For instance, if I have a set of text documents I'm editing and they're currently sitting on my desktop, can I move them to the desktop space where my text editor is active, and get them off of my other desktop spaces, or do they stay on the desktop no matter which space I move to?
Yes, that's right. They show up in every space. It's always the same shortcuts because it's always the same desktop and it never moves. Switching spaces moves the windows.
I was also doing support for Mac OS System 7 - 9 and Windows machines. It was NOT an OS feature in Windows till XP - it was all the drivers. It was inconsistent in many cases: you could not tell an application to remember it's windows positions on both screens, you could run into problem when trying to calibrate the monitor, some games wil f@#$ it up and bring to mirroring etc. I am not sure it is all clean in Widows now (there were some problems in XP service pack 1 at least, not doing this kind of setups since then).
That's not true. Windows 2000 and previous NT versions have had multi-monitor support since 1996 or so. You didn't have to install drivers for the second video card if the drivers were already in Windows or you were using the same type of card for both the first and second monitors.
That's not true. Windows 2000 and previous NT versions have had multi-monitor support since 1996 or so. You didn't have to install drivers for the second video card if the drivers were already in Windows or you were using the same type of card for both the first and second monitors.
The one problem Windows had, and still has, is color calibration. It's a reason why doing color work within the OS is a real pain. Calibrating one monitor is a big enough problem, ding two isn't possible. There are supposed workarounds, but they really don't work.
MS has "tried" to fix this in Vista, but hasn't. There are problems with profiles, etc. Sadly enough, nothing useful has bee accomplished.
Not to say that there aren't some proprietary solutions, because there are. But they either only work with the specialized equipment that the manufacturer offers as a turnkey solution, or are just simply too expensive for much other than high end pro applications.
Here is just one article explaining the woes, something I've had to live with for years in my lab., a reason why, dual monitor support or not, Windows is a failure for the graphics arts, video editing, and photo professions.
Spaces doesn't actually provide different workspaces as such. It's a single workspace and triggering the switch to another space only (in reality) slides windows out of the user's view. The special effects such as windows sliding into the workspace and out again is just that...a special effect...it looks very convincing because it really looks like you're switching from one screen to another...but the Dock, the desktop picture, and the menu bar are all fixed.
It's a clever game of hiding specific windows and showing others. And if that kind of behavior is considered switching workspaces then there's plenty evidence of prior art to put this legal entanglement to rest.
Does Spaces allow you the option of a desktop pager? I mean icons of your virtual desktops that are always there on your desktop, without having to hit a hotkey. I have become used to Codetek virtual desktops (I know they don't work on intel machines but I'll be upgrading as soon as leopard is released). I don't like the idea of having to hit F8 in order to get a snapshot of my desktops.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
Does Spaces allow you the option of a desktop pager? I mean icons of your virtual desktops that are always there on your desktop, without having to hit a hotkey. I have become used to Codetek virtual desktops (I know they don't work on intel machines but I'll be upgrading as soon as leopard is released). I don't like the idea of having to hit F8 in order to get a snapshot of my desktops.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
No...the closest thing you'll get to a key-combo free view of all your spaces would adding a hot-corner to activate Spaces. But there is no way to view your other spaces without activating Spaces. Perhaps someone will have a utility that allows this eventually.
Does Spaces allow you the option of a desktop pager? I mean icons of your virtual desktops that are always there on your desktop, without having to hit a hotkey. I have become used to Codetek virtual desktops (I know they don't work on intel machines but I'll be upgrading as soon as leopard is released). I don't like the idea of having to hit F8 in order to get a snapshot of my desktops.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
No...the closest thing you'll get to a key-combo free view of all your spaces would adding a hot-corner to activate Spaces. But there is no way to view your other spaces without activating Spaces. Perhaps someone will create a utility that allows this eventually.
Comments
I musta hit a sore spot, eh?
No, you're just being an ass for no apparent reason.
What part of "but even Space only displays a single instance of the Dock and menubar " did you not understand? Why would Apple make an exception for people like you that want to use a second monitor to make it do something it's not intended to do? My advice, switch to Windows.
Well, for one thing, the incorrect grammar ("but even Space only.."). It's impossible to tell what you're trying to say there, except perhaps to suggest we should all be clairvoyant and have already known precisely what Apple planned to do. Space[s] on a single monitor only displays one dock and menu bar (and why wouldn't it? It's just one monitor!). What on earth does that have to do with multiple monitors, a topic which until now has not been directly addressed by Apple in press releases or any of the other publically available info on Leopard? We have all been left wondering what Spaces was "intended to do" with multiple monitors, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to expect that their claim that a program intended to provide multiple virtual desktops would "support" multiple monitors meant that multiple desktops would be visible on these multiple monitors. Only now do we find out that's not so, but there was absolutely nothing in the information Apple has provided regarding this feature in the last 14 months that would allow us to know this.
And Windows does not provide anything like this functionality, what are you talking about? Stop being an apologist.
Linux vendors Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. are being sued for patent infringement by IP Innovation LLC and Technology Licensing Corp.
The plaintiffs claim they own U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412 for a "User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects" issued Dec. 10, 1991, as well as two other similar patents. It is believed to be the first patent infringement lawsuit involving Linux.
Computerworld article
To be clear, this is off-topic. I do hear some confusion when some of my Ubuntu friends start mistaking features in a virtual machine manager for the features in Spaces (a virtual desktop manager) and saying it comes up short, when in fact these are different issues. What follows are off-topic fantasy thinking that should in no way be construed as shortcomings of Spaces.
I'd love to launch a set of applications in their own Virtual Machine on OS X. When setting up a Filemaker driven website, it'd be nice to have a VM with Filemaker, Safari, and a text editor and the reference documentation setup. Instead of launching and quitting all those each day, I just freeze the virtual machine and restart it the next (without the launching and window arranging). Let's say I have a bunch of these VM's: a Photoshop/Illustrator one, and an XCode & Interface Builder one, and a bunch of others. When I launch one it takes over the screen and I can mix things within the VM, but I won't ever see an XCode window in my Photoshop area. Some extra enforced isolation when I want it. And now that we have an interface for managing the machines, we can also tack on an interface for scheduling and resource allocation. Let's say I had a Photoshop filter going that will take 4.3 hours (and has already been going for 2.5). I start to compile something in Xcode in my other VM and see it'll take and hour and a half. Since these are whole environments, I'd like to be able to freeze Photoshop for a while exactly as it stands and give Xcode the CPU so that it takes only half that time as when it's competing with the Photoshop VM. Then I can let Photoshop go again and have the CPU to itself. I have no idea what sort of interface would work well for this, all I can think of is a big 3x3 grid like the Brady Bunch intro except with VMs instead of Brady heads. Maybe something more "remote control" like since you are switching between channels yet the channels keep going in your absence. I don't know. As nice as all this is, it's kind of limited because each of these VM's is so isolated. Sometimes that isolation is good, but it might be more useful being able to selectively break down that isolation. Moving clipboard data. Moving windows in and out of other VM areas. InterVM communication as if the processes were talking over a network. These would be cool, but they'd be an incredible engineering effort to intelligently break down the isolation securely and with a user interface that could be intuitively grasped by users.
Virtual machine management isn't what Spaces is all about. I'd like to see it one day as some future OS feature, but I'm plenty happy with what's already been engineered.
Ah, ok. Quite a bit more than I was asking for (which was basically just changes to the Spaces UI). I'd be surprised if they went for VMs considering their paranoia about anything that could allow OS X to be run on different hardware (someone would surely reverse-engineer it). I could see them enhancing Spaces though -- would it require real virtualization, for instance, to force all the apps in a Space to go into some kind of "suspended" mode (although this admittedly wouldn't be perfect as apps can span multiple Spaces..). There are a lot of interesting possibilities for improvement -- some way to make a space prioritized just like processes can be, password-protected spaces, etc.
If Photoshop is assigned to Space 2, and you're in Space 1 when you double-click a Photoshop document, the Space switches to space 2 and shows your Document.
Does automatic Space-switching happen when an app in one Space opens a window for another app in a different Space? With VirtueDesktops I'm able to open multiple Safari windows from NNW on the Browser desktop without being automatically switched there, keeping the News desktop uncluttered.
I've always preferred to explicitly switch between virtual desktops instead of it happening automatically (sometimes unexpectedly).
There's nothing to stop you from then moving the Photoshop document back to space 1 if you want to.
Moving windows to different virtual desktops is a basic VDM capability, although it doesn't always work correctly in VirtueDesktops.
My guess is that in older Carbon apps that don't use standard toolbox routines to draw modal dialogs, this could be a problem. What if you were working with a document in a different space from the one the app was "assigned" and the app brings up a dialog ("Pay your shareware fee!") If it doesn't use sheets or standard toolbox calls, that dialog may be displaying in a different space and the window you're working with just appears to get unresponsive. I bet Cocoa apps and well-behaved Carbon apps will have no problem though.
I'd anticipate dialogs for the active (frontmost) application to open in whatever Space you're currently working in, not in a different Space the app may have been assigned to. What's less obvious is where uninitiated dialogs might appear when the app is inactive with visible windows in the current Space but assigned to a different Space. In some cases you'd like them to show up in the current Space; other times they may be better in the app-assigned Space.
I don't know how much control Spaces gives you over different foreground/background app, initiated/unitiated window scenarios.
Unless you really have to, I'd leave the "assigning" feature as a very rare option.
Depends on the implementation. For me CodeTek VirtualDesktop Pro (an unfortunate abandonware victim) did a better job with that than VirtueDesktops.
Numbers are the keyboard shortcuts for jumping straight to a particular space, but aren't shown otherwise. Names attached to spaces would be kind of useless since they wouldn't be shown and wouldn't otherwise do anything. Nice sentiment (like comments in code) but not very useful.
I think named Spaces could be quite useful, e.g. in the menubar list or (if supported) a brief bezel display when switching between Spaces (like other OS X VDM's optionally do).
I strongly agree with the digs being childish (no matter which side started them); the past is the past.
They seem an unnecessary unprofessional distraction, though not atypical considering AI's oft-tabloid mentality.
I'm looking forwards to spaces, because multiple desktop are imo the most efficient way of swapping between a lot of open applications.
Multiple desktops? can make it easier to manage different contexts than excessive app/window hiding/showing/switching.
All the third party solutions like VirtueDesktops are riddled with problems maintaining the z-order and focusing of windows as you swap out, and then back to a desktop.
Not sure I understand the z-order issue (got an example?) but window focusing has been a nuisance for me with VirtueDesktops, especially when Finder is involved.
? I'm not fond of the term "virtual desktop" because it often implies characteristics that aren't "virtually" supported, e.g. a unique menubar, Dock, and/or set of Desktop icons on OS X. Giving it a fresh "Space" name in Spaces leaves it open to be more accurately defined for what it really is, including not necessarily being tied to the traditional desktop metaphor (which Dashboard and certain full-screen modes already offer some escape from).
A quick example before I hit the sack; Say you are working in, oh say photoshop in OS X. When suddenly your boss sends you a reference in the email, a small free-ware game. He wants you to design the magazine cover (or whatever it is) like the user interface of the game. Instead of having to boot up into Parallels (can't multitask, it sucks up majority of CPU and RAM, at least not enough to multitask Photoshop and Paralllels) or switch over to boot camp (closing down your PSD and making you reboot... timely)... you can just flip over to your Windows Space, navigate to the folder and run your little game and get what you need.
Its just a thought. I think it sounded better in my head, but then again Its about 3 am and I'm reading through appleinsider archives... Then again, maybe you'll see this implemented in 10.5.5
Not sure I understand what's technically preventing you from already assigning a dedicated Space to Parallels and/or Fusion (having never used either). In general, why can't a Space have a unique personality that gives it the illusion of being independent from the traditional Desktop? Surely some people will leave certain apps running full-screen, each in their own Space that never (or rarely) exposes the underlying Desktop. And Conjure lets you create unique desktop-like layers, which works without Spaces though it could be interesting to see how it integrates with it.
The desktop metaphor really isn't as sacred as some people treat it and I think it's becoming increasingly easier to live without it if you want to. For better and worse, it still just happens to be one of the most stubbornly persistent of many possible virtual environments.
So if you have files on your desktop, do they show up in every space
Yep, if the Desktop layer is visible in the current Space.
or can you move their icons to the space associated with that task?
Nope. Still need a third-party app like Conjure for that, which probably won't be the most elegant solution because of OS X restrictions that make certain things frustratingly difficult for developers. For instance, it's a hassle to completely eliminate the Dock or to use Path Finder as a complete Finder replacement.
So lets say I have Adium open. And I have it assigned to desktop 4. What happens when I'm in Desktop 1 and I get an IM? Can you assign apps parts of apps to a desktop?
I don't know how it works with Adium and Spaces, but ?
When iChat is assigned to a desktop in VirtueDesktops the Messages popup window appears on the current desktop, then jumps back to the assigned desktop when clicked and I manually switch there to interact with it. I often make that Messages window sticky after its first opened (either automatically or manually) so it floats on every desktop, and it'll remain sticky if closed and reopened in the same iChat and VirtueDesktops session. It's a bit awkward though I didn't find any better way of handling it after fussing with different configuration options.
In VirtueDesktops I assign apps to specific desktops mostly so I won't have to move their windows around immediately after launching. I wish there were some type of differentiation between "app not running" and "app already running" states to make that kind of configuration possible. And it's tricky to control where further windows will appear? and stay if they're moved.
Based on Apple's Spaces demo videos it looks like windows can be easily moved around, and hopefully remain in whatever Space they're in independently of any assigned Space settings. That would resolve the long-frustrating "window jumps back to assigned desktop" problem with VirtueDesktops, probably a worthwhile tradeoff for other features Spaces may lack.
So if you have files on your desktop, do they show up in every space, or can you move their icons to the space associated with that task?
For instance, if I have a set of text documents I'm editing and they're currently sitting on my desktop, can I move them to the desktop space where my text editor is active, and get them off of my other desktop spaces, or do they stay on the desktop no matter which space I move to?
Yes, that's right. They show up in every space. It's always the same shortcuts because it's always the same desktop and it never moves. Switching spaces moves the windows.
I was also doing support for Mac OS System 7 - 9 and Windows machines. It was NOT an OS feature in Windows till XP - it was all the drivers. It was inconsistent in many cases: you could not tell an application to remember it's windows positions on both screens, you could run into problem when trying to calibrate the monitor, some games wil f@#$ it up and bring to mirroring etc. I am not sure it is all clean in Widows now (there were some problems in XP service pack 1 at least, not doing this kind of setups since then).
That's not true. Windows 2000 and previous NT versions have had multi-monitor support since 1996 or so. You didn't have to install drivers for the second video card if the drivers were already in Windows or you were using the same type of card for both the first and second monitors.
That's not true. Windows 2000 and previous NT versions have had multi-monitor support since 1996 or so. You didn't have to install drivers for the second video card if the drivers were already in Windows or you were using the same type of card for both the first and second monitors.
The one problem Windows had, and still has, is color calibration. It's a reason why doing color work within the OS is a real pain. Calibrating one monitor is a big enough problem, ding two isn't possible. There are supposed workarounds, but they really don't work.
MS has "tried" to fix this in Vista, but hasn't. There are problems with profiles, etc. Sadly enough, nothing useful has bee accomplished.
Not to say that there aren't some proprietary solutions, because there are. But they either only work with the specialized equipment that the manufacturer offers as a turnkey solution, or are just simply too expensive for much other than high end pro applications.
Here is just one article explaining the woes, something I've had to live with for years in my lab., a reason why, dual monitor support or not, Windows is a failure for the graphics arts, video editing, and photo professions.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/v...p?TopicID=2518
Looks like Spaces may be subject to the same legal issues that this news story describes about Red Hat and Novell
Computerworld article
Probably not though.
Spaces doesn't actually provide different workspaces as such. It's a single workspace and triggering the switch to another space only (in reality) slides windows out of the user's view. The special effects such as windows sliding into the workspace and out again is just that...a special effect...it looks very convincing because it really looks like you're switching from one screen to another...but the Dock, the desktop picture, and the menu bar are all fixed.
It's a clever game of hiding specific windows and showing others. And if that kind of behavior is considered switching workspaces then there's plenty evidence of prior art to put this legal entanglement to rest.
Stop being an apologist.
I rarely defend Apple...but when I do, I get called an apologist. Am I really an apologist?
Anyways, I shouldn't be talking to someone with the word 'anus' in his name. Later, dude.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
Does Spaces allow you the option of a desktop pager? I mean icons of your virtual desktops that are always there on your desktop, without having to hit a hotkey. I have become used to Codetek virtual desktops (I know they don't work on intel machines but I'll be upgrading as soon as leopard is released). I don't like the idea of having to hit F8 in order to get a snapshot of my desktops.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
No...the closest thing you'll get to a key-combo free view of all your spaces would adding a hot-corner to activate Spaces. But there is no way to view your other spaces without activating Spaces. Perhaps someone will have a utility that allows this eventually.
Does Spaces allow you the option of a desktop pager? I mean icons of your virtual desktops that are always there on your desktop, without having to hit a hotkey. I have become used to Codetek virtual desktops (I know they don't work on intel machines but I'll be upgrading as soon as leopard is released). I don't like the idea of having to hit F8 in order to get a snapshot of my desktops.
P.S. By the way, excellent articles and great forum (I am hooked and just registered).
No...the closest thing you'll get to a key-combo free view of all your spaces would adding a hot-corner to activate Spaces. But there is no way to view your other spaces without activating Spaces. Perhaps someone will create a utility that allows this eventually.