Exactly...not only is it prudent for MS to ensure good interoperability with 10.2 before releasing a major update, but that update may in fact *require* the changes being made to 10.2.
So the question then becomes, if Microsoft has access to the new API's and 10.2 builds (which they obviously do), do they have to wait until those API changes are frozen before final testing and release, or can they say "well, the parts of the Carbon API and inner-workings of OS X that affect our product have been stable (frozen) already, so we'll just release when we're ready and not worry about 10.2's final release"?
[quote]Also, what happened to Space? I won't install it, because it seems to have stopped development almost a year ago! Maybe Apple is going to FINALLY incorporate Virtual Desktops as a feature!? Off by default, quickly available to pros.<hr></blockquote>
you should write to the dev, he sent me a beta a couple of weeks ago that supports keybinding, pretty nice.
I hear everyone talking about Virtual Desktops for OS X and how great that would be if Apple implemented it. I have never really used a system with Virtual Desktops so I really can't comment, it seems like a neat idea but what really would be the benefit?
Is it easy enough for Apple to have implemented it in 10.2?
<strong>I hear everyone talking about Virtual Desktops for OS X and how great that would be if Apple implemented it. I have never really used a system with Virtual Desktops so I really can't comment, it seems like a neat idea but what really would be the benefit?
Is it easy enough for Apple to have implemented it in 10.2?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Generally, when people talk of Virtual Desktops they're referring to the ability to extend the size of the desktop, virtually (as opposed to physically, i.e. by going to higher resolution or multiple monitors). This is, generally, done in one of two ways: 1) Via a single large desktop that is viewed through the monitor(s), and may be scrolled to view different parts; or 2) via multiple monitor sized desktops that the user can "flip" through (sometimes with common elements in all such desktops).
Both of these are certainly useful in extending the screen realestate, and, especially in the multi-desktop form (case 2, though it can be simulated, by the user, in case 1), in organizing one's work into various workspaces.
However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain). In this form, each "Virtual Desktop/Console" is more like the whole Mac OS X console: You log into each separately. Therefore, you can have various sessions going in each "Virtual Console" that are logged in as different users, potentially with different user privileges (such as an Administrator login, and an unprivileged user login for testing). While this can be used the same way as the multi-desktop (case 2), it has the added feature of allowing different privileges in each.
I know on my home system, which I share with my wife and kids, I have often wished for something like "Virtual Consoles". The problem is that I may be in the middle of something, like a download, a long compile, or number crunching run, when my wife or children want to check their email, or something else I wouldn't mind temporarily relinquishing the console for, provided it didn't involve interrupting the processes I have underway. What I could really use is a way to allow another user to log-in over my session, without interrupting it, and return to it once the user is done.
This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
The hard part with "Virtual Consoles" is that it will, likely, require the Quartz Window Manager to be modified to allow for multiple simultaneous user contexts. However, other than allowing for larger than physical "Virtual Desktops" (case 1), this is what I would most certainly like to see Apple implement.
However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The virtual consoles (available via ALT-Fx in Linux) are textmode only, so I'm not quite sure if that's what you were thinking about (you can't have more than one X-Server running on a Linux machine at any given time [under normal circumstances - you might be able to have two of them running on different graphocs cards, never tried that, though]).
While it is true that virtual consoles allow you to login with different user credentials at the same time, opening multiple terminal windows and using "su INSERT_USERNAME_HERE" allows you to do pretty much the same.
But I think what you really mean is the "fast user switching" feature found in WinXP, where you can temporarily switch to another user and leave the original one running in the background, even in GUI mode. I don't know of any Linux distro that features something similar, though.
[quote]<strong>This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
> However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain).
The virtual consoles (available via ALT-Fx in Linux) are textmode only, so I'm not quite sure if that's what you were thinking about ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, this is exactly what I meant, when I said "like unto". In other words, I was referring to a graphic console version of the Linux textmode only virtual consoles (one of which, of course, can be graphical, due to the limitation you note with the X Windowing System).
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
But I think what you really mean is the "fast user switching" feature found in WinXP, where you can temporarily switch to another user and leave the original one running in the background, even in GUI mode. ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am thinking of something similar to this, though without the layering. (Actually, I once thought I wanted the layering, but then I decided against it.)
Incidentally, have you ever used this feature of WinXP? I had been unclear whether the original user would still be logged in, or would be logged out. (The descriptions I read seemed to indicate it was more akin to combining the logout procedure with the login window. However, I certainly could have read things wrong. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> )
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
> Originally posted by Halliday:
> This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
This is more or less how it works in WinXP.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<hr></blockquote></strong>
However, according to your description of this feature, the original user would not be able to check on the progress of his/her work without logging out the new user---would they? Or is there some feature that allows for a "fast user switch" back to a backgrounded user session? (Unfortunately [or fortunately, in some peoples minds] I have not had experience with these features of WinXP.)
I really wish nested quotes worked properly (or HTML were enabled)! Then I could have had this done much easier, and it would have looked better, as well.
Comments
So the question then becomes, if Microsoft has access to the new API's and 10.2 builds (which they obviously do), do they have to wait until those API changes are frozen before final testing and release, or can they say "well, the parts of the Carbon API and inner-workings of OS X that affect our product have been stable (frozen) already, so we'll just release when we're ready and not worry about 10.2's final release"?
you should write to the dev, he sent me a beta a couple of weeks ago that supports keybinding, pretty nice.
Is it easy enough for Apple to have implemented it in 10.2?
[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Quarem ]</p>
<strong>I hear everyone talking about Virtual Desktops for OS X and how great that would be if Apple implemented it. I have never really used a system with Virtual Desktops so I really can't comment, it seems like a neat idea but what really would be the benefit?
Is it easy enough for Apple to have implemented it in 10.2?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Generally, when people talk of Virtual Desktops they're referring to the ability to extend the size of the desktop, virtually (as opposed to physically, i.e. by going to higher resolution or multiple monitors). This is, generally, done in one of two ways: 1) Via a single large desktop that is viewed through the monitor(s), and may be scrolled to view different parts; or 2) via multiple monitor sized desktops that the user can "flip" through (sometimes with common elements in all such desktops).
Both of these are certainly useful in extending the screen realestate, and, especially in the multi-desktop form (case 2, though it can be simulated, by the user, in case 1), in organizing one's work into various workspaces.
However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain). In this form, each "Virtual Desktop/Console" is more like the whole Mac OS X console: You log into each separately. Therefore, you can have various sessions going in each "Virtual Console" that are logged in as different users, potentially with different user privileges (such as an Administrator login, and an unprivileged user login for testing). While this can be used the same way as the multi-desktop (case 2), it has the added feature of allowing different privileges in each.
I know on my home system, which I share with my wife and kids, I have often wished for something like "Virtual Consoles". The problem is that I may be in the middle of something, like a download, a long compile, or number crunching run, when my wife or children want to check their email, or something else I wouldn't mind temporarily relinquishing the console for, provided it didn't involve interrupting the processes I have underway. What I could really use is a way to allow another user to log-in over my session, without interrupting it, and return to it once the user is done.
This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
The hard part with "Virtual Consoles" is that it will, likely, require the Quartz Window Manager to be modified to allow for multiple simultaneous user contexts. However, other than allowing for larger than physical "Virtual Desktops" (case 1), this is what I would most certainly like to see Apple implement.
<strong>
However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The virtual consoles (available via ALT-Fx in Linux) are textmode only, so I'm not quite sure if that's what you were thinking about (you can't have more than one X-Server running on a Linux machine at any given time [under normal circumstances - you might be able to have two of them running on different graphocs cards, never tried that, though]).
While it is true that virtual consoles allow you to login with different user credentials at the same time, opening multiple terminal windows and using "su INSERT_USERNAME_HERE" allows you to do pretty much the same.
But I think what you really mean is the "fast user switching" feature found in WinXP, where you can temporarily switch to another user and leave the original one running in the background, even in GUI mode. I don't know of any Linux distro that features something similar, though.
[quote]<strong>This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is more or less how it works in WinXP.
Bye,
RazzFazz
I can see the Virtual Console idea being useful in single computer multiple user environments; such as the one you mentioned.
Virtual Desktops would be sweet, especially if you could drag and drop between them.
<strong>
> Originally posted by Halliday:
> However, perhaps in addition to the above, there is another form of "Virtual Desktop" that is like unto a feature found in some Linux distributions (are they called virtual consoles? I'm uncertain).
The virtual consoles (available via ALT-Fx in Linux) are textmode only, so I'm not quite sure if that's what you were thinking about ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, this is exactly what I meant, when I said "like unto". In other words, I was referring to a graphic console version of the Linux textmode only virtual consoles (one of which, of course, can be graphical, due to the limitation you note with the X Windowing System).
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
But I think what you really mean is the "fast user switching" feature found in WinXP, where you can temporarily switch to another user and leave the original one running in the background, even in GUI mode. ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am thinking of something similar to this, though without the layering. (Actually, I once thought I wanted the layering, but then I decided against it.)
Incidentally, have you ever used this feature of WinXP? I had been unclear whether the original user would still be logged in, or would be logged out. (The descriptions I read seemed to indicate it was more akin to combining the logout procedure with the login window. However, I certainly could have read things wrong. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> )
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>
> Originally posted by Halliday:
> This could be done via "Virtual Consoles", by screen-locking my session first (for security purposes), then switched to an unused "Virtual Console" (that would have the login window showing), and allow the user to then login as normal. (This would even allow me to interrupt them to check on my work, without requiring them to log out.)
This is more or less how it works in WinXP.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<hr></blockquote></strong>
However, according to your description of this feature, the original user would not be able to check on the progress of his/her work without logging out the new user---would they? Or is there some feature that allows for a "fast user switch" back to a backgrounded user session? (Unfortunately [or fortunately, in some peoples minds] I have not had experience with these features of WinXP.)
I really wish nested quotes worked properly (or HTML were enabled)!
[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Halliday ]</p>