[cla]

If maximizing a window would automatically minimize the currently active window, (so that a user could only see one window at a time)...

...what do you suppose would be the biggest gripe?

[ShotgunEd]

I believe OSX DP had this feature, by clicking the "mysterious blue blob" on the upper right you'd go into single window mode.

I reckon my gripe would be I'd have to cut and paste files to move them from one folder to another, of which I'm not a fan.

[OreoCookie]

Just use windows for a while.

Personally, you tend to do a lot less multitasking. And most computer newbies still don't understand where their app went, after all, they can't see it anymore.

[Chuckit]

The biggest gripe would be that this is pointlessly limiting and caters to the lowest common denominator.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ShotgunEd

I believe OSX DP had this feature, by clicking the "mysterious blue blob" on the upper right you'd go into single window mode.

No, it was the purple droplet (just like the close/minimize/maximize buttons). The blue blob was the experimental Exposé activator in Panther.

tooki

[ajprice]

I can't find it now but a website has a mockup called 'Desk' of a one window OS X interface. It has loads of comments saying it should be how OS X works and to make it into an application, not sure whats happening with it now.

[stinch]

I think it would be better to go in the other direction. Make it much easier to have many visible windows at once. Of course the trick is finding a good way to manage the windows. I think there can be big improvements over the current methods.

[mdc]

stinch. i think expose does a good job of managing a lot of windows.

@the original post. i think the answer is a mix of a. and b.

[CharlesS]

Having one app/window visible at a time was a good idea back in the day when an SE/30 with a 9 inch screen was considered a pretty decent machine.

Why anyone would want a window to cover the entirety of a 20" widescreen LCD, or even worse, a 23" or 30", is anyone's guess.

[wataru]

I absolutely hate MDI. Though this isn't necessarily the same thing, they often go hand-in-hand. I have no desire for such a thing on OS X.

[Randman]

No need with a larger screen. Be counter-productive even.

[SMacTech]

My point-of-sale application had a window for each database in the OS 9 version. There were 5 database windows. It overwhelmed many users, while others loved it. You could view them all, in a separate window, albeit with a large enough monitor.

In the OS X version, I reduced it to a single window [ main databases ]. There are of course other windows for other functions. Anyway, the change had some new users that didn't like the interface, and many veteran users lauded it. Go figure.

So now, I will appeal to both camps with a user preference.

But I think, in some ways, a single window UI , like iTunes, iPhoto and Safari can work well. However, not one which encompassed the entire screen. For example, tabs work quite well for web browsing, while others prefer individual windows. Let there be the option for both.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Having one app/window visible at a time was a good idea back in the day when an SE/30 with a 9 inch screen was considered a pretty decent machine.

Why anyone would want a window to cover the entirety of a 20" widescreen LCD, or even worse, a 23" or 30", is anyone's guess.

9"?? When was that a pretty decent screen size??!
(My first computer, an Amiga 500, came with a 14" monitor with integrated stereo speakers, and that was 1988!)

PS I checked: the SE/30 was sold from 1989-90 :wow:
The smallest Amiga screen had 12" back then. Interestingly enough, the multitasking of the Amiga OS adhered to the one window philosophy, you had to drag the menu bar down to unveil the other apps.

[ShotgunEd]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, it was the purple droplet (just like the close/minimize/maximize buttons). The blue blob was the experimental Exposé activator in Panther.

tooki

Yeah, when i re-opened this thread this morning and re-read my post I realised that it was a purple widget. I wasn't referring the the blue blob for Exposé (that can still be enabled with some 3rd party apps).

[cla]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

9"?? When was that a pretty decent screen size??!
(My first computer, an Amiga 500, came with a 14" monitor with integrated stereo speakers, and that was 1988!)

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index12.html :>

[cla]

Originally Posted by stinch

I think it would be better to go in the other direction. Make it much easier to have many visible windows at once. Of course the trick is finding a good way to manage the windows. I think there can be big improvements over the current methods.

I'm working on a video mockup in which I'm combining the two approaches (hence this poll).
Easily switching context is just as critical as it is unsolved, and imo Exposé isn't up for the job.
(I find using Exposé a big disruptance in my workflow since I have no way of predicting what window will be "Exposéd" where)

[OreoCookie]

That's different. The relative distance to a laptop is much smaller. Plus the viewable area of a 14" crt is roughly that of a 13" lcd.

[cla]

Originally Posted by ajprice

I can't find it now but a website has a mockup called 'Desk' of a one window OS X interface.

Keep looking... :>

[esXXI]

ajprice was referring to this thread, right here on MacNN.

I dislike the whole one-window idea, personally.

[chris v]

I also find it to be a terrible idea, in general. I often need multiple files up for comparison, like trying to color-match two scans in Photoshop, or when I'm cutting/pasting text between a text doc or email and Illustrator, etc. Just 10 minutes ago, I was comparing the formatting between a Word file in Word, and the same file, opened in Pages. Exposé, the dock and the app switcher (command+tab) have made managing multiple windows easy, and I find that now, I'll have 8 or 10 windows open at a time, and it doesn't confuse me in the slightest.

One of the things I've always detested about Windows is how each application takes over the entire desktop, and the only way out is to minimize to the task bar. Waaay too much clicking/zooming going on for me trying move to between various apps in Windows.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

9"?? When was that a pretty decent screen size??!
(My first computer, an Amiga 500, came with a 14" monitor with integrated stereo speakers, and that was 1988!)

PS I checked: the SE/30 was sold from 1989-90 :wow:
The smallest Amiga screen had 12" back then. Interestingly enough, the multitasking of the Amiga OS adhered to the one window philosophy, you had to drag the menu bar down to unveil the other apps.

Well, given that there are still a lot of people that look back on the SE/30 very fondly, that tells me that the small screen must not have been a big deal when the thing was new. And after that machine, there were the Classic, the Classic II, the Color Classic (10", but still only 512x384 resolution), and the Color Classic II floating around all the way until 1994. And as for any machine with a 12" screen, well my parents had one of those when I was young. The one that came with the LC II was 12", and it was 560x384, the size increase being barely noticeable over the 9" at 512x342. Basically, you could now see the title bar of the window containing a HyperCard stack whereas before you couldn't.

Anyway, talk about a way to miss my point. What I was saying was that monitors used to be small, and now they're not. If you have to be nitpicky, then replace the SE/30 in my example with the Mac Plus back in 1986. Or even with your 14" on your Amiga - that's still only 640x480! The point is that filling the whole screen kind of made sense back then, but now it's just stupid. Even on a 1024x768 screen like on the 12" PowerBook, you don't need to have your windows filling the whole screen (I should know, I was using 1024x768 for about 5 years!).