[~bash $]

Ok, it's never as dramatic as "screwed up," but there are some basic things that seem missing. These may or may not have some sort of hidden prefs or defaults written in somewhere.

--Keyboard shortcut config is painfully limited
--"Bump" has a long delay
--Unconfigurable sliding transition in Bump
--Can only bump with a window under your cursor that you're dragging
--The window you are dragging along gets positioned on the wrong side of the new screen -- not fvwm2 like.

This is the only UI feature I was looking forward to in Leopard. Unfortunately, I'm pretty disappointed. Here's to a clever third party app that fixes all this behavior, or some sort of hidden prefs. Happy hunting ...

[ginoledesma]

Yeah, I was disappointed that you're only limited to using Ctrl, Option, and Command for directional changes. But what irks me is that Spaces seems to get activated somehow when I use the Terminal. After some typing, hitting CTRL-ArrowKey (to quickly skip words) causes the desktop to be changed -- even when Spaces is disabled.

Don't know if my keyboard is sending a trigger somehow.

[Geobunny]

Try this one then. Open TextEdit (or any other application) in space 1 and open a document. Now, go to space 2 and try creating a new blank TextEdit (or same app as before) document without having the machine throw you back to space 1. Can't do it.

Rather than letting us control things, it seems Apple has decided for us that we need to reserve one space per activity (eg web browsing in space 1, email in space 2, word processing in space 3 etc) and when you want to use one of those apps from a different space, you're dumped back onto the space which happens to have that application in it whether you want that or not. This is the first virtual desktop manager I've seen that tries to tell me when I want to change desktops.

Most people I know (myself included) organise their virtual desktops in terms of their current real world activity/task and the active desktop only changes when specifically requested by the user. For example, I've got lots of projects on the go at work and I dedicate one virtual desktop to each so that I can keep them nicely segregated. Now imagine I'm working on project 1 and realise I need to check something on the web; I click the Safari icon in the dock and I'm immediately and unexpectedly transported to some other Space which has a couple of browser windows already on it, but they're related to project 3, as are all the other documents on that screen. I only wanted to look something up quickly, close the browser window and be back at my project 1 again. It may not sound like much, but it's utterly infuriating and actually a lot more disruptive than you might imagine.

The currently active space should only change when I tell it to. There isn't even a user preference for it. Between this and the other thread re Stacks, I'm not convinced 10.5 is worth the upgrade in its current state.

[~bash $]

Spaces is like a lame version of CodeTek virtual desktops with the annoyances in Virtue Desktops. To be fair to Virtue Desktops, it was (a) free and useful and (b) abandoned when spaces was announced, so never in a "finished" state.

Can't seem to move xterm windows using the bump.

[ginoledesma]

You can have different windows in different spaces, but it requires you to manually move that over. Hit Fn+F8 (or F8) to bring up Spaces, and simply drag one window to another.

I think the rationale here was that you initially want to "limit" each space for a particular activity, as you mentioned. But there is a way to get around that.

[shinji]

Once you have your windows arranged in Spaces, is there a hot key combination to bring them al back into one window? Or I'd just have to disable and reenable it?

[ginoledesma]

Originally Posted by ginoledesma 

Yeah, I was disappointed that you're only limited to using Ctrl, Option, and Command for directional changes.

Apparently there's more combinations than just Command, Control, and Option. If you hold down other modifier keys (Command, Control, Shift, Option) before clicking the drop down menu, you can do combinations. For example, you can do Command-Option-Arrow Key instead. The blurb wasn't really immediately obvious with that.

Originally Posted by shinji 

Once you have your windows arranged in Spaces, is there a hot key combination to bring them al back into one window? Or I'd just have to disable and reenable it?

That's the only way I'm aware of. The Expose commands work only on the current, active space.

[legacyb4]

It seems pretty logical to me; if Textedit is open only in Space 3 and I'm in Space 1, if I click or toggled to Textedit would it not be pretty safe to assume I want to go to the active Textedit document?

If I've now opened a second Textedit document and moved it to Space 1 and now click on Textedit, it toggles me back and forth between the two Spaces. The only time things get a bit weird is if I command-tab; I get the last used Textedit document with no option to choose the first used document.

Flipping between the different apps does seem to be a bit inconsistent though on whether it takes you to the window in the active space or hidden space.

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Try this one then. Open TextEdit (or any other application) in space 1 and open a document. Now, go to space 2 and try creating a new blank TextEdit (or same app as before) document without having the machine throw you back to space 1. Can't do it.

Rather than letting us control things, it seems Apple has decided for us that we need to reserve one space per activity (eg web browsing in space 1, email in space 2, word processing in space 3 etc) and when you want to use one of those apps from a different space, you're dumped back onto the space which happens to have that application in it whether you want that or not. This is the first virtual desktop manager I've seen that tries to tell me when I want to change desktops.

[~bash $]

Originally Posted by shinji 

Once you have your windows arranged in Spaces, is there a hot key combination to bring them al back into one window? Or I'd just have to disable and reenable it?

In spaces (default f8), hit 'c' and all of them will be merged into one window.

[shinji]

nice one, thx

[Chuckit]

Spaces works great for me. All of the behavior seems to be pretty much as I anticipate. It sounds like some people in this thread may be suffering from Switcher Syndrome — your experience with one environment creates false expectations of how things will work in another.

[beez1717]

Originally Posted by legacyb4 

It seems pretty logical to me; if Textedit is open only in Space 3 and I'm in Space 1, if I click or toggled to Textedit would it not be pretty safe to assume I want to go to the active Textedit document?

If I've now opened a second Textedit document and moved it to Space 1 and now click on Textedit, it toggles me back and forth between the two Spaces. The only time things get a bit weird is if I command-tab; I get the last used Textedit document with no option to choose the first used document.

Flipping between the different apps does seem to be a bit inconsistent though on whether it takes you to the window in the active space or hidden space.

what If I were doing these two things: editing an HTML document and trying to view it in safari, but I wanted to have another space dedicated to my web browsing, and safari is my only browser. What would I do then???

Wait... I just discovered a workaround to this: open the two windows in the same space and then drag one of the windows to the desired space!

[~bash $]

Originally Posted by shinji 

Once you have your windows arranged in Spaces, is there a hot key combination to bring them al back into one window? Or I'd just have to disable and reenable it?

Originally Posted by beez1717 

what If I were doing these two things: editing an HTML document and trying to view it in safari, but I wanted to have another space dedicated to my web browsing, and safari is my only browser. What would I do then???

Wait... I just discovered a workaround to this: open the two windows in the same space and then drag one of the windows to the desired space!

But it's so clunky, cumbersome, and non-intuitive! Ok, I'm done for now. Sigh.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ~bash $ 

But it's so clunky, cumbersome, and non-intuitive!

I can't think of another solution that is less clunky, cumbersome and counterintuitive. Can you?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Spaces works great for me. All of the behavior seems to be pretty much as I anticipate. It sounds like some people in this thread may be suffering from Switcher Syndrome — your experience with one environment creates false expectations of how things will work in another.

Yup, just the other day I was show the tech guy (Who is an AVID Vista fan BTW) Leopard and he kept saying "OH they are doing it all wrong, where is the start menu?"

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by ~Bash $ 

But it's so clunky, cumbersome, and non-intuitive! Ok, I'm done for now. Sigh

Not to mention a pain in the ar$e when you're least expecting it to swipe your work away from under your nose!

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can't think of another solution that is less clunky, cumbersome and counterintuitive. Can you?

Yes. Have an option in System Prefs which says "don't changes spaces automatically when switching applications". Keep the default as-is, because admittedly people who've never used virtual desktops before might find that behaviour useful, but at least give the option to users who know what they're doing.

[ginoledesma]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Yes. Have an option in System Prefs which says "don't changes spaces automatically when switching applications". Keep the default as-is, because admittedly people who've never used virtual desktops before might find that behaviour useful, but at least give the option to users who know what they're doing.

There's going to be a problem depending on the use-case. For example, if you want a new window opened in the current space (not necessarily where the app is present in), you would either need to activate the app:
a) directly (e.g. clicking on its icon)
b) indirectly (e.g. double-clicking on a file to open it)

In the first case, there is no choice but to switch spaces -- since you are invoking the app, which makes because the OS is unsure if you want to "go back to what you were doing before" or "work with the same app for a different thing." So the current implementation makes sense -- it assumes you want to go back working to before. If they implemented an option where the space won't be auto-switched as you propose, this will lead to very frequent situations where users suddenly wonder what happened to all the stuff they're working on.

The second case is less clear-cut. It can be argued either way, but having the flexibility would be welcome.

So this really keeps in line with Apple's approach toward simplicity. It gives up flexibility for consistency and ease-of-use. I'm not arguing it's the best way, just saying that the current implementation makes sense.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by ginoledesma 

In the first case, there is no choice but to switch spaces -- since you are invoking the app, which makes because the OS is unsure if you want to "go back to what you were doing before" or "work with the same app for a different thing." So the current implementation makes sense -- it assumes you want to go back working to before. If they implemented an option where the space won't be auto-switched as you propose, this will lead to very frequent situations where users suddenly wonder what happened to all the stuff they're working on.

Not so for the power user who has enabled said advanced feature. Even if it were a completely hidden feature (defaults write... etc) that would be good. I just don't want the OS to be making assumptions about what I want to do - that's my main reason for hating Microsoft software. Word, in particular, always thinks it knows better than I do.

[mdc]

This is regarding third party applications:

Some third party applications do not 'play nice' with Spaces.

* Open an application window, say Safari, in Space 1.
* Go to a different Space
* Click Safari in your Dock. You'll be taken back to Space 1 where the Safari window is.
This works for all apps. If an app window is open in a Space, go to said Space when you click on the Dock icon.

* Quit Safari and go to Space 2
* Open Safari in Space 2
* Close the Safari window in Space 2
* Go to Space 1
* Click the Safari icon in Dock
* A Safari window will open in Space 1
This makes sense to me. If there are no windows for a certain application open, then create one in the Space you're viewing.

* Open some third party app in Space 1. I tested this with NewsFire and Transmission
* Close the window in Space 1 but don't quit the app
* Go to a different Space and click the icon in the Dock
* Spaces goes back to the Space that you initially opened the application in and opens a new window in that Space.

This is where third party applications need to fix their apps. I don't think that it should matter which Space an app was initially opened in, just if there is an open window or not.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by mdc 

This is where third party applications need to fix their apps. I don't think that it should matter which Space an app was initially opened in, just if there is an open window or not.

Yes, this is almost certainly one for 3rd party devs to fix. I've not tested this yet, so it's entirely possible that I'm talking out of my backside, but it seems to depend on whether the window was actually closed (ie completely freed from memory) or simply "ordered out" (ie hidden from view but still occupying space in memory). If it's only ordered out, the flag stating which space the window is/was on persists and is still valid when the window is "ordered front" again. I think the action would need to be changed to a "performClose" before it will work as Apple expected.

[The Wolf]

It is NOT intuitive, it limits my ability to work the way I want based on some arbitrary decisions that were made by whomever wrote this code, and imo it is useless.

As mentioned above, I don't want my computer telling me which space I have to do my work in. Why "assume" that I want a separate space for each "app"??? That is so myopic and just makes no sense to me. Did Apple hire some M$ programmers to fill in on Leopard while it was preparing the iPhone???

Personally, I use my Mac as my business machine. Spaces would be useful if I could work on a specific client's documents in each space. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to work this way b/c if I go to a new space and try to open a new Pages document, it will wisk me away to some other space that already has Pages open. Horrible.

For this reason, I turned if OFF!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

As mentioned above, I don't want my computer telling me which space I have to do my work in. Why "assume" that I want a separate space for each "app"???

Because in general, different spaces are for different tasks. That's the design of the feature. They have to assume one way or the other, and I think they assumed correctly in the general case. If you want to use the same app in several spaces, you can manually assign the windows to the spaces you want.

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

That is so myopic and just makes no sense to me. Did Apple hire some M$ programmers to fill in on Leopard while it was preparing the iPhone???

Honestly, making a design simple at the expense of not being completely optimized for some people's specialized workflows is practically Apple's trademark. It's much more Microsofty to attempt to accommodate everybody completely (and fail because it's an impossible challenge).

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

Personally, I use my Mac as my business machine. Spaces would be useful if I could work on a specific client's documents in each space. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to work this way b/c if I go to a new space and try to open a new Pages document, it will wisk me away to some other space that already has Pages open.

But if you create a Pages document and assign it to a space, it will work fine.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because in general, different spaces are for different tasks. That's the design of the feature.

The way it is set up, Spaces are not for different "tasks" they're for different apps. For most, isn't it obvious that a "task" (i.e., getting one's work done) will require different applications to complete. Personally (with a single desktop), if I get overwhelmed by the amount of application windows I have open, I simply hit command+H and hide the apps I am not using.

If, in order to complete a task at your office, you need a pen, paper, calculator, and phone, are you more efficient having 4 desks with your pen, paper, calculator, and phone each on a separate desk - OR are you more efficient having one desk with all of these usable in the same place?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

The way it is set up, Spaces are not for different "tasks" they're for different apps.

If you want to get pedantic: Task (computers) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think my meaning was pretty clear, but to be more specific: Spaces is designed with the idea that a space will be dedicated to some specific app or set of apps that work together for a given purpose. You can arrange things differently if you want, but that's the automatic behavior and it's a reasonable behavior for how many people — particularly the less technically inclined — work.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you want to get pedantic: Task (computers) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, good point I wasn't using the term in that sense, but rather in the lay sense of the word. Like, when my wife is talking to me and I'm watching television, I'm multi-tasking...well, sometimes I deny I'm watching tv.

[The Wolf]

Ok, so I'm trying to play around with it to give it another chance. Unfortunately, it's seems to just confuse me more than anything else. I tried assigning Pages to all the Spaces. However, whenever I switch from one space to the next, it just drags all my open Pages documents along. Therefore, it seems I can't separate my jobs as I would like. Hopefully this 'feature' will be useful for someone. It's not for me.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

The way it is set up, Spaces are not for different "tasks" they're for different apps. For most, isn't it obvious that a "task" (i.e., getting one's work done) will require different applications to complete.

Actually, that's exactly what everyone I know uses virtual desktops for.
If you only need one app to do a task, then you can use minimize apps or use spaces. But when you need multiple apps to do a task it's very convenient to have a different desktop for each app, even if the same app appears on more than one desktop.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Wolf 

Ok, so I'm trying to play around with it to give it another chance. Unfortunately, it's seems to just confuse me more than anything else. I tried assigning Pages to all the Spaces. However, whenever I switch from one space to the next, it just drags all my open Pages documents along. Therefore, it seems I can't separate my jobs as I would like.

"All Spaces" means that the program's windows appear on every space. What you want to do is place the window on the space you want. For instance, if I grab this window's titlebar and type control-3 (as I just did), this Safari window is now in the third workspace.

[shinji]

What if I want to move an unassigned app to a new space, or its active window? Can that be done without invoking and dragging?

[kman42]

I think they implemented it perfectly. It acts exactly as I would expect.

One question. Is it possible to invoke spaces on a remote machine that you are screen sharing?

kman

[kman42]

I think the main problem that people are having could be easily solved if the added a pop-up menu item when you click and hold the dock icon that says "New window in current space". Then you wouldn't have to drag windows around as much to get them where you want them.

kman

[~bash $]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can't think of another solution that is less clunky, cumbersome and counterintuitive. Can you?

So there's a wm for Linux called fvwm2 that has a very very nice implementation of multiple/virtual desktops. It has a different take on it. There are a certain number, say 4, "spaces" that are somewhat independent by nature of the monitor's finite area, right? But instead of having 4 different desks as someone alluded to here in Apple's implementation (and most I've seen for any platform), the fvwm2 implementation is actually more like one huge desk that just has two big pieces of masking tape that sections it off into four areas. Moving between them is trivial; you intuitively move your mouse from one to the other. Windows can naturally reside on two sides of the tape or possibly even take stupid tourist pictures in all four, though I might be mistaken about that.

Actually, I vaguely remember Microsoft or some third party dev having a virtual desktop (singluar) implementation in which the resolution was just larger than the screen resolution. So let's say your monitor did 1024x768, this desktop was actually something larger, say 1280x1024, but all you could see was any given 1024x768 portion at one time. Anyone else remember this and can fill in any details? I just remember thinking, "great idea but not quite right."

So at least for me, it turns out that THE compromise (in which I had enormously maximized efficiency, by the way) was n number of desktops where you could access any desktop from any other desktop fluidly, as if they were only separated by masking tape.

So, 2x2 is great. So is 3x1 but not 4x1.

Originally Posted by ginoledesma 

There's going to be a problem depending on the use-case. For example, if you want a new window opened in the current space (not necessarily where the app is present in), you would either need to activate the app:
a) directly (e.g. clicking on its icon)
b) indirectly (e.g. double-clicking on a file to open it)

In the first case, there is no choice but to switch spaces -- since you are invoking the app, which makes because the OS is unsure if you want to "go back to what you were doing before" or "work with the same app for a different thing." So the current implementation makes sense -- it assumes you want to go back working to before. If they implemented an option where the space won't be auto-switched as you propose, this will lead to very frequent situations where users suddenly wonder what happened to all the stuff they're working on.

The second case is less clear-cut. It can be argued either way, but having the flexibility would be welcome.

So this really keeps in line with Apple's approach toward simplicity. It gives up flexibility for consistency and ease-of-use. I'm not arguing it's the best way, just saying that the current implementation makes sense.

Well I think you bring up an interesting point -- this is one way of categorizing apps -- always one window or coupled windows (some games, perhaps?), always multiple windows, and sometimes 1 but often multiple (most apps fit here). Other apps such as Gimp or PS are interesting because there are windows that should be always present for the task at hand. So the layers/history pane and the toolbar could migrate between spaces depending on what primary image is being manipulated in a given space.

I think it could be powerful to have a default behavior (assume one window or something) and then give devs a platform to develop for multiple space behavior.

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Not so for the power user who has enabled said advanced feature. Even if it were a completely hidden feature (defaults write... etc) that would be good. I just don't want the OS to be making assumptions about what I want to do - that's my main reason for hating Microsoft software. Word, in particular, always thinks it knows better than I do.

I agree with this. While it is true that there is much complexity built into Windows, for instance, I don't believe that's what plagues it primarily. A feature like spaces is pretty core to usability. As an example, with file manipulation, there are many ways of performing the same task. Practically everything in OS X (by virtue of its UNIXy-ness) can be done at least two ways. That flexibility enables people to build on it in powerful and unique ways. It's too early to say whether or not Spaces is a great idea (a la Sherlock) that never really takes off due to lack of attention.