I've had some experience with multiple desktops on other platfoms and I love them. OS X seems to be one of the few *nix platforms without this feature.

Does anyone have any idea what are the chances are of a third party developing this feature as an add on? Or would it be something only apple could provide?

Space.dock ( http://www.codeclever.com/ ) was a useful if somewhat limited step in the right direction, but much more could be done.

I think multiple desktops should ideally provide:

1. When you logout all you apps and documents should be frozen and saved in their current state. When you log back in you should pick up right where you left off. (an option to quit all and logout should also be available).

2. Depending on the way permissions are set, you should be able to swap between desktops with a click or two. For example, in my ideal world I'd be able to see all the virtual desktops either in the login screen or right in the dock. If I have permissions, I could switch in a click. If I don't have permissions I could switch with a click and a password.

3. Here's the tricky one: I should be able to access my desktop and all it's apps/documents from anyplace on the network (or with enough bandwidth, the net).

4. After a virtual desktop is saved there should be no performance hit to the current desktop.

5. Individual users should be able to have multiple workspaces...for example I would have one for web browsing/email and another for image editing. But we should also have the ability to switch between users. For example, if my girlfriend comes up to my machine and wants to check her email, she should be able to-with a click and password-switch to her desktop and do her thing. When done, I should be able to switch back and resume right where I left off.

6. Desktops should share the clipboard.

7. We should be able to drag and drop between desktops.

8. If someone opens a document in one desktop, but it is already open in another desktop it should be dealt with gracefully (open a copy of the original).

9. We should be able to switch desktops from the keyboard, the terminal, as well as through an interface (a dock item or through a separate program).

10. Certain destructive apps should be limited prevented from being frozen before switching. For example, you would not want to freeze an HD defragmenter in the middle of it's process.

Does anyone with experience with other virtual desktops on other *nix platforms have other thoughts on this subject? Is it architecturally feasible under os x?

[Scott_H]

I've never found them that useful. I can see situations where they would be nice but I find in my own use I tend to just do it all in one desktop.

[ink]

Yep, I pretty much require multiple desktops to do things at work. I use one desktop for e-mail, instant messaging and other chat-related stuff; another one is dedicated to web browsing; and the remaining desktops (I use 6) are each dedicated to a project that I'm working on at the time. I can then "switch gears" with a single mouse click instead of having to navigate the dock/taskbar. I don't minimize applications that often, but rather leave them opened up so that I can quickly get back to work on them when I have time; GNOME also allows me to drag applications from desktop to desktop if I need to do a side-by-side comparison.

I don't know if OSX will ever support multiple desktops (Space.app is a nice toy, but it's almost more bother than it saves you) because Macintosh applications must have all their windows on the same screen. I can't imagine not being able to open up one window of a certain app in one desktop and then not being able to open a second window of the same application in another desktop (Space doesn't allow you to do this; all Terminal.app windows must be on the same desktop). So if I go to the Tasks (Mozilla) menu and select a different window, would it switch desktops? Would it even list windows not part of the current desktop? Should it? Under X11 I can have XEmacs running 3 different times under 3 different desktops, all from 3 different remote machines (ubercool).

See my point? X11 was designed to do this sort of thing, and I can even use multiple desktops with GNOME under XFree86 on Aqua. Macintosh, on the other hand, was not designed to do this so I doubt that it will until the developers get hooked on it. It really is cool; I'd rather have multiple desktops than a dock any day -- having both would be nirvana.

[moki]

Originally posted by ink:
<STRONG>YSee my point? X11 was designed to do this sort of thing, and I can even use multiple desktops with GNOME under XFree86 on Aqua. Macintosh, on the other hand, was not designed to do this so I doubt that it will until the developers get hooked on it. It really is cool; I'd rather have multiple desktops than a dock any day -- having both would be nirvana.</STRONG>

Actually, what you've said isn't true. MacOS "classic" and Mac OS X support multiple monitors, and support apps having their windows on any monitor you please.

A friend of mine wrote a really cool hack that created a virtual screen for Mcc OS "classic", so if you moved the mouse off of your "real" monitor onto where the fake monitor was, it would swap and appear on screen. Kinda neat, and worked seamlessly.

What you're describing is infinitely possible under OS X; it's a matter of someone deciding to do it. Personally, I think virtual desktops is one of the worst UI metaphors in the world, and thus I have no interest in coding one.

[xenu]

Yeah, the moaning about Aqua and lack of OS 9 look and feel is pretty trivial compared
to this.

Leaving out multiple desktops is one of the most stupid thing Apple could do.

They are far too valuable, and are not confusing.

I will more than likely avoid any upgrade until this functionality - which all
real Unix OS' have - is included.

[moki]

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>Leaving out multiple desktops is one of the most stupid thing Apple could do.

They are far too valuable, and are not confusing.

I will more than likely avoid any upgrade until this functionality - which all
real Unix OS' have - is included.</STRONG>

You'd be amazed to hear that many people disagree with you, myself include, and you'd be equally amazed to know that the vast majority of Macintosh users have never in their life used a Unix machine.

In other words, what is important to you is not important to the vast majority of Apple's customers. They are doing the right thing. Windows that magically appear and disappear based on an abstract concept like virtual desktops isn't the kind of paradigm that an easy to use operating system should have.

[andymcdeee]

Funny, I had never even considered such a thing until now. The more I think about it the more I would like to be able to flick between screen setups.

I'd probably use it all the time - If I was ever organised enough to set it up that is.

I'm sure you've all just laid down a challenge to someone out there...

[Developer]

Mexican, it seems that you don't want multiple desktops but more something like Windows XP's fast user switching. I think chances are quite good that Apple will introduce this feature in one of the next major revisions (at least I hope it).

The current implementation of the window server doesn't allow a remote window server.

As for multiple desktops: They are probably considered too confusing for non power users. I too don't like them. If I have too much open windows I option click onto the app I switch to to hide the others.


developer

[xenu]

moki, so we get a crippled Unix to placate Mac users?

Are Mac users so stupid, that the OS needs to be dumbed down for them?

No, of course not. I am a Mac user from way back, and have had no problems with Unix or Linux.

Tell you what, why don't they include this functionality, and let Mac users decide for themselves?

Leaving it out is simply stupid.

Windows magically appearing? You have never used multiple desktops, have you?
Two seconds of use would explain what they are, and how to use them.

Or perhaps you think Mac users are too stupid for this type of functionality?

[moki]

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>moki, so we get a crippled Unix to placate Mac users?
</STRONG>

Perhaps you didn't hear me properly. I've been using Unix for a decade or so. I think that virtual desktops are a lousy UI metaphor, and I think Apple has made the right choice by not implementing them.

<STRONG>Are Mac users so stupid, that the OS needs to be dumbed down for them?
</STRONG>

Yes, that's what it is. Mac users are too dumb, you are too intelligent, therefor OS X sucks, and you'll stick to Linux.

<STRONG>No, of course not. I am a Mac user from way back, and have had no problems with Unix or Linux.
</STRONG>

That's wonderful -- given Linux's (lack of) acceptance as a desktop platform, I'm sure it isn't the model to follow.

<STRONG>Tell you what, why don't they include this functionality, and let Mac users decide for themselves?
</STRONG>

Tell you what -- stop complaining and write a virtual desktop app for OS X.

<STRONG>Windows magically appearing? You have never used multiple desktops, have you?
Two seconds of use would explain what they are, and how to use them.

Or perhaps you think Mac users are too stupid for this type of functionality?</STRONG>

I've used multiple desktops on many different operating systems -- I think my first experience with them was under IRIX. I think they are a lousy UI metaphor. If you think differently, stop whining and insulting people and write it yourself.

[Developer]

Appel isn't dumbing down the OS. They are looking for more intuitive solutions for the same problem (screen clutter): Better organizing windows with sheets and drawers, hiding apps and minimizing windows. They also tried single window mode. This all proves that they cared about this problem and are probably continuing to think about it.

Xenu, you wouldn't believe how stupid even the most intelligent people could behave in front of a computer. That doesn't mean they are stupid, they just don't care. And disappearing windows when they accidently press control-2 will definitely confuse them, since most of these users will not have read the "Unix with Aqua Window Server Handbook" until chapter 14 where multiple desktops are explained. And some families surfing the net with iMacs don't have a Unix geek as neighbor to ask.


developer

[ink]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
Actually, what you've said isn't true. MacOS "classic" and Mac OS X support multiple monitors, and support apps having their windows on any monitor you please.
</STRONG>

Excellent point! I hadn't thought of that. Mac users are already accustom to multiple desktops then. Anyone who's used multiple monitors then knows how nice it is to do this, now just imagine that you can create monitors out of thin air. It's very very very nice, and no $2500 cinema-display is required.

[Sam Agnew]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>


Actually, what you've said isn't true. MacOS "classic" and Mac OS X support multiple monitors, and support apps having their windows on any monitor you please.

A friend of mine wrote a really cool hack that created a virtual screen for Mcc OS "classic", so if you moved the mouse off of your "real" monitor onto where the fake monitor was, it would swap and appear on screen. Kinda neat, and worked seamlessly.

What you're describing is infinitely possible under OS X; it's a matter of someone deciding to do it. Personally, I think virtual desktops is one of the worst UI metaphors in the world, and thus I have no interest in coding one.</STRONG>

Sorry for replying to an earlier post. I've read the later ones but I don't want to get into that ugliness. I'm sad there won't be a Virtual Desktop app from Ambrosia because I know it would kick. Anyway, I'm one of those people that don't see the downside. If I were Apple I'd add VD support to the OS for the power users and have it turned off by default. If a user wants it it's there. If they don't they need never know it exists (ever visit a Mac user that does everything by the menus? We all use the command-key shortcuts but the Mums and Grannies of the world that would be intimidated by them need hardly know they are there). Since it is a multiuser system I would expect that if a power user and newbie share a machine the power user could have it on and the newbie have it off. That is, it ought to be a user pref not a machine pref. Lastly, I'm writing this on an old-style iBook. Even OS 9 was cramped on this. In OS X I'm drowning in hidden windows. How dearly I would love to drag them onto their own desktops with a lovely little overview of all the desktops and windows like you get in Enlightenment. Sigh.

Well, that's it. I can't see the downside if it's an off-by-default user pref and I for one would kill to have it.

[pjkim]

Windows that magically appear and disappear based on an abstract concept like virtual desktops isn't the kind of paradigm that an easy to use operating system should have.

Abstract concepts? What is that you see on your computer screen that is NOT abstract? Everything there is abstract. Windows, close boxes, menues, cursors, folders, dock, sliders, scroll bars, pop up folders, buttons ..... they are all abstractions. The real question is this- is the abstraction something that can easily be correlated to something in the real world? I think that all of the things currently on the desktop are fairly intuitive to most users. The multiple desktop abstraction is somethiing that is fairly easily understood and is something that is wanted by a fair number of people.

One of the nice things about Mac experience is that Apple makes the whole widget and I think that that is really a key part of why I like the Mac. How many people could have written a program like iTunes or iMovie? Apple has great people in user interface design and programming. I want multiple desktops and would rather have it made by Apple rather than someone else because I think Apple would do a much better job.

So yes, I think that multiple desktops should be a part of the OS as an option that can be turned on so that people who don't like it or are confused by it can turn it off.

It is not conducive to a productive discussion to say- if you want one, go write it yourself. You can say this about anything- if you don't like this discussion, start your own. If you don't like this computer, make your own hardware, OS, etc.

Can we try to be more civil? I know that anonimity and not having to face people gives you some license to cut loose, but lets try to curb our baser instincts. I can't believe that you guys are like this in real life and can function in society.

Actually after thinking about it for a while and reading your comments I realized Developer was right and I was actually talking about 2 different things:

Fast User Switching (with saved states)

and

Multiple workspaces.

Functionally I think these features could both be put into a simple unified interface since they are doing very similar things.

I think fast user switching would allow many home and school users to share computers in a much more natural fashion. Right now most of the home users I know who share computers don't bother with multiple users because, frankly, it's a pain in the butt. They just keep their documents in separate folders. This leads to all sorts of minor household dramas.

Those of us who do use multiple users are often annoyed to find we have been quit out of all our apps and documents and logged out when someone else has used our computer.

Schools have similar problems on shared computers. I've noticed that oftentimes instead of setting users as individuals they will set them by class or user type. This is also problematic, but the reason schools do this is because of the way kids share computers. They usually sit down one after another and don't want to quit out of all their apps and documents when someone else sits down. These problems could mainly be eliminated with fast user switching+saved states. There are any number of ways in which this could be implemented in a simple and understandable fashion. For example you could click an icon in the dock and select from a list of users... or you could start a small app that shows the various desktops (virtual PC 4 -style)...

I understand why people might think of multiple workspaces as "one of the worst UI metaphors in the world", and I do agree they can be confusing, but I believe OS X gives us the unique ability to make this powerful ability more comprehensible by using many of the same techniques now used to minimize windows in the dock. If the experience of other OSes is any guide, the average user will not need this functionality much, but power users will find it invaluable. I think the key is giving users strong visual clues when multiple workspaces are in operation to minimize confusion.

Lastly, I'm writing this on an old-style iBook. Even OS 9 was cramped on this. In OS X I'm drowning in hidden windows. How dearly I would love to drag them onto their own desktops with a lovely little overview of all the desktops and windows like you get in Enlightenment.

amen

-------
p.s. anyone ancient enough to remember how Andy Hertzfeld's cool switcher application (which was used to switch between applications before the finder could run multiple programs) worked can visualize how cool fast switching of users could be if someone put their brain to it.... Zooop...

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: themexican ]

[gorgonzola]

Andrew, as for making the OS too complex, couldn't Apple (if they were so inclined) just put the option into the defaults system so people could enable it from there?

That's all but invisible to the majority of users, but as we know from the Dock orientation phenomenon, it is hardly out of the reach of the most ardent Mac freaks. ;-)

That said, I personally have little interest in a VD system either, and I don't think it's a good idea for Apple to waste time concentrating on the UNIX features when they should be concentrating on the Mac features right now. VD sounds like it should be relegated to the realm of third party software, although I did hear some amusingly inconclusive buzz around the Darwin BugTracker regarding VD.

Bah, I wish virtual desktops didn't share an acronym with vanarial disease.

Big discussion over a simple matter. Include virtual desktops in OSX as an option that is installed DISabled. Power users can enable it to their liking. At least give us the option to use it.

[xenu]

moki, having a bad day and feel the need to lash out??

Don't like multiple desktops? Don't use them.
Wow, what a simple concept, I wonder if you get it.

[My low opinion of you deleted].


Developer, when CDE came out, I thought "interesting". Two seconds later I had
multiple desktops, and stuff in them. Well, perhaps longer than 2 seconds, but
not much longer.

It was intuitive and easy to use. Give then names like in CDE, or have mini workspaces,
like in Gnome.

I'm sure Apple will think of something. Hopefully sooner, rather than later.

[Addicted]

Personally I'd love to see virtual desktops for OSX and anyone who's had to deal with 10+ terminal windows logged into different hosts along with a few browser windows, email, excel and word would probably feel the same!

The ability to switch to a different workspace and not have to worry about minimising or re-arranging your windows is a great benifit. Hiding applications using cmd-H actually goes some way towards this, but the ability to hide window-groups via virtual desktops is far more useful and intuitive IHMO.

[Clive]

I'm trying to work out if those supporting multiple desktops are simply trying to have a joke at everyone else's expense?

As I see it, this is a feature desired by a very small minority of Mac users (though how many want a CLI and Apache is also open to question), and there's an awful lot of work to be done on X yet.

I'd have to conclude that there's next to no chance of Apple putting resources into this, and therefore diverting resources from some more mainstream features... how ever much some of you may have no use for such features.

I think that, as some have already said, if you really want this, then better start coding now.

[Gee4orce]

I vote for multiple desktops. IF you don't, well, that's fine. I probably have a different desktop picture to you also - you don't have to use the same one I choose. I probably arrange my Dock differently too - that doesn't effect you either.

If you don't want virtual desktops then that's OK - nobody will force you to use them. No Unix GUI forces you to use more than 1 desktop - I see no possibility of novice users getting confused by this, and therefore fail to see what the problem is.

Virtual Desktops could be happily integrated into the Monitor's control panel - you could create new 'virtual monitors' and place them just like real ones. An optional feature for power users.

Incidentally, the Dock is the perfect home for switching between virtual desktops - a nice scalable picture of that desktop's contents to click on.

I'm sure talented guys at Omni or Ambrosia could write a good implementation of this idea in no time. I'm also sure that there would be a big demand from some of us 'ex' Mac users, and lots of the 'soon-to-be-ex' Linux users

[Scrod]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>
I'm sure talented guys at Omni or Ambrosia could write a good implementation of this idea in no time. I'm also sure that there would be a big demand from some of us 'ex' Mac users, and lots of the 'soon-to-be-ex' Linux users </STRONG>

Seeing as moki has already voiced his opinion on virtual desktops, I don't think you'll be seeing anything like that coming out of Ambrosia SW. As he said, it's up to you if you want them so badly.

[moki]

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>moki, having a bad day and feel the need to lash out??

Don't like multiple desktops? Don't use them.
Wow, what a simple concept, I wonder if you get it.

[My low opinion of you deleted].
</STRONG>

Nope, I had a fine day actually -- just got tired of listening to you whine and insult people (as per the above quote).

[moki]

Originally posted by Addicted:
<STRONG>Personally I'd love to see virtual desktops for OSX and anyone who's had to deal with 10+ terminal windows logged into different hosts along with a few browser windows, email, excel and word would probably feel the same!
</STRONG>

As for the terminal windows, you can always download and compile screen -- I use it on my OS X box at work, it's quite convenient (not just for the multiple terminals).

As I recall, it compiled without a hitch for OS X. If you spend any time in Terminal, screen is highly recommended.

[moki]

Originally posted by Clive:
<STRONG>As I see it, this is a feature desired by a very small minority of Mac users (though how many want a CLI and Apache is also open to question), and there's an awful lot of work to be done on X yet.

I think that, as some have already said, if you really want this, then better start coding now.</STRONG>

yep, I agree with you. Unix users are used to having virtual desktops -- as I've said, I think that VD's are a fairly poor UI paradigm, like the majority of Unix GUI-isms. I haven't used any Unix variant -- save perhaps NeXTSTEP back in the day -- where I didn't think "wow, these guys don't get it" in terms of the UI design.

Stuff works, but it's just one kludge on top of another, with no clear overrideing paradigm (designed, not doubt, but people with Xenu's mentality -- "What, are you too stupid to use it???")

Sure, a tiny minority of the Linux installed base are people who use it as their desktop OS -- if you enjoy it, more power to ya. However, anyone who points out Linux as a paragon of user interface design or consistency is just smoking crack.

Apple has done the right thing by not implementing virtual desktops. If there is enough demand, I'm sure a third party developer will write such a tool. Given the Unix cross-overs, there's probably a market.

Personally, I think there are many better solutions to window/app management than virtual desktops -- if you disagree, try to get someone to write it for ya, or better yet, write it yourself. If you're planning to wait around for Apple to implemented it, I think you may be waiting a long, long time.

[moki]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
<STRONG>Andrew, as for making the OS too complex, couldn't Apple (if they were so inclined) just put the option into the defaults system so people could enable it from there?

That's all but invisible to the majority of users, but as we know from the Dock orientation phenomenon, it is hardly out of the reach of the most ardent Mac freaks. ;-)
</STRONG>

I think most people would rather have their printer work, or OS X not be so slow, or have their DVD player work, or have their scanner/digital camera supported, or any number of other much more important features than something as obscure (relative to the Mac OS's core audience) as virtual desktops.

I agree with ya -- it's a "third party software opportunity"

[DannyVTim]

xenu you're out of control -- relax and take your medicine and at least try faking that you're a person who doesn't feel inferior to others..

I like multiple desktops and think that apple should at some point make them available for people who want them. At this point, they are working on finishing the OS and getting ready to roll it out to the public. If your such a linux guru then break out you IDE and get to work. Otherwise, stop ranting about a feature that is old.

Being able to quickly switch users and save the state of your desktop is something I think most Mac users who share their machines would love. In school environments expecially this would be a big deal.

I love the idea of being able to simply choose a username from a finder menu and instantly switch over (or if you don't have permissions set, switch with a password) and return to your desktop right where you left off. This is a great idea and would be invaluble in the education marktet.

Multiple workspaces or multiple virtual desktops would be interesting and powerful, but like many great features, I imagine the average user wouldn't use it much. I agree it's a perfect 3rd party opportunity. I hope some BSD guru out there is working on this problem and figuring out how to bring it to us in an OS-X friendly way. My thought is to put the virtual desktops in the dock (like minimized windows) and switch with a click or keystroke. Space.dock is cool, but doesn't go nearly far enough...also it just seems to be selectively hiding apps as opposed to really setting up a virtual desktop.

[Scott_H]

I'm going to go back to using multiple desktops on my UNIX machine at work and see if I like it again.

[xenu]

moki, an opinion about wanting multiple desktops is a whine?
You have an interesting definition of whine.

Perhaps you should re-read your replies.
Perhaps your definition of insults doesn't include your own?

I snippped my low opinion of you because I didn't want to start a flame war.
If you want one, go for it.

Again, multiple desktops are very useful.
This is an opinion, from someone who has used them.
That alright with you?

Multiple desktops should be included.
This is an opinion.
That alright with you?

In my opinion, Apple was stupid in leaving this out, partially crippling the OS.
Again, I note the use of the word opinion.
That alright with you?

DannyVTim, huh?

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>I agree with ya -- it's a "third party software opportunity" </STRONG>

About the closest we'll get is something like Space.dock (http://space.sourceforge.net/), AFAICT. I can't see any other way of implementing it, unless you'd like to shed some light on some CGCreateOffscreenDesktop and CGShuffleDesktops calls that I'm blatantly missing

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>moki, an opinion about wanting multiple desktops is a whine?
You have an interesting definition of whine.

Multiple desktops should be included.
This is an opinion.
That alright with you?

In my opinion, Apple was stupid in leaving this out, partially crippling the OS.
Again, I note the use of the word opinion.
That alright with you?
</STRONG>

ugh.. you're making demands, and phrasing your "opinion" as the absolute truth, any opposition to which should be viewed as WRONG. "crippling" the OS by leaving out a feature you think is imperative, but hasn't been important enough to make it into macos in the last 17 years?

are we going to have to call the wah-mbulance for you?

Well Apple is crippling all their machines by not including a 5.25" floppy drive!!! I use mine every day to load wordstar 1.0 onto my emulated apple ][+ on my G4. So why has apple forsaken me?!?!?!?!???

come on. I personally love virtual desktops. But they are a power users' feature, and are (of course) relegated to a third-party software opportunity for some fine dev shop (or individual). Apple has better things to do with their relatively small dev team than cater to bitchy power users. Power users are the people who can fend for themselves and work around problems. I second the motion that you quit bitchin' until you write your own freakin' virtual desktop app. sheesh.

I bet it's apple's opinion that you're stupid too. feel better?

[xenu]

&lt;xenophobe&gt;, since when has anything posted here been an absolute truth?
Should every post, by every person, be prefaced with "the following is my opinion"?

It has always been implied. If Moki cannot understand that, then he should ask.

Tell me, why is the Mac OS going away? You know, the one that has been around for 17 years, or whenever
you define its beginning?

I have used Macs for roughly 9 of those years, and have been relatively happy, even with
the constraints. Considering the alternative, that was never going to be a problem.

I have also been a Unix user for roughly 13 years, and Linux user for 2 years.
Excuse me if my opinion is based on real life experience. I am not a power user.
I have tools at my command, and I make use of them.

Take an OS, say Unix, and remove a useful feature, say multiple desktops.
I call it crippling the OS. You call it, what?

Actually, there were multiple desktops for the mac. Never cared for them though.
Pity, they are quite useful. Opps, I made an opinion look like an absolute truth.
Better stop doing that, or people here will get upset. Musn't do that, must I?

Removing hardware, that you can buy elsewhere, has crippled the OS huh?

There was a rumour that OS X was not going to have a command line.
I also considered that to be a stupid mistake, if true.

Fortunately I was proven wrong.

Is a slow(er) OS a crippling feature?
I would say yes. Guess I should keep my opinion about speeding up OS X to myself.

As with the command line, multiple desktops are useful.

You don't want to use it? Don't.

If a third party comes out with something, great.
If Apple includes it, great.

Should I now state that the above was an opinion?

Perhaps we should all stop looking under the hood, and go back to
complaining about the colour scheme?

[LordJavac]

A couple of things are being said here that should be clarified for accuracy. Firstly, Apple did not "leave out" virtual desktops, they were never there. Secondly, virtual desktops is not a UNIX feature, it is a feature of the window manager (or maybe X11).

Now that that's taken care of, I like virtual desktops myself. I use them on my UNIX workstation at work, but I have seen no need for them on my Mac, yet. I don't, however, think that Apple should be spending energy on them now. They are potentially very confusing to a novice user (which is the target audience for the Mac). It is interesting to note that, out of the three major GUI systems (Mac, Windows and X11) only X11 has virtual desktops. I would rather see VPN support and remote GUI sessions. If you really want virtual desktops, run X11, it's free and will run on OS X.

There are a couple of ways this could be implemented. It looks like you could create virtual monitors and switch among them. You could also re-write the WindowManager.app which would also allow you to add themes to the GUI. These ideas are just brain-storms, but they are possiblities.

[SnowmanX]

Man, I hope Apple doesn't hang around these forums reading threads such as this too often and think this is a popular sentiment regarding OS X.

Pen me in the "yeah, it would be neat, but there are far more important issues and more of them that Apple needs to address" group. Once the blatant kinks are worked out of OS X (10.1, 10.1.1? who knows), then, maybe, just maybe look into reformulating virtual desktops for OS X. But personally, I would rather Apple take heed of WinXP's multiple users implementation. Now that's truly handy.

[Dr Evil]

As another user of the classic iBook, I would LOVE to have VD in X. I installed X11 and windowmaker on my 'book and fell in love with vd's. Unfortunately, there are few apps for x11-darwin to let me make x11 viable for every day use. Not to say that the apps now aren't impressive, but I still would like everybuddy and dillo to compile with fink.
I definately agree that Apple should include it someday, but it shouldn't be priority #1. Now, if a third party should write one and Apple buys the software and includes said feature in the OS a la Windowshade, everyone would be happy.

Dr Evil

okay, okay.

&gt; Tell me, why is the Mac OS going away? You know, the one that has been around for 17 years, or whenever you define its beginning?

uh, is it going anywhere? did someone say it was going anywhere?

&gt; I have also been a Unix user for roughly 13 years, and Linux user for 2 years. Excuse me if my opinion is based on real life experience. I am not a power user. I have tools at my command, and I make use of them.

uh.. so some tools don't exist on the mac. if they exist on unix platforms great, but since they don't on the mac, don't complain.

&gt; Take an OS, say Unix, and remove a useful feature, say multiple desktops.
I call it crippling the OS. You call it, what?

MacOSX never had virtual desktops. Unix doesn't have virtual desktops. Unix is a specification, and does not have anything to do with anything graphical. the window manager (under Xwindows) provides access to X's virtual desktops, and virtual desktops in osx would be implemented through the iokit and some dock app or something. If you're referring to the virtual desktops in NextSTEP, they're gone, the whole windowing system was rewritten for osx.

&gt; Actually, there were multiple desktops for the mac. Never cared for them though. Pity, they are quite useful. Opps, I made an opinion look like an absolute truth. Better stop doing that, or people here will get upset. Musn't do that, must I?

So let me get this straight, macos used to have virtual desktops? you mean the ones written by apple? which ones are those? why didn't you like them? I mean, wouldn't apple be stupid for not putting them in?

&gt; Removing hardware, that you can buy elsewhere, has crippled the OS huh? There was a rumour that OS X was not going to have a command line.
I also considered that to be a stupid mistake, if true.

Sorry my sarcasm (and CAPITALS) weren't obvious to the oblivious..

&gt; Is a slow(er) OS a crippling feature? I would say yes. Guess I should keep my opinion about speeding up OS X to myself.

sure you could say that, but slowness is part of the 1.0 dev cycle.. get over it.

&gt; If a third party comes out with something, great. If Apple includes it, great.

but apple's stupid for not including it, right? I'd much rather have virtual desktops than a dvd player.


Okay, so do you speak english as a first language? that would really explain a few things. not ragging on you, but it would explain some things.

[moki]

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>moki, an opinion about wanting multiple desktops is a whine?
You have an interesting definition of whine.
</STRONG>

No, you saying:

Yeah, the moaning about Aqua and lack of OS 9 look and feel is pretty trivial compared
to this.

Leaving out multiple desktops is one of the most stupid thing Apple could do.

They are far too valuable, and are not confusing.

I will more than likely avoid any upgrade until this functionality - which all
real Unix OS' have - is included.

...is a whine, and it is also misguided. Trying to claim that the wishes of the vast majority of Mac users should be ignored (folks coming from OS 9) to cater to the wishes of the few (those coming from a Unix background)... it's just silly.

Stating your opinion as fact doesn't make it fact, and it doesn't make it any more true. This is also a whine, and insulting:

moki, so we get a crippled Unix to placate Mac users?

Are Mac users so stupid, that the OS needs to be dumbed down for them?

No, of course not. I am a Mac user from way back, and have had no problems with Unix or Linux.

Tell you what, why don't they include this functionality, and let Mac users decide for themselves?

Leaving it out is simply stupid.

Anyway, I'm done bickering with you. If you can't see beyond your own personal preference, there's no use arguing with you, especially when you conduct yourseif in an insulting manner.

[moki]

Originally posted by SnowmanX:
<STRONG>Man, I hope Apple doesn't hang around these forums reading threads such as this too often and think this is a popular sentiment regarding OS X.
</STRONG>

Nah, Apple is too stupid

I agree with you about Windows XP's switch user ability. It's very nice -- even though I wouldn't have much use for it, I could see lots of people that would. Unfortunately, this is something relatively involved that someone at Apple would likely have to be involved with in order to make it happen.

It might be possible for a third party with plenty of knowledge about Mac OS X's internals to do it, but it wouldn't be easy.

[xenu]

&lt;xenophobe&gt;, firstly, grow up.

Second, ever heard of OS X? You know, the replacement for the Mac OS?

Macs had virtual desktops written by a third party. Happy?
I'm surprised a power user such as yourself didn't know that.

Ah, you were being sarcastic. Keep it up, you may get it right one day.

&gt;&gt; Is a slow(er) OS a crippling feature? I would say yes. Guess I should keep my opinion about speeding up OS X to myself.

&gt;sure you could say that, but slowness is part of the 1.0 dev cycle.. get over it.

Adding features is also part of the dev cycle.
Get over it.

Anyone got a non-knee jerk reaction to my opinions?

[Addicted]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

As for the terminal windows, you can always download and compile screen -- I use it on my OS X box at work, it's quite convenient (not just for the multiple terminals).

As I recall, it compiled without a hitch for OS X. If you spend any time in Terminal, screen is highly recommended.</STRONG>

I've been using screen for a good 5 years now so I think I'm aware of it's utility, however.. I also know that having 10 terminal windows on virtual desktops is far more useful with regards to flexibility of locating, sizing etc of the windows.

Oh and By The Way, how is 'screen' (virtual tty's) a more attractive "Abstract GUI Concept" than Virtual Desktops for you? How do you justify that, exactly?

[xenu]

moki, since when did I state the wishes of the OS 9 crowd should be ignored?

Given that you misintepreted my first post with your knee-jerk reaction reply,
I shouldn't be surprised that you want to put "words in my mouth", as it were.

I guess you are right. OS X users shouldn't have a choice.
It should all be your way.

Those of us with differing opinions, based on real life experience, should just
keep quiet.

I guess your definition of insulting behaviour doesn't include your own.

[moki]

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>moki, since when did I state the wishes of the OS 9 crowd should be ignored?

Given that you misintepreted my first post with your knee-jerk reaction reply,
I shouldn't be surprised that you want to put "words in my mouth", as it were.
</STRONG>

Your words, your mouth:

Yeah, the moaning about Aqua and lack of OS 9 look and feel is pretty trivial compared
to this.

Leaving out multiple desktops is one of the most stupid thing Apple could do.

Originally posted by xenu:
<STRONG>I guess you are right. OS X users shouldn't have a choice.
It should all be your way.

Those of us with differing opinions, based on real life experience, should just
keep quiet.

I guess your definition of insulting behaviour doesn't include your own.</STRONG>

*sigh*. I truly hope that English is a second language to you, as has been mentioned here by others -- it would explain a lot. It's clear, at least, that tact is not second-nature to you.

Really, I swear, I'm done now

[moki]

Originally posted by Addicted:
<STRONG>
Oh and By The Way, how is 'screen' (virtual tty's) a more attractive "Abstract GUI Concept" than Virtual Desktops for you? How do you justify that, exactly?</STRONG>

Mostly because screens will stay active even after you log out, so you can ssh in later from home, say, and resume your terminal screens at work.

Things that work well in a limited scope don't always work well in a larger scope. Virtual desktops/terminals is one case where I enjoy the benefits of screen (especially them staying active through logouts), but dislike GUI-based VD's. It's personal preference.

The real issue here is whether Apple should implement VD's or not. I strongly believe they should not. If a third party wants to write one (such as screen is one for terminals), more power to 'em.

[kman42]

If you can avoid the flame war this is an interesting thread.

I've never used real virtual desktops, but they seem like a great idea. I have been using space.app for a while now and I love it. I can definitely see how multiple desktops would be advantageous. But I don't think apple is working on it very hard right now, nor do i shink they should. But I do think it is being looked at by the 10.5 or 11.0 (most likely) committee. 11.0 is probably only a year and a half away since apple tries to do a major upgrade every six-nine months. They are definitely looking at the mulitple users/logins feature as that is really neat and one of the few real benefits of xp that I have run across. Therefore, I think it is interesting to think about how apple might implement something like this.

I'd like to see apple put a Desktops submenu under the apple menu. I'd also like to be able to either have a certain set of desktops load on login or have the last configuration at login.

Can you run an instance of an app in each desktop in other implementations of vd? Can you have each instance have a different set of preferences? That would be pretty cool, but seems kinda abstract and difficult to implement.

As for the multiple users/logins: is this really much different from remote desktops? Didn't NeXT allow you to login with a GUI from a remote location? If it could handle multiple remote users, then it doesn't seem like such a strecth to have mutliple users login on the same machine (just displaying one at a time).

If you login multiple times under the same username can you switch between logins easily? Perhaps another item under the apple menu? Or as a selection under the multiple desktops submenu.

Well, I was just thinking out load and hoping to get a few questions answered.

kman

[ink]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
The real issue here is whether Apple should implement VD's or not. I strongly believe they should not. If a third party wants to write one (such as screen is one for terminals), more power to 'em.
</STRONG>

I'd be willing to give it a shot... Now, *can* it be done? Under X11, the window managers (in this case "Window Manager") need intimate information about this sort of thing. *Can* someone extend Apple's Window Manager to this extent? I can code C in my sleep, and I've been rediscovering objc over the past few months, so let me at it.

[ink]

Originally posted by kman42:
<STRONG>If you can avoid the flame war this is an interesting thread.
</STRONG>

Agreed. I wish MacNN would dump UBB and use something faster and nicer (ie, with killfiles and scoring).

<STRONG>
Can you run an instance of an app in each desktop in other implementations of vd? Can you have each instance have a different set of preferences? That would be pretty cool, but seems kinda abstract and difficult to implement.
</STRONG>

Yes, a single app can be in multiple desktops. No, they don't have different preferences

<STRONG>
As for the multiple users/logins: is this really much different from remote desktops? Didn't NeXT allow you to login with a GUI from a remote location? If it could handle multiple remote users, then it doesn't seem like such a strecth to have mutliple users login on the same machine (just displaying one at a time).
</STRONG>

I never saw that feature on any of our next cube/slabs -- they may have added it after they went to i386, or it may have been an add-on. We did do this with X11 under NeXT Step all the time though (just as I can from my new iBook now under XFree86 running on Aqua).

<STRONG>
If you login multiple times under the same username can you switch between logins easily? Perhaps another item under the apple menu? Or as a selection under the multiple desktops submenu.
</STRONG>

Just use 'su'

[Sam Agnew]

Originally posted by ink:
<STRONG>
I'd be willing to give it a shot... Now, *can* it be done? Under X11, the window managers (in this case "Window Manager") need intimate information about this sort of thing. *Can* someone extend Apple's Window Manager to this extent? I can code C in my sleep, and I've been rediscovering objc over the past few months, so let me at it.

</STRONG>

Sarf London accent: Goowan, my son!

This is great news. OS X needs you to set it free from the dark days of the single desktop! I love the way Enlightenment shows a tiny colour proxy of all the windows in your virtual desktops. It's the kind of thing I'm sure Quartz could do even better.

Sorry...that doesn't look like a 'whine' to me, moki.

It's a stretch to call it that.

You overreacted, then failed to apologize.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ink:
<STRONG>Yes, a single app can be in multiple desktops. No, they don't have different preferences</STRONG>

What about running under different logins on different desktops?

That would mean different prefs...

Oh; and can everybody please quit the name-calling and finger pointing?

Just pack up your toys and go home - oh, and *you* give that baseball glove back - no, I don't care who started it, give it back!

thank you.

-c.