Multiple Desktops?

[pjp]

In

Oh man! I used to say the very damn thing! And why in the world would
one want more than one desktop? I didn't understand either. But to
explain it, where does one start? As there are so many doors that open
up with multiple desktops.

I don't know if you ever used more than one monitor with a computer. But
I have and while nice, it has some disadvantages along with the
advantages. And multiple desktop takes care of many of the disadvantages
of multiple monitors, while keeping many of the advantages of multiple
monitors and adds a few more advantages of its own.

One of the advantages of multiple displays (monitors) is you have a
larger desktop. More room for everything. And the more room you have,
the less time you have to spend fighting with windows on top of windows
and minimizing and restoring. And while you may have been accustom to
this fighting, it isn't very productive at all.

What works so much better is more desktop space. And multiple displays
with more than one monitor is one way. Another way is through multiple
desktops. Now you spend far less fighting with multiple windows on your
desktop, and more time being productive. And if you have enough desktop
real estate, you probably never have to waste time moving windows,
restoring, minimizing, cluttering the Taskbar and desktop, etc. ever
again. And everything stays neat and you don't have to do any work to
keep it that way.

Another advantage is multiple desktops can often be customized. Things
like different wallpapers, tray icons, desktop themes, and in one case
different shells running at the same time.

Obviously if you only run one or two applications, multiple desktops
probably will not be very exciting to anybody. But the more applications
you run, the more and more exciting multiple desktops becomes. And
obviously since more real estate would be beneficial.

There are many multiple desktop managers out there. Strangely, many of
them limit you to only four. I don't know why they pick that number? But
I run so many applications at the same time that even four desktops for
me is still too limited. I find I need at least 6 of them at a minimum.
Some multiple desktop managers don't have any limit. Like AltDesk (not
free) and Virtual Dimension.

I've used both multi-monitor and multi-desktops, in fact even tried both
together. I personally find the multi-monitor a lot more practical as
it's "just there" and requires no hotkey or button press etc. to switch
from one to the other. I also find it more versatile doing drag and drop
operations as it's so easy to have windows open fully accessible and
let's not forget being able to watch a full screen video or play a game
full screen on one monitor while "monitoring" the second monitor. Multi-
desktops I found to be no more practical than just single desktop and
using the taskbar as required as it took same number of keystrokes
except when have multipule programs open on each desktop.

Just my $0.02 but have had hardware could do both since Win98.

 

[Char Jackson]

In

Oh man! I used to say the very damn thing! And why in the world would
one want more than one desktop? I didn't understand either. But to
explain it, where does one start? As there are so many doors that open
up with multiple desktops.

I don't know if you ever used more than one monitor with a computer. But
I have and while nice, it has some disadvantages along with the
advantages. And multiple desktop takes care of many of the disadvantages
of multiple monitors, while keeping many of the advantages of multiple
monitors and adds a few more advantages of its own.

One of the advantages of multiple displays (monitors) is you have a
larger desktop. More room for everything. And the more room you have,
the less time you have to spend fighting with windows on top of windows
and minimizing and restoring. And while you may have been accustom to
this fighting, it isn't very productive at all.

What works so much better is more desktop space. And multiple displays
with more than one monitor is one way. Another way is through multiple
desktops. Now you spend far less fighting with multiple windows on your
desktop, and more time being productive. And if you have enough desktop
real estate, you probably never have to waste time moving windows,
restoring, minimizing, cluttering the Taskbar and desktop, etc. ever
again. And everything stays neat and you don't have to do any work to
keep it that way.

Another advantage is multiple desktops can often be customized. Things
like different wallpapers, tray icons, desktop themes, and in one case
different shells running at the same time.

Obviously if you only run one or two applications, multiple desktops
probably will not be very exciting to anybody. But the more applications
you run, the more and more exciting multiple desktops becomes. And
obviously since more real estate would be beneficial.

There are many multiple desktop managers out there. Strangely, many of
them limit you to only four. I don't know why they pick that number? But
I run so many applications at the same time that even four desktops for
me is still too limited. I find I need at least 6 of them at a minimum.
Some multiple desktop managers don't have any limit. Like AltDesk (not
free) and Virtual Dimension.

Thanks, Bill. That was the most detailed explanation so far about the
advantages of running multiple desktops and I appreciate it. You've
convinced me 100% that multiple desktops have absolutely zero value to
me and would only get in the way when I'm trying to work. Other people
aren't wrong for finding value there, but obviously not everyone does
things the same way and it's good that there are options to suit
everyone.

 

[Char Jackson]

[snip]
I guess I don't get it, which is no one's problem but mine. Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you've never used them, that's understandable.

It's not that I haven't seen or tried multiple desktops, it's just that
I have, and found no value (to me) in doing so. When I'm working on
multiple things I have no problem bringing the respective window to the
front and it doesn't matter to me that there are about 30 windows open
or minimized behind the active window. What am I missing?

A desktop like that would drive me crazy. It's not that I couldn't work
with everything running on a single desktop. I have. And do. With
Windows, you have no choice. It's just that I hate clutter. And to me,
such a desktop is cluttered.

I don't know where you're seeing clutter. At this moment, I'm using
Agent and it's all I see. One task, one application. I don't group my
taskbar icons, so there are multiple icons displayed there, but that's
what the taskbar is for. That's not clutter, it's functionality.
You're assuming clutter where there is none.

I have friends, even those primarily using Linux, who are the same as you:
They prefer one desktop. For them multiples are pointless, a waste of
RAM. Though I have noticed a funny thing. The tops of their work desks
look the same as their single computer desktop: absolutely cover with
stuff with little clear space, one layer stacked on another, on another,
etc. Contrary to my desk that is mostly clear with projects organized in
wire baskets and file folders, etc. with only the ones I'm currently
working on laid out on the desk.

I guess it's just how your brain organizes. I'm a "place for everything,
and everything in its place" kind of person. Always have been.

They have a name for that particular disorder, you know. ;-)

Why did you choose Windows over the Mac, the only other viable choice for
a personal computer back then?

Nothing good can come from a loaded question like that.

 

[Peter Foldes]

Thanks, Bill. That was the most detailed explanation so far about the
advantages of running multiple desktops and I appreciate it. You've
convinced me 100% that multiple desktops have absolutely zero value to
me and would only get in the way when I'm trying to work. Other people
aren't wrong for finding value there, but obviously not everyone does
things the same way and it's good that there are options to suit
everyone.

When I am working multiple desktops always creates a distraction for me. That is why
I am not a happy camper using it. My eyes seem to pull to the right on glancing and
I always need to pull back with my sight to the first screen where the main focus
for me should be. Drives me crazy so I have removed the option to see multiple
desktops.

JS

 

[Bob H]

Interesting. You're one of the very few people I know who prefer the
task bar on the top.

I also like the taskbar on the top and have had it there since way
back....win95 I think.

So you know another person now.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

Nothing good can come from a loaded question like that.

It is a pity that one can not shoot people with their loaded
questions.

"Your Honour, he came at me with a loaded question, so I used it
on him."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Ken Springer]

In

I am not sure what you are looking for since I don't know much about
Macs. But a Mac user created RocketDock that runs under Windows. I
haven't tried it in years, so I don't know how much it has changed since
the last time I ran it. But it might be what you are looking for.

About RocketDock
http://rocketdock.com/

Hi, Bill,

OS X comes with a built in dock, but not as spiffy as RocketDock. But
OS X also has a menu bar at the top of the desktop.

In the RocketDock video on the link, notice the dock is at the top. OS
X doesn't let you place the dock there. Only on the bottom and the sides.

So, in my desire to have all my computers have the menu bar, taskbar, at
the top, The Mac is the fly in the ointment because it doesn't let me
put the dock at the top, which I would like. At least not natively.
I'd bet you better than even money there's something out there that
will, it's just not a big enough issue at the moment to take the time to
go look.

But I've downloaded it to try in my virtual machines, and maybe the real
ones too! LOL


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2

 

[Ken Blake]

I also like the taskbar on the top and have had it there since way
back....win95 I think.

So you know another person now.

OK, but you are still very few.

 

[Ken Springer]

In

Oh man! This subject is right up my alley. I don't know why I didn't
notice this thread earlier? I probably used every single multiple
desktop utility out there. And that one you mentioned is actually one of
the worst ones out there Ken.

Of course! It's from MS! LOL

But even though it isn't one of the better
ones, it does do one unique thing. And that is I can run different
shells in different desktops. Like for example, I can run Aston Shell in
desktop 1 and the stock Windows Explorer Shell in Desktop 2. ;-)

Everything else about desktops.exe is negative:

1) Can't move windows to another desktop

FYI, that's a possible in OS X, as well as a max of 16 desktops.

2) Many of your tray icons are not accessible in other than Desktop 1

I would classify this as typical MS limiting the user.

3) Limited to four desktops only (two if running under XP)

4 desktops here, 32 bit windows.

4) Can only close Desktops by logging off

Personally, I wouldn't want to close Desktops, or any alternative, and
have it running on bootup.

5) Incompatible with Windows 8

Haven't played with the early prerelease of Win8, but I suspect it will
break a lot of alternatives to basic Windows. From the screenshots I've
seen, and the few comments I've read, I doubt it will be my cup of tea.

My favorite multiple desktop utility is AltDesk (not free). Although
Virtual Dimension (free) is also quite good. And they both will run
after Desktops.exe has launched.

I've a couple of them downloaded, but haven't had the time to play.

I discovered Desktops.exe when exploring the Internationals Suite long
ago. Just now got around to playing with it.

At this point, the MS program is just something to satisfy my curiosity,
since as I'm sure you know, my primary computer is this Mac, which I use
95% of the time, or more.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2

 

[John Ferrell]

It seems to be working well.
I needed to install a couple of times because I am so used to seeing a
program "fences" I did not think to remove it first.
After I set it up I was surprised to see all 4 of my desk tops
appeared to be identical. Any folder I put on one appears on the other
three as well. That did not do anything for desktop clutter. I stated
putting different tasks in folders on the desktop rather than keeping
them by themselves on the Desktop. When I open a given folder on a
desktop and bring up a project it stays put when I go to another
desktop. When I come back to it, nothing has changed.
#1 is currently doing email,you tube and news. #,2 I am doing a PC
Board for a microprocessor. I am about to setup an Amateur Radio
operating session on #3.

Some of the other Folders I have in place to activate when I need to
are Graphics,PIC microprocessors, Arduino, Electronics, and Power
Basic. Being Dynamic by setting up from folders is better than the
static implementation.

I admit to being a bit different myself. At 72 I find my short term
memory getting dangerously poor. I think the modern term is ADD. I do
take med's and they help. I live and breathe some kind of electronics
continuously. It is important to me! I have 4 operational machines on
at the moment, 1-Win7, 2-Win XP Pro, 1 Linux under construction
(Probably UBUNTU), Under the worktable is a Win98 and an old UBUNTU
that refuses to upgrade... All of those are in some state of switching
between 4 monitors and two keyboards.

There are more upstairs and all are on the LAN.

I will return to lurking for a while this change burns in and I find
out if I have lost any thing important with the change!

BTW, the machine I am on with USENET is an old (but very good!) Asus
A7N8-E MB running XP Pro.

Thanks for the help, I hope I can share something of value to you
folks in the future...

Thanks to all.
Ken has shown me the solution I was after.
John Ferrell W8CCW

John Ferrell W8CCW

 

[Stefan Patric]

[snip]
I guess I don't get it, which is no one's problem but mine.
Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you've never used them, that's understandable.

It's not that I haven't seen or tried multiple desktops, it's just
that I have, and found no value (to me) in doing so. When I'm working
on multiple things I have no problem bringing the respective window to
the front and it doesn't matter to me that there are about 30 windows
open or minimized behind the active window. What am I missing?

A desktop like that would drive me crazy. It's not that I couldn't work
with everything running on a single desktop. I have. And do. With
Windows, you have no choice. It's just that I hate clutter. And to me,
such a desktop is cluttered.

I don't know where you're seeing clutter. At this moment, I'm using
Agent and it's all I see. One task, one application. I don't group my
taskbar icons, so there are multiple icons displayed there, but that's
what the taskbar is for. That's not clutter, it's functionality. You're
assuming clutter where there is none.

From your response of "...30 windows opened or minimized...", I assumed
based on my observations and the responses in this thread of other single
desktop users that most would be opened, stacked one over the other, not
full screen, offset slightly with bits and pieces showing, so one could
click on one to bring it to the top.

So, do you keep all windows/apps minimized, except the one you're
currently using, or is everything maximized full screen, covering the
desktop itself, and you use the taskbar to "pop" the desired window to
the top?

They have a name for that particular disorder, you know. ;-)

That's what my therapist keeps telling me. ;-) But I never misplace my
car keys. So, there are advantages.

Nothing good can come from a loaded question like that.

Not loaded. Just curious. I always find it interesting how people
arrive at important decisions. So, I'll start . . . .

I chose the PC-Linux combo to replace my Amiga over either Windows or Mac
OSes, both of which I had used, because my research and testing
indicated that Linux's designed-from-the-ground-up, multi-user, pre-
emptive multi-tasking concept was superior, more efficient, and more
stable.

I also looked at QNX with its revolutionary micro-kernel--45K IIRC, but
it was too new, and lacked sufficient applications to be useful for
general computing. A version of it had been considered for the next
generation of Amigas, but Commodore backed out on their agreement, and
chose the Linux monolithic kernel instead. However, shortly thereafter
development stopped, and Commodore finally went belly-up.

Your turn. ;-)

Stef

 

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 09:42:39 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]
I guess I don't get it, which is no one's problem but mine.
Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you've never used them, that's understandable.

It's not that I haven't seen or tried multiple desktops, it's just
that I have, and found no value (to me) in doing so. When I'm working
on multiple things I have no problem bringing the respective window to
the front and it doesn't matter to me that there are about 30 windows
open or minimized behind the active window. What am I missing?

A desktop like that would drive me crazy. It's not that I couldn't work
with everything running on a single desktop. I have. And do. With
Windows, you have no choice. It's just that I hate clutter. And to me,
such a desktop is cluttered.

I don't know where you're seeing clutter. At this moment, I'm using
Agent and it's all I see. One task, one application. I don't group my
taskbar icons, so there are multiple icons displayed there, but that's
what the taskbar is for. That's not clutter, it's functionality. You're
assuming clutter where there is none.

From your response of "...30 windows opened or minimized...", I assumed
based on my observations and the responses in this thread of other single
desktop users that most would be opened, stacked one over the other, not
full screen, offset slightly with bits and pieces showing, so one could
click on one to bring it to the top.

That happens sometimes with a few apps, but it's the exception rather
than the norm and typically applies to things that can't be maximized,
such as Trillian and the Windows Calculator.

So, do you keep all windows/apps minimized, except the one you're
currently using, or is everything maximized full screen, covering the
desktop itself, and you use the taskbar to "pop" the desired window to
the top?

I minimize nothing. I maximize the thing I'm working with at the
moment, whether it's Outlook, Firefox, Agent, whatever. Once you
maximize something, it doesn't matter what's behind it since you can't
see it anyway. Yes, I use the taskbar to select what I want to see. It
helps that I don't allow Windows to group the taskbar icons.

That's what my therapist keeps telling me. ;-) But I never misplace my
car keys. So, there are advantages.


Not loaded. Just curious. I always find it interesting how people
arrive at important decisions. So, I'll start . . . .

I chose the PC-Linux combo to replace my Amiga over either Windows or Mac
OSes, both of which I had used, because my research and testing
indicated that Linux's designed-from-the-ground-up, multi-user, pre-
emptive multi-tasking concept was superior, more efficient, and more
stable.

I also looked at QNX with its revolutionary micro-kernel--45K IIRC, but
it was too new, and lacked sufficient applications to be useful for
general computing. A version of it had been considered for the next
generation of Amigas, but Commodore backed out on their agreement, and
chose the Linux monolithic kernel instead. However, shortly thereafter
development stopped, and Commodore finally went belly-up.

Your turn. ;-)

With the Amiga, I had an excellent OS and a poor selection of
applications. The Mac would have been more of the same, except I
wouldn't have described its OS as excellent. The PC platform gave me a
mediocre OS and excellent application support, so it was an obvious
choice. That was then, of course. Since then, the Amiga platform has
disappeared, the Mac platform is still a non-starter for me, as is the
Linux platform, and Windows has gotten leaps and bounds better than it
was in 1991. So, I stay.

 

[BillW50]

In pjp typed:

I've used both multi-monitor and multi-desktops, in fact even tried
both together. I personally find the multi-monitor a lot more
practical as it's "just there" and requires no hotkey or button press
etc. to switch from one to the other. I also find it more versatile
doing drag and drop operations as it's so easy to have windows open
fully accessible and let's not forget being able to watch a full
screen video or play a game full screen on one monitor while
"monitoring" the second monitor. Multi- desktops I found to be no
more practical than just single desktop and using the taskbar as
required as it took same number of keystrokes except when have
multipule programs open on each desktop.

Just my $0.02 but have had hardware could do both since Win98.

I totally agree. Although there are some things you didn't mention. Here
are some of the things I don't like about multiple monitors.

1) Moving the pointer from one screen to another.

2) Most multiple monitor setups, one screen can't handle videos. Maybe
you could explain this one to me why this is?

3) Multiple monitors you still are limited to desktop real estate.
Desktop managers like AltDesk and Virtual Dimension have no limit.

4) Taskbar is only one the primary screen.

5) Windows remembers the last position of some windows. And if you
change the multiple monitors configuration, you may have an application
way off of the desktop somewhere. Hopefully ALT-SPACE-M will get it
back. But that doesn't work for all windows.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

When I am working multiple desktops always creates a distraction for me. That is why
I am not a happy camper using it. My eyes seem to pull to the right on glancing and
I always need to pull back with my sight to the first screen where the main focus
for me should be. Drives me crazy so I have removed the option to see multiple
desktops.

JS

I think we are talking about a method in which only the current desktop
is visible. You switch to another desktop with a hot-key or by bringing
up a list of desktops from which to choose one.

You'd have to be psychic to see another desktop to your right...

 

[Stefan Patric]

[big snip]

With the Amiga, I had an excellent OS and a poor selection of
applications. The Mac would have been more of the same, except I
wouldn't have described its OS as excellent. The PC platform gave me a
mediocre OS and excellent application support, so it was an obvious
choice. That was then, of course. Since then, the Amiga platform has
disappeared, the Mac platform is still a non-starter for me, as is the
Linux platform, and Windows has gotten leaps and bounds better than it
was in 1991. So, I stay.

I'm seeing more and more of my Windows user friends switching to Mac,
saying Windows has gotten much worse [since XP]. Their disgust with
Vista, for the most part, was the last nail in the coffin.

So, what is it about today's Macs that doesn't fill your needs? Other
than the big cost of switching, of course. OSX is now an excellent OS,
light years improved over its predecessors. Plus, there is an extensive
selection of apps--many available for both platforms--with excellent
support.

Not faulting your choice. Just wondering. I do that a lot. ;-) Knowing
why you choose, helps me help others with their choices when they ask me
for advice. Which I get a lot.

Stef

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson

such as Trillian and the Windows Calculator.

[]
That sounds like the title of one of the less interesting episodes of
one's favourite space opera ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm sometimes a bit bewildered by that, really - there are no young people in
it, there's no sex, there's no violence, no car chases and there's no action
and no vampires. - Colin Firth on the success of the film "The King's Speech".
Radio Times 10-16 September 2011

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

Thanks, Bill. That was the most detailed explanation so far about the
advantages of running multiple desktops and I appreciate it. You've
convinced me 100% that multiple desktops have absolutely zero value to
me and would only get in the way when I'm trying to work. Other people
aren't wrong for finding value there, but obviously not everyone does
things the same way and it's good that there are options to suit
everyone.

What is funny, I used to say the very same thing. But then I figured it
wouldn't hurt to play with them. And some are easier to start playing
with and some are more for people who know what they are doing under
multiple desktops and sports more advanced features.

I admit after years with playing with them, I don't always use them. As
sometimes I don't. Although I would say I use them about 50% of the time
(I am right now in fact). And most of them you can run them like any
application and close them down and so you can have them there or gone
without affecting anything else.

One of the things I really like about multiple desktops is that I don't
have to minimize or restore hardly much anymore. As multiple desktops
already does that for you. Nor are you using your mouse and going down
to the Taskbar hardly much at all either. And the only application(s)
that shows up in the Taskbar is the one(s) that is in that desktop
anyway.

Another handy thing is some like AltDesk has their own startup folder.
What this means is that I generally have the same applications in the
same desktops. For example my browser is in desktop 1, newsreader is in
desktop 2, Word running in desktop 3, etc. And I don't have to start any
of them up. As if this is the first time I switched to desktop 2 for
example, it can launch my newsreader so I don't have too. And if I never
go to desktop 2 for some reason, it never launches.

 

[BillW50]

In Alias typed:

And the reason you think anyone cares is? Linux has had multiple
desktops for years. And, with Windows 7 (this is a Windows 7 ng), you
get previews of what's open by hovering on the program's icon on the
task bar, something else Linux has had for years. Course, you're too
stupid to use Thunderbird or Windows 7 so it's not surprising you're
too stupid to use Linux.

It doesn't surprise me you are too stupid when you believe your own BS.
And yes, some Linux distros have multiple desktops and I have used them
both for many years. I have no problems with multiple desktops at all.
And yes, Windows 7 does give you a preview of the window. But that isn't
new, is it? As I have that even under Windows 2000 with Aston Shell and
my XP machines has that too. But that isn't multiple desktops at all.
And no, I am not too stupid to use Linux. The problem is Linux is too
simple for my needs, so I don't use it a lot.

 

[BillW50]

In Alias typed:

And the reason you think anyone cares is?

Not you of course, you are too dumb to care! This is for adults, so it
isn't for you!

 

[BillW50]

In Alias typed:

Using multiple desktops is for people like you that need it simple.
The problem with you -- besides your stupidity -- is you are an
arrogant self centered twit.

Nope, multiple desktops has been used by power users for many years,
simpletons like you couldn't handle it.