How do I tell Lion to disable the LCD screen even when the lid is open?

Went back to Snow Leopard because of this issue. I got my Dell U2711 connected to my 15inch MBP Early 2011. I dont need another screen running, which is half the size of my Dell, its annoying.

Linda Custer: Neither I nor Apple has ever said or written that clamshell mode worked by accident. What was accidental, as I and the quoted Apple representative have both said, was the fact that after putting the machine into clamshell mode with the display closed and inactive, one could reopen the display without activating it. There was, for seven or eight years after Apple published the clamshell mode instructions, no reason for anyone to want to do that, since none of the computers that could run in clamshell mode ever needed the extra cooling that came with opening the display. They were perfectly happy — and plenty cool enough — running closed. Only in the last two or three years have MBPs generated enough heat to make it useful for them to be open when working under heavy load with an external display.

Again, I disagree. I neglected to specifically mention the re-open behavior in my reply to you ( I did mention it in my next post a few minutes later). That too was expected and designed. Apple officially sanctioned, supported, and documented everything you mentioned to be able to get a Leopard and Snow Leopard machine to work with just an external display with the MacBook (Pro) case open. They were not surprised; this was not unintended.

Next, with Lion, they made a conscious decision to modify that behavior.

Those are facts.

My speculation is that they did this because of the simplicity factor. I do not think Apple believed they were hurting the situation. I think they thought they were helping. They may change their minds now that they have feedback.

Most (all?) members of this thread including me, feel that was unacceptable for all the reasons stated: heat, WiFi, sound. I predict Apple will modify this, but it may take a while.

eww wrote:

one could reopen the display without activating it. There was, for seven or eight years after Apple published the clamshell mode instructions, no reason for anyone to want to do that, since none of the computers that could run in clamshell mode ever needed the extra cooling that came with opening the display.

With respect, as other users have attested, there were / are various other reasons - whether in addition to or incidental to heat dissipation - for wishing to run in clamshell mode with the lid open, external screen operational and internal screen deactivated. From reading this thread alone, such reasons include:

- being able to use the keyboard (and presumably also the trackpad)

- being able to use the microphone

- being able to use the webcam

- being able to use the speakers

- superior wifi performance

Apple officially sanctioned, supported, and documented everything you mentioned to be able to get a Leopard and Snow Leopard machine to work with just an external display with the MacBook (Pro) case open.

Show me where, please.

From KB article ht3131 dated May of this year (before public release of Lion and incorrect on systems running with Lion):

To disconnect your Apple portable from the display after use:

When you're finished using your Apple portable in closed-lid mode, the internal display will not function when you open the lid until you have properly disconnected the external display. To properly disconnect the external display, put the computer to sleep and disconnect the display cable from the computer. Open the lid and the computer will reactivate the internal display.

[Emphasis added by me.]

Again, this has been Apple's designed and documented behavior until Lion.

You may argue that it was not designed but only documented, as you did previously. None of us has access to Apple's original and internal design documents. That it was designed this way is my inference by the fact that it survived the Leopard to Snow Leopard update and several interim operating system changes.

It is a fact it was documented. It is a fact that it was not surprising to Apple. It is, in my opinion, very strongly supported that it was designed this way as well.

Jonathan: You are right: in my eagerness to disassociate myself from the notions Linda misattributed to me, I did overlook the several other possible reasons you cite for wanting the built-in display open while working on a second monitor. I regret that oversight and retract my "no reason for anyone to want to do that" statement.

However, I am mystified about this:

IF, as so many people in this thread inexplicably believe, Apple provided that capability intentionally, why was it made so very cumbersome? Why, in that case, would Apple have required the user to connect an external keyboard and mouse, put the computer to sleep, wake it up again, and then open it, just to get it to function without its built-in display operating? If Apple meant to make it convenient to use the machine with its display off, why was it made inconvenient instead?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to figure that if Apple had realized that was a useful capability and wanted to support it, they would instead have provided — long ago — the simple on/off switch that users are asking for now?

What bothers me a lot about this thread is not the complaint that a useful feature has gone away; that's perfectly understandable and fair. It's the the gross illogic and unfairness of attributing intentions to Apple that its behavior clearly indicates it never had: the intent to support turning off the display, and then the intent to eliminate that capability. Anyone looking objectively at what Apple did and didn't do — rather than looking for someone to blame for bad decisions and get mad at — would, I think, have to conclude that the ability to run the machine with its display turned off was an accidental feature, and might be charitable enough to accept the explanation that when the accidental feature went away, that was another accident.

Linda: As I noted earlier in this thread, the notation in article 3131 about the display remaining off when it is opened or the external display is disconnected is not presented as a useful feature, but as a momentary obstacle to be overcome. If Apple had recognized it as a useful feature worthy of support, do you not think some mention might have been made of its usefulness?

If I have misattributed to you, I sincerely apologize.

When I said "You may argue that it was not designed but only documented, as you did previously," I was referring to your post of July 29, 2011, at 2:11 PM EDT where you quoted, "If you open..."

If I made other statements about what you had said that were misattributed, I will happily take your corrections. I have no desire to misattribute anyone.

I am carefully trying to separate facts from my intuition or thoughts here.

I happen to know for a fact that Apple was informed of this fully during the Lion development process and that they replied -- as others here have mentioned -- that it was an intended change in Lion. The current Lion behavior is absolutely no accident. I can't provide quotes for this, so you can say it is not a fact, but it is.

If we go back to Leopard and Snow Leopard, it is my inference that it was intended because it was not changed. I have filed feedback during Leopard and Snow Leopard asking for them to implement the switch, so I agree with you it was convoluted, but it achieved its aim. They realized the convolution and thought they were correcting it.

Remember, Apple does many metrics on Genius Bar appointments and phone calls. They are very aware of the difficulties users are having and the number of times people are confused with things.

Wait. Even more elegance will be coming.

No, I do not think so, and here is why: Mentioning it as a feature would have been confusing. In addition, and very importantly, they did feel and still feel that case closed meets all their design specs for the machine. They knew some people wanted it open, so they designed to allow that with the screen off, but they weren't going to tout it as a feature.

Apple has many kb articles where they simply stick to facts. Everything they said was factual (until the change in behavior with Lion). There was no requirement to go beyond that.

I don't see why the discussion "intended feature v.s. accidental bug" is really relevant at this point. It's obvious lots of people are missing this fuctionality in the new operating system. It's a feature that, from a UI point of view, would only require an additional confirm button in system preferences, so why not just implement it in a future update?

PDzero wrote:

I don't see why the discussion "intended feature v.s. accidental bug" is really relevant at this point. It's obvious lots of people are missing this fuctionality in the new operating system. It's a feature that, from a UI point of view, would only require an additional confirm button in system preferences, so why not just implement it in a future update?

AGREED

tjk wrote:

PDzero wrote:

I don't see why the discussion "intended feature v.s. accidental bug" is really relevant at this point. It's obvious lots of people are missing this fuctionality in the new operating system. It's a feature that, from a UI point of view, would only require an additional confirm button in system preferences, so why not just implement it in a future update?

AGREED

SECOND THAT!!!!

Yeah, Accidental or not. All we need is the addition of a simple switch/setting in System Preferences to choose which monitor we want as our "primary" monitor. If we want both, then we simply check "Mirror Displays" then.

For owners of a Macbook Pro, early 2011, I have made a video showing you where to place the magnet. I had some issues finding that "sweet spot" myself so hopefully this will be useful to others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KNyh4hc5O8

Best regards

Seph