Q: Dual monitors and fullscreen fiasco, is there a work around?

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

Photoshop resides on one display but I have put one of its pallettes on another - what should happen if I change space on either one of the displays?

 

You didn't get what I said. In my solution you have option to keep both screens synced to show all of Photoshop. But you also can switch one screen only to another desktop if you want to check on some other app. Nothing is forcing you to do that though.

What you are asking in your solution is complete annihilation of Mission Control. Apple won't do that. Not a practical solution at this point. MC isn't going anywhere.

Like most things, there should be a choice since people work in different ways.  If I have my external monitor sitting next to my iMac, I treat it as one big screen and want them to change Spaces, etc together.  However, if I have my MBA attached to the monitor, they're very different sizes and pixel densities and not sitting right next to each other, so I'd like Spaces to switch separately on each.

You know Apple will never do this so it's up to some 3rd party.

David

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

Edit: After typing this I went and downloaded Firefox to test this, and found that Firefox doesn't actually use Lion fullscreen (there isn't the fullscreen button at the top right of the window, and when you go fullscreen any external displays you have don't become useless...), and so any issues you experience with fullscreen in Firefox are not down to Apple.

This behaviour might be different if the user is running FF on their primary display; in which case, I can understand the confusion by not knowing the relevant shortcuts.

I don't quite agree with this. I think that usually, people spread things out over multiple displays because they are all related and should all be seen together, not because the things are logically separate. That is how I work, anyway. And as you point out there would be endless confusion if, for example, Photoshop resides on one display but I have put one of its pallettes on another - what should happen if I change space on either one of the displays?

In my workflow, my primary and secondary screens are very often related. For example, a Parallels Desktop VM is running on the secondary monitor and I've a workflow-related e-mail or Finder window up on the primary (MacBook) display. Moving across Spaces in Snow Leopard makes perfect sense to me and behave as I have come to expect from other window managers. Display pairs move across virtual desktops as pairs. That isn't to say, however, that I wouldn't mind seeing the ability of linking virtual desktops being user definable. I can absolutely see the benefit of having, say, QT or iTunes full-screen locked on the external monitor as I flip through desktops on my primary display. Or vice versa, depending on the apps in use on which space. This latter part could be accomplished simply by assigning an application to all spaces for a particular screen/desktop, which already works in windowed mode.

However it be done, Lion is likely to remain as it is now. Given that 10.7.3 only released in February, I'd be surprised (but happy) to see a service pack be released prior to Mountain Lion going Gold. If they did happen to somehow fix dual-screen support in Lion, my reluctance to upgrade would be greatly reduced.

Message was edited by: Trane Francks, to fix typing stupidity and a lack of proofreading. :)

I'm not opposed to the choice existing, perhaps my response suggested otherwise. Id be quite happy to have an option to have unlinked spaces on my two displays. I would leave it unchecked, however

samhaque wrote:

 

What you are asking in your solution is complete annihilation of Mission Control. Apple won't do that. Not a practical solution at this point. MC isn't going anywhere.

I don't agree that my solution would anymore annihilate mission control than yours would, in fact I actually see mine being exactly the same as you propose, except that whether or not you have the 'unlink spaces for separate displays' check box checked, it gets automatically turned on when an app goes full screen. So the spaces spread out across multiple displays as the norm, but that behaviour changes for full screen apps. Afterall these do behave differently to other apps so it is reasonable to suggest that the OS should treat them differently.

Mission Control would still exist and would still do its job. It would allow you to see your open apps, move them between spaces, as well as rearranging full screen apps around your connected displays. I am actually among the few who like Mission Control, and the way it unifies Exposé and Spaces. These have always seemed logically connected functions to me. I'm not asking for Apple to change its behaviour at all, other than by separating full screen apps and virtual desktops.

So, the way I see it, the fix to the full screen nonsense can't involve changing the way spaces work, since lots of people (myself included) would be just as opposed to unlinked spaces as they are to grey linen. Even if it was an opt-in feature, I wouldn't want to have to choose between a useless fullscreen mode and a different workflow to the one I like. So, it either has to involve removing full screen from Mission Control, which we know Apple won't do because we'd lose all of the benefits of having multiple full screen apps and swiping between them, or it needs to alter the way Mission Control works. Note that my solution wouldn't prevent them from also implementing the permanent unlinking option, if there was enough demand for it.

unfrostedpoptart wrote:

 

Like most things, there should be a choice since people work in different ways.  If I have my external monitor sitting next to my iMac, I treat it as one big screen and want them to change Spaces, etc together.  However, if I have my MBA attached to the monitor, they're very different sizes and pixel densities and not sitting right next to each other, so I'd like Spaces to switch separately on each.

 

You know Apple will never do this so it's up to some 3rd party.

 

David

Maybe they can let us choose when to have the desktops move insync (as they do currently) and when we want them to move seperately on each monitor. Because the blackout can't be stopped if both monitor have synced desktops.

And its also true, Apple won't do any of this. They will do what they want. Right now I have no faith in them to do it the right way. No sane person would choose to black out one monitor in ANY situation whatsoever. But this is what they are doing now. So, bah humbug!

Although I love a good discussion like anyone else, this has started to repeat itself in the form of ideas. Some of you very heart felt people trying to make statements are saying almost the exact thing I said or other people said in the very beginning.

Since it's been a number of posts since I've last spammed this, please be sure to file feedback to apple about your specific enhancement requests here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

-MiB

samhaque wrote:

Because the blackout can't be stopped if both monitor have synced desktops.

 

I don't agree with this at all. Case in point: Applications such as VLC that optionally implement their own blanking of other displays. The problem isn't synced desktops, it's that the behaviour of always blanking secondary displays is hardcoded. Full-screen apps on any of the attached displays should be possible, simultaneously or not, as the user wishes.

TheSmokeMonster wrote:

 

Although I love a good discussion like anyone else, this has started to repeat itself in the form of ideas. Some of you very heart felt people trying to make statements are saying almost the exact thing I said or other people said in the very beginning.

 

That's bound to be the case for a thread that's been relevant and current for almost a year.

TheSmokeMonster wrote:

 

Although I love a good discussion like anyone else, this has started to repeat itself in the form of ideas. Some of you very heart felt people trying to make statements are saying almost the exact thing I said or other people said in the very beginning.

 

Since it's been a number of posts since I've last spammed this, please be sure to file feedback to apple about your specific enhancement requests here:

 

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

 

-MiB

In the very beginning it was suggested that spaces could be unlinked on separate displays, but as I said above I don't believe this is a solution, as I don't believe that everyone who wants a functional full screen mode with multiple displays would be totally happy with separate spaces for separate displays. I know that I wouldn't.

It would be good, in my opinion, to work out between us what would be acceptable behaviour for us all. If nothing else, at least third-party developers would know what to focus on

So, do we all agree that the current behaviour should be largely unchanged for when there is just one display?

And with multiple displays, assuming that spaces on displays won't be unlinked in general, what should be the behaviour when going full screen? Should the app stay linked to the current space, or should the space on the other display(s) change independently of it? Should any windows 'under' the full screen app be automatically displaced? Once I have a full screen app open on one display, what is the behaviour when I hit full screen on another app, on another screen?

EDIT: fixed typo

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

Csound1 wrote:

 

Snow Leopard has no Full Screen mode.

 

No, it didn't.

Then how can you say that (with regard to Full Screen Mode) Lion is less functional when it is in fact more functional (ie: it possesses the function and Snow Leopard does not)?

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

And with multiple displays, assuming that spaces on displays won't be unlinked in general, what should be the behaviour when going full screen? Should the app stay linked to the current space, or should the space on the other display(s) change independently of it? Should any windows 'under' the full screen app be automatically displaced? Once I have a full screen app open on one display, what is the behaviour when I hit full screen on another app, on another screen?

The grey linen is my biggest problem. Lets face it. Apple has to do fullscreen the way VLC and Mplayerx does it. You create a proper desktop then you put the app there and fullscreen it. That way you get a useable desktop on your other monitor too. If they stick to (and they will!) the current behavior of Mission Control then this is the only solution, unless they let us unlink desktops between multiple monitors.

There is definitely a solution in what I said above, which will definitely work better than it does now.

Csound1 wrote:

 

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

No, it didn't.

Then how can you say that (with regard to Full Screen Mode) Lion is less functional when it is in fact more functional (ie: it possesses the function and Snow Leopard does not)?

If you're going to quote me, please have the courtesy to do so in context. I agreed with you, but then went on to explain why the apparent addition of a feature removed functionality for many users.

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

No, it didn't. But that is not to say that full screen applications could not be written for it, either with full hardware acceleration as in most 3D games, or by using a full screen window with no decoration, as in previous versions of iTunes, QuickTime and any third party app that used full screen. This is the method that is still used in Firefox, Chrome, VLC, etc. which have all been recommended time and time again in this thread.

The point is that before the fullscreen API existed, full screen apps worked. Now that Apple has provided a 'correct' way to do this, they don't work. Or rather, the only ones that work still do it the old ("incorrect") way. Thus, Lion has reduced functionality.

So, do we all agree that the current behaviour should be largely unchanged for when there is just one display?

Yes.

And with multiple displays, assuming that spaces on displays won't be unlinked in general, what should be the behaviour when going full screen? Should the app stay linked to the current space, or should the space on the other display(s) change independently of it? Should any windows 'under' the full screen app be automatically displaced? Once I have a full screen app open on one display, what is the behaviour when I hit full screen on another app, on another screen?

Go full screen- app becomes a seperate space on "active" display ONLY (unless program is specifically designed to take over ALL displays (e.g. photoshop)). "Active" meaning whichever display the application was running on when the user clicked full-screen mode.

Should App stay linked- I think it should become it's own space, just like it does currently in Mission Control. Whether spaces are currently linked or unlinked by default is chosen under system preferences (as demonstrated in TheSmokeMonster's diagram). However, OPTION + three finger swipe does the opposite of the setting in system prefs. In otherwords, if "linked" is selected, a normal three finger swipe would move all spaces over one space. Holding OPT would only move spaces on the "active" screen (whereever cursor is positioned).

Should any windows 'under' the full screen app be automatically displaced? - Yes, they stay on whichever desktop # they are open on and either move to the other monitor or out of view, depending whether whatever app/desktop is "active" on the other display.

Full-screen open on one display, hit full screen on another app- becomes full screen, therefore now running two full screen apps on seperate displays. 

Good question. Hope Apple reads this.

Joe Kinlaw wrote:

 

Go full screen- app becomes a seperate space on "active" display ONLY (unless program is specifically designed to take over ALL displays (e.g. photoshop)). "Active" meaning whichever display the application was running on when the user clicked full-screen mode.

With all due respect, this behaviour is unacceptable already. For example, Preview on Snow Leopard has no business taking over secondary displays in full-screen, but it does so anyway. Same with iTunes on full-screen either with album art or visualizer. I can see special use cases, such as your Photoshop example, where the application will be making active use of multiple displays, but just blanking them should only be allowed by user consent.

I actually don't mind QuickTime blanking a display, but it should be definable. That way, I can tell it to blank displays when I'm watching a movie in a darkened room or I can keep my secondary screen alive and busy while watching a MotoGP free practice.

YMMV and all that.

I don't quite agree with this. I think that usually, people spread things out over multiple displays because they are all related and should all be seen together, not because the things are logically separate. That is how I work, anyway. And as you point out there would be endless confusion if, for example, Photoshop resides on one display but I have put one of its pallettes on another - what should happen if I change space on either one of the displays?

 

Yes, your right, I don't agree either. After recently upgrading to Lion I find that under Exposé & Spaces I could use 2 gestures to show all spaces and all windows, and it everything centred on the main screen. This allowed me to see where every application window is and to organise which windows I want to be in which dual monitor space together.

Right now with 2 screens if I activate MC its much harder to see where all my windows are because I have to look across all the spaces on one screen, then all the spaces on the other.

If I want to move say, Transmit on monitor 2 space 3 to be next to Netbeans which is on monitor 1 space 2 I have to activate MC, flick to space 2 to find Transmit, then look over to the other screen to find where Netbeans is (this may not be visible as another app may be in front of it) then drag transmit across to space to then flick across to space 2.

On Exposé & Spaces this procedure would be flick-flick-drag-click