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

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

Csound1 wrote:

 

Snow Leopard has no Full Screen mode.

 

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.

 

Many applications worked perfectly with full screen in Snow Leopard and earlier versions. But in Lion, Apple implemented the OS-wide full screen "feature" that makes all but the primary display completely useless for most applications. And the problem is that because the full screen API exists in Lion and Apple encourages developers to use it, applications no longer have the better, self-implemented fullscreen functionality that they always had in the past.

 

The worst part is that the sensible, borderless window method is the method most widely used in other operating systems because it is simple and works well, and this is the functionality that Apple should have been writing into its own software (read Safari, the only browser not to have full screen support pre-Lion...), but instead they wasted time and effort on the non-feature that is an OS-wide full screen API.

"applications no longer have teh better, self-implemented fullscreen functionality that they always had in the past"

WHAT?

They all still work the same way they did before.  The better way.  and predictably will get larger share for sticking with the better implementation.  What are you talking about?

NorrinRadd wrote:

 

WHAT?

 

They all still work the same way they did before.  The better way.  and predictably will get larger share for sticking with the better implementation.  What are you talking about?

I'm completely confused by your comment, because you claim that applications "work the same way they always have. The better way" This is clearly not true since full screen mode did not exist prior to OS X 10.7, and because, as explained above (and at least twice previously in this thread) the new way is not in fact the 'better way' for multiple monitors.

For a clear demonstration of the point that others and I are making, try using an Apple app like DVD player or Quicktime Player full screen on a Mac with 2 displays connected. First try it on OS 10.6 or earlier, then try on Lion. On Snow Leopard it works as expected, going full screen on either display while leaving the other free to do what ever you like. On Lion, however, it goes fullscreen on one display, always the primary display, and all other connected displays show grey linen, completely wasting the space.

Apple's customers were calling for full screen features in some of its core apps, particularly Safari which was the only major browser not to implement full screen mode, and Apple misinterpreted this as a desire for a full screen API built into the window manager in OS X. Yes it is a nice feature that should make it easier for developers to write full screen apps, and yes it integrates well with Mission Control and trackpad gestures. On one screen. But with more than one screen it is just frustrating to use.

The result is that users with multiple monitors must seek third party applications just to be able to use their other screen(s) while watching a movie. That is ludicrous. And since Apple pushes its own technologies to developers, and Xcode gives tips on how to write 'Mac-like' applications, you can bet that the number of applications implementing full screen the Apple way and not the old way will surely increase. Applications like VLC already require the user to opt out of Lion-style full screen, how long before the old behaviour is just no longer implemented in these apps?

And more to the point, why shouldn't all applications use the Apple way? In theory a standard, OS-wide full screen behaviour would make applications behave more predicatbly and intuitively, should make it easier to provide UI improvements and shortcuts (like the gestures to switch spaces) and most importantly, make it easier for developers to write apps! But as things stand the feature is only half implemented, and should either be finished or removed.

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.

Agreed. Unless the applciation is designed to actually use both displays, it should not be a default behavior. I suppose I should have said "Go full screen- app becomes a seperate space on "active" display ONLY, leaving the second display unaffected."

For example, preview and iTunes are not designed to actually use both screens and therefore, by default, they should not blank out the second display. However, applications like photoshop, aperture, etc. should be allowed to take over both displays at the user's request. Basically, it should be the exact opposite of the way it currently functions. As it stands, developers can override blanking of the second display (from what I gather, this is the case with Firefox and VLC). It should work the other way around: unless the user specifically instructs the program to use both displays, it will only use one.

Joe Kinlaw wrote:

 

However, applications like photoshop, aperture, etc. should be allowed to take over both displays at the user's request. Basically, it should be the exact opposite of the way it currently functions. As it stands, developers can override blanking of the second display (from what I gather, this is the case with Firefox and VLC). It should work the other way around: unless the user specifically instructs the program to use both displays, it will only use one.

Photoshop on Mac already can use as many monitors you have. Its not a full screen enabled app but you can open up 2 photos on 2 monitors or 5 on 5. And what you said about VLC needing to be the opposite. Its confusing. No one wants VLC to change how it behaves right now.

What is so irksome about this farce is there *was* a defacto full-screen operation mode which has developed over decades through the evolution of the windowed GUI interface. 

Apple have completely ignored this defacto 'standard' and developed a totally sub-standard implementation which only works for a very narrow use case of small devices with one screen only.  They then compounded their error by removing alternatives and pushing developers to adopt their wrong ideas.  (I'll cite this thread as evidence that Apple are wrong)

It's an utter mess and a daily source of irritation as I simply cannot use Apple's full screen if I've more than one monitor or a larger screen - which is all of the time as I'm a 17" MBP user.

Glennny2Lappies wrote:

 

What is so irksome about this farce is there *was* a defacto full-screen operation mode which has developed over decades through the evolution of the windowed GUI interface. 

Yes this is my view precisely. The full screen window method works fine, and is used on basically every major operating system. I wouldn't be against Apple creating an API, and adding a nice, system-wide full screen button and keyboard shortcut, if the end result was better than what it replaced. In fact, if it worked properly, I agree that it would be preferable both to developers (probably easier to implement) and to the user.

But Lion full screen is actually less functional than the 'old' way, making external displays useless; and not even Apple applications use the 'standard' system wide keyboard shortcut. (I think it's supposed to be some combination of Ctrl, Shift, Opt, Cmd and F but I don't really know which combination...)

Regarding the "narrow use case" you talk about, I think the issue is that this is the use case that Apple is now targetting almost exclusively; hence they aren't listening to discussions like this one. Look at their product line-up: Mac Pro hasn't been refreshed for years, and they dropped their pro screens entirely despite them being widely used in industry, Mac Mini is targetted at entry-level, to hook up to your TV or to use as a small business server, and all of their other products have a single, integrated display. Yes they sell the external displays, but they're clearly designed to be used with notebooks with the lid closed (hence the laptop power supply and built in webcam, etc.)

It speaks volumes that one of the features of Mountain Lion is screen mirroring through an Apple TV. The marketing is very clear that this would mirror, not extend your desktop onto your TV. Apple clearly doesn't think you should have more than one display...

It seems to be the case that someone high up at Apple has decided that the single display is their roadmap for the future. I wonder how that's going to sit with some of Apple's staple customers, like the movie/creative crowd? Also Apple has made very good progress in capturing market share in the business market. I wonder how that's going to sit with the business market? If somebody else offers an OS that touts support of dual monitors will current Apple customers be temped to try it? Is this a good business decision for Apple? It would seem Apple could provide dual monitor support without too much trouble, and let the users choose how they want to use the hardware, and then they would have more customers and sell more hardware. Isn't that the idea?  Or am I missing something?

Jerry Dalton1 wrote:

 

It seems to be the case that someone high up at Apple has decided that the single display is their roadmap for the future.

Haha, don't go overboard there. Just because full-screening is messed up for multiple monitor setups, doesn't mean multi monitor option is going away. Plus, bigger the screen, less you need to full-screen your apps. Thats no excuse for blanking out the other monitor but its something we have to live with for who knows how long.

But its no doubt that Apple has made the biggest mess in history of OS features. Specially since they take pride in usability. Even Microsoft never screwed up this bad with an OS feature.

I know this thread seems like it's going on and on into the abyss and I hate to add yet another post, but I have a suggestion and a question...so I don't really know anything about OS X development, but would it be possible for someone to "hack" finder \ whatever the GUI is so that mission control would be indepenent on each monitor? 

Assuming this is possible, how about pledging at minimum $5 for this to get fixed and have it all go into a giant paypal donation account for the person or team of persons who can make this into a reality?

Apple is not going to change the current behavior of placing the stupid linen bitmap on the other displays; it's pretty damned clear (to me anyway). 

IMHO If they cared about our opinions and feedback and listened to us and were going to change it, then it would be in the ML devel. previews, and it isn't.

They're already on DP3 of ML...with Lion, they only released 4 DP's before the GM...so it's doubtful this will ever get "fixed"

This has been a problem for over a year, there's been thousands of views on this thread and probably millions of views on multiple technology blogs complaining about the multi monitor behavior of Lion and full screen mode....Apple knows about this and they don't care about what we think.

So how about we start up a donation fund and get some help from the OS X developer community to fix this problem for us?

samhaque wrote:

 

Jerry Dalton1 wrote:

 

It seems to be the case that someone high up at Apple has decided that the single display is their roadmap for the future.

Haha, don't go overboard there.

Actually, I would agree with Jerry. There's this "feature", along with the fact that Apple has all but discontinued its entire pro range to focus on the consumer market, with its small-screen notebooks and all-in-one iMac, and the only external displays it makes targeted as replacements for the built in screen of your notebook, anyone could make a pretty convincing argument that Apple thinks you should only have one screen.

Agreed; just look at FCP X for your evidence. 
That alone outraged so many pro users; pretty much everyone who had been using the app for years and have their entire businesses based on it jumped ship to adobe premiere.

jonaboff91 wrote:

 

samhaque wrote:

 

Jerry Dalton1 wrote:

 

It seems to be the case that someone high up at Apple has decided that the single display is their roadmap for the future.

Haha, don't go overboard there.

Actually, I would agree with Jerry. There's this "feature", along with the fact that Apple has all but discontinued its entire pro range to focus on the consumer market...

I know that makes sense but I think Apple is not keen on upgrading Mac Pro because people aren't buying those enough anymore. What you needed a Mac Pro for few years ago, now you can do it on MBP. MBP is not at all a purely consumer level product. Music and video studios are using MBPs now like crazy. I myself don't see any reason for buying a Mac Pro anymore, which I did few years back. Maybe a lot of people feel that way. Plus if you need something really powerful, chances are you know how to make a Linux or Windows box with a fraction of the cost. And I'm talking cheap 3D rendering job type situation. I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro for that, since MBP is now capable enough for the design process.

Its just a possible way Apple is thinking at the moment. And if you consider business logic, why would Apple try to kill a product if it was still in high demand? They are good at making money. So I think its safe to assume Mac Pros aren't selling well at all.

I think they found themselves having to choose between the high profit, but highly competitive consumer market, and the comfortable but lower earning pro market. When they started to lose market share even in the areas where they traditionally dominated, to the likes of The Foundry, it probably made the decision to jump ship even easier. And once they moved out of the pro software market they lost sight of the hardware and OS needs of their pro users too.

When their current business strategy is to push iDevices to everyone on the planet, and steal as much market share from Windows as possible, typical home and office use is all they really care about, and a typical home or office user only has one display.

However, even having said all of that, what we are discussing is the fact that screens become unuseable in full screen mode. It would be quite trivial for them to detect that you have more than one display, and make full screen mode take up one display in the current space. This wouldn't affect their primary usage scenario and would take them about half a day at most to code. It should be a no-brainer for them to implement this and retain the support of their existing and loyal users.

Jerry Dalton1 wrote:

 

It seems to be the case that someone high up at Apple has decided that the single display is their roadmap for the future. I wonder how that's going to sit with some of Apple's staple customers, like the movie/creative crowd? Also Apple has made very good progress in capturing market share in the business market. I wonder how that's going to sit with the business market? If somebody else offers an OS that touts support of dual monitors will current Apple customers be temped to try it? Is this a good business decision for Apple? It would seem Apple could provide dual monitor support without too much trouble, and let the users choose how they want to use the hardware, and then they would have more customers and sell more hardware. Isn't that the idea?  Or am I missing something?

But, at the same time,they made a (semi) big deal of being able to daisy-chain the TB Display for multiple screens. Of course, as I've written before, you have to do a lot of research to make sure your video card supports this!   And, also as I previously wrote, the dock and menu-bar only being on one screen shows that they've never cared much about multiple displays

The ironic thing is tha the first computer I ever saw multiple display on was a Mac.  I think it was a Mac IIcx in 1989 and I was totally blown away that you could plug in a 2nd monitor and just slide windows from one to another!

Apple and MS are going to be running into similar issues a lot more this and next year as they both work on unifying their portable and desktop OSs and UIs. I think both with suffer for a couple of years until they evolve into good solutions.  I think Apple is smarter in how they're slowly doing that as opposed to the likely Win8/Metro disaster coming soon.  This relates back to the original subject in that Apple is trying to have a single paradigm for the screen even though it doesn't work well for multiple monitors.

samhaque wrote:

 

Its just a possible way Apple is thinking at the moment. And if you consider business logic, why would Apple try to kill a product if it was still in high demand? They are good at making money. So I think its safe to assume Mac Pros aren't selling well at all.

I agree totally that its all about business logic and profit. The consumer market is more profitable because it is bigger. They're always going to have a higher demand for consumer level equipment than for Mac Pro once they're established in the consumer market. And yes, you're right, MBP is very cabable and not just a consumer machine, but it is certainly not just a pro machine either.

It used to be that Apple only catered to the pro market and general consumers were priced out of buying their products. Then came iPod, Apple Stores and a more competitive consumer range. Eventually MacBook was discontinued because consumers would just buy the more capable and only slightly more expensive MBP 13" instead, and now their entire product range is focussed at consumer and office use. Where previously they sold one of the best displays in the industry for graphic design, now they sell a glossy display with a built in webcam. Mac Pro was once their flagship product, and now it hasn't been refreshed for years, looks slow compared to a laptop and isn't even on display in the Apple Store.

The only reason that the current MBP is as capable as Mac Pro now is that Mac Pro hasn't been refreshed for so long. Imagine Mac Pro with modern hardware, given how good the new MBP and even MBA are! The fact is they made a choice to sacrifice their pro users in order to focus their efforts on the consumer market.

Now I'm not saying this is all bad. I always wanted a notebook, not a Mac Pro. I'm quite happy with a either a mainstream or a niche product, so long as it's the best. I always used to think Mac was the best, but now I'm not so sure.