How so? It depends on whether or not you read the statement to be what it is, or whether you have some wild translation of it.NickJohnson wrote:UbarDPS wrote:I want to take the OP seriously but I have a hard time when someone keeps trying to tell everyone else how everyone uses their computer when they really don't know.Isn't this sort of hypocritical?UbarDPS wrote:Even some Linux/UNIX OSes are shipping with the default to 2 Virtual Desktops, because many (most?) people simply don't use or need that many virtual desktops.
I read the thread and the OP states many times what rhetorical statements and questions like "people don't do this" or "do you even do this" when it's obvious that people do. If it weren't, then people would be removing these features because it would lower the cost of software development, as well as the amount of QA needed on them.
But I didn't say Virtual Desktops aren't useful. I just said their usefulness is limited. Eroded by software and hardware capabilities. It's no different than people who used to use different X terminal sessions on one computer and switch between them (certainly convenient, but hardly needed anymore).I use a lot of virtual desktops - it is significantly faster than bringing windows to the top, because it is one key command instead of one mouse movement and click. In my experience, the keyboard is almost always faster than the mouse if you use it correctly. I generally only use 2-3 virtual desktops when programming, but that's because I only have 2-3 windows *open*. If I'm doing other things, like word processing or general multitasking, I'll use 5-6. Having 1-2 windows per virtual desktop means that people don't use many virtual desktops, but that doesn't mean that virtual desktops are not really useful.
It is easier to switch from window to window than from desktop to desktop, and no one says you can't tile or cascade your windows. Taskbars usually group the windows by type, and the keyboard shortcuts are usually standardized across operating systems and implementations.
Programs that don't need to be run in windows can be minimized to system trays, etc. Even when running 5-8 programs at the same time, I hardly ever have to deal with more than 3-4 windows on the screen concurrently.
I can't really vouche for the task splits, I've always used separate computers for different tasks. I do this so that I don't unnecessarily lose things that I don't need to when one computer or another craps out
Fixing a problem that doesn't exist is not innovation.
I guess I can see the point if you use lots of 15" CRTs, or low video resolutions (1024*768 and below).
Constant Screen swapping/panning would hurt my eyes, Lol. and it would significantly limit UI design since applications would have some interesting constraints placed upon them by the Operating System/Window Manager.