Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4255 > unrolled thread

Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-06 01:56 +0000
    Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-08-06 03:30 +0100
      Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-08-06 22:07 +0000
        Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-06 22:16 +0000
          Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-08-10 10:57 -0400
        Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops invis <invis@invis.net> - 2014-08-07 00:58 +0100
          Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-08-07 20:24 +0000
            Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> - 2014-08-08 08:17 +0000
              Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-08-08 20:27 +0000
      Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-08-07 16:19 +0300
    Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> - 2014-08-06 14:53 +0000
      Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-08-06 21:34 +0100
        Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops invis <invis@invis.net> - 2014-08-07 01:06 +0100
          Re: Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-10 19:59 +0000

#4255 — Windows Threshold: Here come the virtual desktops

http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops

  ...

  "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
   Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms like
   Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to have
   similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate the
   desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change) and there
   are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between active desktops."

   ...

Yawn....  Welcome microsoft to 1995, I was using virtual desktops on a
Unix X-Terminal (yes, a real, honest to goodness, X terminal) in 1995.

As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what the
usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses the
mark.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4257

On 2014-08-06 02:56, Rich wrote:
> http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops
> 
>   ...
> 
>   "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
>    Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms like
>    Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to have
>    similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate the
>    desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change) and there
>    are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between active desktops."
> 
>    ...
> 
> Yawn....  Welcome microsoft to 1995, I was using virtual desktops on a
> Unix X-Terminal (yes, a real, honest to goodness, X terminal) in 1995.
> 
> As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what the
> usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses the
> mark.

There's no need to wait for Microsoft. Back when I used XP, this add-on
worked well (there's even a portable version):

http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/

I suspect Microsoft's version won't be nearly so compact.

I first encountered virtual desktops with Enlightenment on a Linux box
sometime in the 1990s. Microsoft have certainly taken their time!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4266

Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> On 2014-08-06 02:56, Rich wrote:
>> http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops
>> 
>>   ...
>> 
>>   "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
>>    Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms like
>>    Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to have
>>    similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate the
>>    desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change) and there
>>    are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between active desktops."
>> 
>>    ...
>> 
>> Yawn....  Welcome microsoft to 1995, I was using virtual desktops on a
>> Unix X-Terminal (yes, a real, honest to goodness, X terminal) in 1995.
>> 
>> As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what the
>> usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses the
>> mark.
> 
> There's no need to wait for Microsoft. Back when I used XP, this add-on
> worked well (there's even a portable version):
> 
> http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/
> 
> I suspect Microsoft's version won't be nearly so compact.
> 
> I first encountered virtual desktops with Enlightenment on a Linux box
> sometime in the 1990s. Microsoft have certainly taken their time!

I had an addon from MS for some version of Windows that gave you 4
virtual desktops. That was it 4, you couldn't change the number, and
IIRC you switched via the taskbar or toolbar, whatever MS called it at
the bottom of the screen.
My Linux machines always have at least 12 desktops, and if I need more
they can be added on the fly. Nice to see MS getting into the last
decade of the previous century..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4267

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> > On 2014-08-06 02:56, Rich wrote:
> >> http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops
> >> 
> >>   ...
> >> 
> >>   "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
> >>    Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms
> >>    like Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to
> >>    have similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate
> >>    the desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change)
> >>    and there are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between
> >>    active desktops."
> >> 
> >>    ...
> >> 
> >> Yawn....  Welcome microsoft to 1995, I was using virtual desktops
> >> on a Unix X-Terminal (yes, a real, honest to goodness, X terminal)
> >> in 1995.
> >> 
> >> As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what
> >> the usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses
> >> the mark.
> > 
> > There's no need to wait for Microsoft. Back when I used XP, this
> > add-on worked well (there's even a portable version):
> > 
> > http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/
> > 
> > I suspect Microsoft's version won't be nearly so compact.
> > 
> > I first encountered virtual desktops with Enlightenment on a Linux
> > box sometime in the 1990s. Microsoft have certainly taken their
> > time!

> I had an addon from MS for some version of Windows that gave you 4
> virtual desktops. That was it 4, you couldn't change the number, and
> IIRC you switched via the taskbar or toolbar, whatever MS called it
> at the bottom of the screen.

> My Linux machines always have at least 12 desktops, and if I need
> more they can be added on the fly. Nice to see MS getting into the
> last decade of the previous century..

In 1995, it was TVTWM that I was using on the X terminal.

Now, it is FVWM2.

$ man fvwm2

  ... The total number of distinct desktops does not need to be
  specified, but is limited to approximately 4 billion total. ...

Somehow, I doubt Microsoft will provide this level of possibilities.

Note, I don't have 4 billion desktops active....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4280

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Now, it is FVWM2.
>
> $ man fvwm2
>
>   ... The total number of distinct desktops does not need to be
>   specified, but is limited to approximately 4 billion total. ...
>
> Somehow, I doubt Microsoft will provide this level of possibilities.
>
> Note, I don't have 4 billion desktops active....

Note that for FVWM2 each desktop can have the same number of pages.

That's a lot of work spaces.

Right now I've got 6 pages but I only use 3.
I never switch desktops.
It's also nice that I don't need any visible pager.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4268

On 06/08/2014 23:07, Jerry Peters wrote:
> I had an addon from MS for some version of Windows that gave you 4
> virtual desktops. That was it 4, you couldn't change the number, and
> IIRC you switched via the taskbar or toolbar, whatever MS called it at
> the bottom of the screen.

You're thinking of Desktops from Sysinternals, which is indeed now part
of MS. See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881

> My Linux machines always have at least 12 desktops, and if I need more
> they can be added on the fly. Nice to see MS getting into the last
> decade of the previous century..

Except that we're not comparing apples with apples.

The Desktops util for Windows creates 3 extra desktops. They're actually
completely independent - the desktop is considered a security boundary
in NT.

For *nix a virtual desktop is typically a way of working in different
places on a single "actual" desktop.

There are benefits to both approaches, and in an ideal world I'd like to
have both simultaneously. Hopefully whatever MS are cooking up will
finally let me have that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4273

invis <invis@invis.net> wrote:
> On 06/08/2014 23:07, Jerry Peters wrote:
>> I had an addon from MS for some version of Windows that gave you 4
>> virtual desktops. That was it 4, you couldn't change the number, and
>> IIRC you switched via the taskbar or toolbar, whatever MS called it at
>> the bottom of the screen.
> 
> You're thinking of Desktops from Sysinternals, which is indeed now part
> of MS. See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881

Sure sounds like it, though it would have been 4 or 5 years ago.
Haven't booted the XP partition in several years.

> 
>> My Linux machines always have at least 12 desktops, and if I need more
>> they can be added on the fly. Nice to see MS getting into the last
>> decade of the previous century..
> 
> Except that we're not comparing apples with apples.
> 
> The Desktops util for Windows creates 3 extra desktops. They're actually
> completely independent - the desktop is considered a security boundary
> in NT.

So what? From the web page:
"Desktops reliance on Windows desktop objects means that it
cannot provide some of the functionality of other virtual desktop
utilities, however. For example, Windows doesn't provide a way to move
a window from one desktop object to another, and because a separate
Explorer process must run on each desktop to provide a taskbar and
start menu, most tray applications are only visible on the first
desktop."

Not being able to move windows from one desktop to another is a big
negative, as is the lack of tray applications on 2-4, plus the
limitaion of 4 desktops.

> 
> For *nix a virtual desktop is typically a way of working in different
> places on a single "actual" desktop.
> 
> There are benefits to both approaches, and in an ideal world I'd like to
> have both simultaneously. Hopefully whatever MS are cooking up will
> finally let me have that.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4274

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> invis <invis@invis.net> wrote:
> > Except that we're not comparing apples with apples.
> > 
> > The Desktops util for Windows creates 3 extra desktops. They're actually
> > completely independent - the desktop is considered a security boundary
> > in NT.
> 
> So what? From the web page:
> "Desktops reliance on Windows desktop objects means that it
> cannot provide some of the functionality of other virtual desktop
> utilities, however. For example, Windows doesn't provide a way to move
> a window from one desktop object to another, and because a separate
> Explorer process must run on each desktop to provide a taskbar and
> start menu, most tray applications are only visible on the first
> desktop."
> 
> Not being able to move windows from one desktop to another is a big
> negative, as is the lack of tray applications on 2-4, plus the
> limitaion of 4 desktops.

As a user of a self-made utility that uses the same mechanism
(CreateDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc.)...

I agree with the moving windows problem -- it does bite
sometimes, but not as often as you might expect. This might be
to do with how I use them; with each desktop containing the
windows for each "task" (e.g. working on two clients' projects,
one desktop each). Some of that might have been shaped by the
lack of features Windows desktops provide, but this is also
exactly how I use evilwm's desktops (which do support moving
windows).

More annoying is that some applications try to be helpful by
detecting that they are already running (web browsers, notably)
and redirect all their windows to the first desktop they were
run on. This pretty much leaves you with one desktop permanently
assigned to the web. And to top that "feature", after Firefox
updates it tends to restart itself and *always* restarts itself
on the primary desktop ("Default"). I have found no way to
change this behaviour.

However, the lack of tray applications on other desktops is
possibly the most compelling reason why I use them. With no tray
applications the incessant notification bubbles (along with many
other popups from "automatically updating" applications and the
like) are no longer visible. Just running a desktop manager and
always using the second desktop is, in my opinion, a vast
improvement to the Windows user experience.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4275

Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>> invis <invis@invis.net> wrote:
>> > Except that we're not comparing apples with apples.
>> > 
>> > The Desktops util for Windows creates 3 extra desktops. They're actually
>> > completely independent - the desktop is considered a security boundary
>> > in NT.
>> 
>> So what? From the web page:
>> "Desktops reliance on Windows desktop objects means that it
>> cannot provide some of the functionality of other virtual desktop
>> utilities, however. For example, Windows doesn't provide a way to move
>> a window from one desktop object to another, and because a separate
>> Explorer process must run on each desktop to provide a taskbar and
>> start menu, most tray applications are only visible on the first
>> desktop."
>> 
>> Not being able to move windows from one desktop to another is a big
>> negative, as is the lack of tray applications on 2-4, plus the
>> limitaion of 4 desktops.
> 
> As a user of a self-made utility that uses the same mechanism
> (CreateDesktop, SwitchDesktop, etc.)...
> 
> I agree with the moving windows problem -- it does bite
> sometimes, but not as often as you might expect. This might be
> to do with how I use them; with each desktop containing the
> windows for each "task" (e.g. working on two clients' projects,
> one desktop each). Some of that might have been shaped by the
> lack of features Windows desktops provide, but this is also
> exactly how I use evilwm's desktops (which do support moving
> windows).

Similiar to my experience, I don't move windows that often, but it is
necessary occasionaly. 
I assign the first 4 desktops to fixed applications, the other 8 get
used as needed. Normally 1 application per desktop, occasionally 2.
Fluxbox is configured so that alt-tab works per desktop.

> 
> More annoying is that some applications try to be helpful by
> detecting that they are already running (web browsers, notably)
> and redirect all their windows to the first desktop they were
> run on. This pretty much leaves you with one desktop permanently
> assigned to the web. And to top that "feature", after Firefox
> updates it tends to restart itself and *always* restarts itself
> on the primary desktop ("Default"). I have found no way to
> change this behaviour.

Fluxbox constrains FF to one desktop, unfortunately it doesn't prevent
FF from grabbing focus & shifting it to itself, a behavior I find
*extremely* annoying. Typically done when it restarts & just *has* to
ask whether it should recover and what tabs to recover.

> 
> However, the lack of tray applications on other desktops is
> possibly the most compelling reason why I use them. With no tray
> applications the incessant notification bubbles (along with many
> other popups from "automatically updating" applications and the
> like) are no longer visible. Just running a desktop manager and
> always using the second desktop is, in my opinion, a vast
> improvement to the Windows user experience.

Windows solution to every problem: popup a dialog and ask a stupid
question. One of the reasons I completely gave up on Windows, and
avoid the integrated Linux desktops.
When I used Windows at work I never understood the people who had
Outhouse configured to automatically open a window whenever a new
email arrived. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4271

Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> writes:

> There's no need to wait for Microsoft. Back when I used XP, this add-on
> worked well (there's even a portable version):
>
> http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/

I remember trying something like that but I found Windows apps were the
problem, they just expected to and were able to display their stupid
windows wherever and whenever they pleased.

But isn't virtual desktops a little old school now? I've used the
Awesome Window Manager for a few years on my Linux Desktop. It's a
tiling WM and it has a fairly simple tagging system for specifying which
windows should display when and with what other windows... I've been
hoping I could use KDE Activities on my laptop to do the same. It's
supposed to be possible but so far, every time I've tried things seem to
get pretty confusing fast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4258

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops
> 
>   ...
> 
>   "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
>    Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms like
>    Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to have
>    similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate the
>    desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change) and there
>    are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between active desktops."
> 
>    ...

> As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what the
> usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses the
> mark.

Active Desktop, now with Inactive Desktops?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4265

On 2014-08-06, Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-here-come-the-virtual-desktops
>> 
>>   ...
>> 
>>   "Microsoft is considering bringing virtual desktops to Windows
>>    Threshold. The feature, which is already on other platforms like
>>    Ubuntu and OS X is currently being tested and is said to have
>>    similar functionality to that of Ubuntu. You can activate the
>>    desktops with a button on the taskbar (subject to change) and there
>>    are keyboard shortcuts that let you jump between active desktops."
>> 
>>    ...
>
>> As always, Microsoft is 19 years too late - and if they do what the
>> usually do, they will put out a half baked version that misses the
>> mark.
>
> Active Desktop, now with Inactive Desktops?

One day, perhaps, Microsoft will catch up with what Quarterdeck
DESQview/X could do with DOS and Windows 3.* programs.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4269

On 06/08/2014 21:34, Whiskers wrote:
> One day, perhaps, Microsoft will catch up with what Quarterdeck
> DESQview/X could do with DOS and Windows 3.* programs.

I'm not sure anyone else has yet either.  I'm not surprised because the
problem now is at least 2 orders of magnitude harder to solve.  I do
sometimes wonder if we're actually moving forward at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4281

> 
> I'm not sure anyone else has yet either.  I'm not surprised because the
> problem now is at least 2 orders of magnitude harder to solve.  I do
> sometimes wonder if we're actually moving forward at all.
> 
> 

I agree with you entirely.  Some might say the smartphone apps
 paradigm is a welcome break from the desktop and I agree the new
 device warrants a different interface than the desktop computer. 
 But in general, given the number of people working in the
 industry now, software seems to be making surprisingly little
 progress over the last 10 years.  Unless I'm simply
 jaded.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web