5 ms·

Windows is just as bad. Windows 7 doesn't ship with multiple taskbars for your secondary monitors. Seriously? What's worse is that the developers actually maki

by pkamb 15y ago

Windows is just as bad. Windows 7 doesn't ship with multiple taskbars for your secondary monitors. Seriously? What's worse is that the developers actually making these features are probably using more than one monitor. And hitting those productivity gaps every day.

jbellis 15y ago
When I used Windows on a multi-monitor setup I never found myself wishing, "if only I had a taskbar on each monitor." (Similarly, I've never wished for multiple docks on OSX.) So YMMV.
- pkamb 15y ago
  The dock is an application organizer, the taskbar is a window organizer. Big difference. The windows on each monitor should be represented in a taskbar on that same monitor. Easier to comprehend, faster to mouse to. The app Ultramon does this very well, it's essential for any multi-monitor Windows install.
  - Wilduck 15y ago
    Except I use one monitor almost exclusively for reference. I want as much screen real estate there as possible. Since my mouse is already on the editing monitor, it would take _more_ effort to move it over there to switch windows.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    With the default Windows 7 group and icon behavior, they're virtually identical in behavior...
    - pkamb 15y ago
      Power users go with the "Combine when taskbar is full" option. Reduces clicks and hover times tenfold.
      - sid0 15y ago
        Power users go with the "Combine when taskbar is full" option. What sample size do you have here?
        pkamb 15y ago
        Me :)
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - jodrellblank 15y ago
      One puts a task bar on the same screen as the applications which makes it easy to switch applications per window, the other hides pictures of the application in a task bar on another screen which makes it harder to switch applications at all and completely ignores screen distinctions. They aren't virtually identical; they aren't even the same thing done differently, they're completely different.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        What are you talking about? I'm dual monitoring with both windows and OS X right now. Both have their taskbar on my right hand monitor. Both have icons for launched applications with indicators representing each instance of the application. They both include icons for quick, often used apps that are present even when the application is not open. They're identical... Is there any chance that you're using "task bar" to mean the application's menu? There are lots of engrossing UI discussion surrounding the application menu and the global menu, but that's not what we're discussing here... Hell, if you ignored the fact that the Windows taskbar extends across the bottom of the screen and is grey rather than floating in the middle, and ignored the start button vs the finder button... my taskbar and dock look identical, Chrome, Firefox, VLC, Office Apps.
        jodrellblank 15y ago
        I see; I interpreted you meaning Windows 7's solution is virtually the same effectiveness as Ultramon because of window groups. Missed that you were comparing the OS X dock and 7.
roadnottaken 15y ago
Ultramon does a pretty good job. But I always wonder why MSFT didn't just clone the ultramon features. Why not? How hard could it be?
- smhinsey 15y ago
  You might want to check out ActualMultipleMonitors as well. It adds some features that I don't believe Ultramon has yet, such as the ability to have a completely functional taskbar on your secondary, complete with its own start button and notification area/clock/etc. I didn't need this feature until I started running multiple 30''s, but now that I am it's invaluable.
  - pkamb 15y ago
    +1, trying it out now and it works pretty well. Really wish there was a simple multiple monitor app though. The ActualMultipleMonitors settings screen is a clusterfuck, has all these 'features' like extra title menu buttons that I don't want and can't figure out how to turn off.
    - smhinsey 15y ago
      I totally agree, it's a disaster. I feel the same way about GridMove, which is the best thing I've been able to find for managing multiple windows on a big display. For some reason, the syntax for defining the grids is so opaque to me that whenever I look at it I feel like I'm trying to read in a dream. By the way, you can definitely remove those buttons. I don't remember how, but I do remember thinking it took far too long to find the setting to disable them.
buff-a 15y ago
I gotta say, Windows 7 nailed it when dragging maximized apps from one screen to the other.

by pkamb 15y ago

jbellis 15y ago

When I used Windows on a multi-monitor setup I never found myself wishing, "if only I had a taskbar on each monitor." (Similarly, I've never wished for multiple docks on OSX.) So YMMV.

pkamb 15y ago
The dock is an application organizer, the taskbar is a window organizer. Big difference. The windows on each monitor should be represented in a taskbar on that same monitor. Easier to comprehend, faster to mouse to. The app Ultramon does this very well, it's essential for any multi-monitor Windows install.
- Wilduck 15y ago
  Except I use one monitor almost exclusively for reference. I want as much screen real estate there as possible. Since my mouse is already on the editing monitor, it would take _more_ effort to move it over there to switch windows.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  With the default Windows 7 group and icon behavior, they're virtually identical in behavior...
  - pkamb 15y ago
    Power users go with the "Combine when taskbar is full" option. Reduces clicks and hover times tenfold.
    - sid0 15y ago
      Power users go with the "Combine when taskbar is full" option. What sample size do you have here?
      - pkamb 15y ago
        Me :)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    One puts a task bar on the same screen as the applications which makes it easy to switch applications per window, the other hides pictures of the application in a task bar on another screen which makes it harder to switch applications at all and completely ignores screen distinctions. They aren't virtually identical; they aren't even the same thing done differently, they're completely different.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      What are you talking about? I'm dual monitoring with both windows and OS X right now. Both have their taskbar on my right hand monitor. Both have icons for launched applications with indicators representing each instance of the application. They both include icons for quick, often used apps that are present even when the application is not open. They're identical... Is there any chance that you're using "task bar" to mean the application's menu? There are lots of engrossing UI discussion surrounding the application menu and the global menu, but that's not what we're discussing here... Hell, if you ignored the fact that the Windows taskbar extends across the bottom of the screen and is grey rather than floating in the middle, and ignored the start button vs the finder button... my taskbar and dock look identical, Chrome, Firefox, VLC, Office Apps.
      - jodrellblank 15y ago
        I see; I interpreted you meaning Windows 7's solution is virtually the same effectiveness as Ultramon because of window groups. Missed that you were comparing the OS X dock and 7.

roadnottaken 15y ago

Ultramon does a pretty good job. But I always wonder why MSFT didn't just clone the ultramon features. Why not? How hard could it be?

smhinsey 15y ago
You might want to check out ActualMultipleMonitors as well. It adds some features that I don't believe Ultramon has yet, such as the ability to have a completely functional taskbar on your secondary, complete with its own start button and notification area/clock/etc. I didn't need this feature until I started running multiple 30''s, but now that I am it's invaluable.
- pkamb 15y ago
  +1, trying it out now and it works pretty well. Really wish there was a simple multiple monitor app though. The ActualMultipleMonitors settings screen is a clusterfuck, has all these 'features' like extra title menu buttons that I don't want and can't figure out how to turn off.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    I totally agree, it's a disaster. I feel the same way about GridMove, which is the best thing I've been able to find for managing multiple windows on a big display. For some reason, the syntax for defining the grids is so opaque to me that whenever I look at it I feel like I'm trying to read in a dream. By the way, you can definitely remove those buttons. I don't remember how, but I do remember thinking it took far too long to find the setting to disable them.

buff-a 15y ago

I gotta say, Windows 7 nailed it when dragging maximized apps from one screen to the other.